Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0730.026 2000-2002 J~ZY OF HA • ae :e~ Harry Kim ~ Barbara Bell 14layor ~ l _ _ IDirector / -rSry rs drrf'OF HP~ I:16~ ! i ti ~~~i ~ E.7 w. ~baE3A6~~1 8~~ ~ed4~C~b~~( - i - s dY~,~,~i DEPARTMENT OF EN~IitON1bIENTAL 1dIANAGE1bIENT 25 Aupuni Street, Room 208 • IIdilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086 iO~T~ November 8, 2002 fi® Chairman James Arakaki and Members of the ~lawai'i Co y Coutacil . ~ ~~®Il91 Barbara Bell, Director/~~~;~ SUI3J~CT : FINAL DRAFT, RDVISION 1, NOVEMBER 15, 2002 ADDENDUM TO THE INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMI=NT PI..AN I am forwarding to you the Final Draft, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2002, of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for your review and action. If I may be of further assistance, please contact me. Co~~rl. Nye NOTE: ATTACHMENTS ARE ON FILE AT THE ~a° COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. ~Y&e~~€'ok~'s ~ i~:f. ~o: ref . ~~e_....e..~~, 1 11 1 Update to the I Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawaii I 45ir f - \ 4;.,, . 6.(r-c71 I ilitt , ., -..: '... \\. ...14. *-- N.:....„...1 1 0.1Lor • r I 1 December 31, 2002 III IPrepared by: Harding ESE I Newtown Square Business Center 98-1247 Ka'ahumanu Street,Suite 305 Aiea, Hawaii 96701 Ph:808-486-6009 / Fax 808-486-7184 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Harding ESE is grateful for the input,assistance,cooperation, and support of many individuals and organizations during the solid waste planning process and the preparation of this Addendum to the integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawaii. The following people, in particular,gave freely of their time and effort in various ways. Harry Kim Mayor, County of Hawai'i J. Curtis Tyler, Ill County Council, County of Hawaii Julie Jacobson County Council, County of Hawaii James Y. Arakaki County Council, County of Hawaii Leningrad Elarionoff County Council, County of Hawaii Aaron S.Y. Chung County Council, County of Hawaii Gary Safarik County Council, County of Hawaii Nancy Pisicchio County Council, County of Hawaii Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd County Council, County of Hawaii Dominic Yagong County Council, County of Hawaii Barbara Bell Director, Department of Environmental Management, County of Hawai'i Dennis Lee Chief, Department of Public Works, County of Hawai'i Laurence E. Capellas Chief, Solid Waste Division, County of Hawai'i Galen Kuba Former Acting Director, Department of Environmental Management, County of Hawai'i Gretchen Ammerman Hawai'i Department of Health, Office of Solid Waste Management Environmental Management Commission Mack Asato Marjorie Erway David Kimo Frankel Lou Ann K. "Luana"Jones Samuel S. Kawamura Hugh Y. Ono Ann Plack Riley W. Smith Carolyn A.Witcher Solid Waste Advisory Committee Richard Rego Ron Aronson Jeff Turner Christine K. Ross Pete Hendricks Chuck Lopez Peter Boucher Mike Allen Bob Platt Miles Tagawa Jon Olson Margaret Pahio John Ray Staff of the County of Hawai'i Department of Environmental Management and Solid Waste Division Members of the public who attended meetings and hearings and offered input to the planning process Harding ESE 0710LA I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IThis document updates the Hawai'i County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP), as required by state law (HRS 342G). The original plan was compiled in 1993 and I adopted by the Hawai'i County Council by Resolution 291 94 on October 5, 1994. In addition to Icompliance with the state mandate for updating the plan, Hawai'i County has an urgent need for new solid waste facilities on the east side of the island. South Hilo Landfill, which receives Iwaste from east Hawai'i, is expected to be full in the summer of 2004. Because of this , isituation, the primary focus of this addendum is the establishment of a solid waste management system in east Hawai'i to replace South Hilo Landfill. The federal government regulates solid wastes in the United States under Title 40 of Ithe Code of Federal Regulations Subchapter I (40 CFR 239 to 299). MSW landfills are subject to the regulations in 40 CFR 258 (also known as RCRA Subtitle D), Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. The State of Hawai'i, Office of Solid Waste Management (OSWM) is responsible for I implementing solid waste management policies and regulations on the state level. Hawai'i IAdministrative Rules, Title 11 Chapter 58.1 (HAR 11-58.1) regulates landfills, composting facilities, recycling operations, used oil transporters and salvage yards. County laws regarding solid waste are codified in Chapter 20 of the Hawai'i County Code. Department of Environmental Management-- Charter Amendment No. 4 in the year 2000 election transferred the county's solid waste, wastewater, and recycling programs from the Department of Public Works to a new Department of Environmental Management. The total amount of solid waste that is managed by the county system was I approximately 160,000 tons in the Year 2000. Approximately 45 percent, or 70,000 tons, was Ideposited in South Hilo Landfill, and approximately 55 percent, or 90,000 tons, was deposited in Pu'uanahulu Landfill. 0710LA Harding ESE ES-1 Executive Summary During April and May of 2001, Cascadia Consulting Group performed a waste composition study for the waste stream entering South Hilo Landfill. Hawai'i County does not provide waste collection services. Private companies haul approximately 50 percent of the waste generated in areas that have relatively dense residential development to county landfills. The remaining 50 percent, or possibly greater, is self-hauled. Most self-hauled waste is taken to the county's transfer stations, which are provided for disposal of waste from single-family residences. Hawai'i County has 21 transfer stations. The county has two landfills -- Pu'uanahulu Landfill in west Hawai'i and South Hilo Landfill in east Hawaii. South Hilo Landfill is nearing full capacity and must be closed in the next few years. Pu'uanahulu Landfill has more than 12,000,000 cubic yardsof permitted air space, which is enough for years. Recyclers in the County of Hawai'i diverted approximately 13 percent of its waste during FY 1998/1999 compared to a rate of 19 percent for the state and 28 percent nationally. During several meetings with an appointed Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) solid waste issues were discussed and alternatives for solid waste management in the county were considered. The alternatives were narrowed through the planning process, and the SWAC opted for the following: • Construct no new landfill in east Hawai'i; • • Emphasize the recovery of recyclable materials at the planned east Hawai'i sort station, possibly by incorporating features of a material recovery facility (MRF); , • Procure a waste reduction facility for the east Hawaii waste stream using either waste-to-energy, thermal gasification, or anaerobic digestion technology; and • Establish a county recycling program with a long list of elements that has the potential to increase the waste diversion significantly. An update to the ISWMP incorporating these options was developed as summarized in Table ES-1. ES-2 Harding ESE 0710LA Executive Summary A major objective of this plan is the management of the east Hawai'i waste stream after South Hilo Landfill is filled and closed to waste disposal. Island-wide diversion of solid waste from the landfills by source reduction, reuse, and recycling is another major objective. The recommended plan is to transfer the residual waste [stream] to Pu'uanahulu via a sort station until a waste reduction facility can be procured, designed, permitted, built, and brought on-line. Federal and state regulations will require closure of South Hilo Landfill within a very specific time frame after the last waste has been received. The recycling program, which will be a countywide endeavor, is planned to be phased-in over a period of several years that will depend to some extent on the funding that can be applied. Though operation of a waste-to-energy incinerator, a thermal gasification plant, or an anaerobic digestion plant will be less costly in the long run than hauling the unreduced, residual waste stream to Pu'uanahulu, it is highly unlikely that such a facility can be constructed and operational before South Hilo Landfill must be closed. The components of the plan are included in an implementation schedule and a funding schedule, which are presented in Section 4 of the update to the ISWMP. 1 I 1 0710LA Harding ESE ES-3 Executive Summary Table ES-1. Summary of ISWMP Components Year to be Implemented Remarks Source Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Program Hire County Recycling Coordinator Year 1 Increase Budget for Promotion and Education Year 1 and Subsequent Years Ban Yard Trimmings at Transfer Stations and Landfills Year 4 Upgrade Transfer Stations Carried forward from 1993 ISWMP a. Establish Drop-Off Centers at Transfer Stations Year 1, 2 and 3 b. Establish Drop-Off Centers at Shopping Centers, etc. Year 2 and 3 c. Year 4 and 5 Reconfigure Transfer Stations to Emphasize Recycling Increase Funding for Waste Diversion Program Year 1 and Subsequent Years Year 1 Establish County Policy to Restrain Disposal of Recyclable Materials Increase Tipping Fees at Landfills Year 1 Enhance C&D Waste Recovery Year 1 and Subsequent Years Emphasize Recycling in Design of Sort Station Year 1 Increase Incentives for Diversion of Clean C&D Wastes Year 3 Phase-in Landfill Bans on Recyclable C&D Wastes Year 2 Enhance Local Markets for Recyclable Materials Year 1 and Subsequent Years Institute New Fee System for Waste Management Year 1 Sort Station Funding Year 1 Select consultant Year 1 Environmental Assessment Year 1 Planning and Design Year 1 Bid and Award Year 1 Permitting Year 1 Construction Year 1 and 2 Haul Residual East Hawai'i Waste to Pu'uanahulu Landfill Year 2, 3, 4 and 5 ES-4 Harding ESE 0710LA OM r MN NM M N NM NE 1 M NM NE MN MI r MN NS NM IN 1111111 MN Mr - MI MI - - - r NM N - - - INN IIIII Executive Summary Table ES-1. Summary of ISWMP Components (Continued) Year to be Implemented Remarks Waste Reduction Facility Develop Financing Scheme Year 1 Select Project Delivery Method Year 1 Consultant Selection/Procurement Year 1 Solicitation of Expressions of Interest from Prospective Vendors Year 1 Prepare Solicitation Year 1 Advertise Year 1 Site Selection/Survey Year 1 RFP Year 1 Preparation of Request for Proposal Year 1 Solicitation/Publication Year 1 Pre-Submittal Meeting Year 1 Clarification/Modification Year 2 Receipt of Proposals Year 2 Evaluation of Proposals Year 2 Contract Negotiation Year 2 Award Contract Year 2 Planning and Design 35% Year 2 EIS Year 2 EIS Preparation Year 3 EIS Public Review& Hearing Year 3 EIS Revision (if necessary) Year 3 Design 65% Year 3 and 4 Permitting Year 4 Design 100% Year 4 Construction Year 5 Operation Year 6 ES-5 Harding ESE 0710LA Executive Summary Table ES-1. Summary of ISWMP Components (Continued) Year to be Implemented Remarks Close South Hilo Landfill Consultant Selection, Procurement Year 1 Environmental Assessment Year 1 Design, Contract Documents Preparation Year 2 Contract Procurement Year 2 Closure Construction Year 2 and 3 Administration Establish Solid Waste Division as Utility Enterprise Year 1 and Subsequent Years Carried forward from 1993 ISWMP Establish Solid Waste Fees as Part of Property Tax Billing Year 4 Update of ISWMP on 5-Year Schedule Year 5 Continuation from 1993 ISWMP Waste Characterization of West Hawai'i Waste Stream Year 5 Carried forward from 1993 ISWMP Special Waste Program Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program Year 1 and Subsequent Years Continuation from 1993 ISWMP Abandoned Vehicle Program Year 1 and Subsequent Years Continuation from 1993 ISWMP Ban on White Goods with Refrigerants Year 1 and Subsequent Years Continuation from 1993 ISWMP Retail Waste Oil Collection or Fee Year 1 and Subsequent Years Continuation from 1993 ISWMP Fee for Disposal of White Goods Year 1 Carried forward from 1993 ISWMP Fee for Disposal of Tires Not Applicable Deferred to state Advance Disposal Fee for Waste Oil Not Applicable Deferred to state Fee for Failure to Return Lead/Acid Batteries Not Applicable Deferred to state ES-6 Harding ESE 0710LA - N r NM UN NM - i - - M MO O MB MN 11111 MI In OM 1 5 - YEAR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN OUTLINE NOVEMBER, 2002 SOLID WASTE COMPONENTS • Funding Plan I • Collection Systems at Transfer Stations • Reuse and Recycling Program • Waste Reduction and Landfills • Illegal Dumping • Other Council Action GOALS Funding Plan • To recover 50% of Solid Waste Funds expenses through the commercial tipping fee. • To become financially self-sufficient within 15 years. • To measure cost-effectiveness with a 20-year view. • To be efficient in all of our operations. Collection Systems at Transfer Stations • To maximize convenience to the public. • To operate a single landfill. Reuse and Recycling Program • To aggressively develop economic opportunities for reuse and recycling by establishing incentives for all reuse and recycling efforts. Waste Reduction and Landfills • To divert 25% from any landfills by Dec. 2003, 30% by 2004 and 50% by 2008. • To divert 80% from the landfill within 10 years. • To develop targeted funding for all. Illegal Dumping • To substantially decrease illegal dumping within 3 years. • To always continue towards the elimination of illegal dumping. • Other Council Action • To work closely with the County Council to achieve countywide beneficial goals. IRevised 11/20/02 Page 1 of 4 STRATEGIES Funding Plan • Increase commercial tipping fees incrementally over 5 years. Establish 15% of tipping fees to fund diversion and recycling programs. • Increase solid waste reduction education and promotion budget. • Review Solid Waste fair-share contributions as part of construction and/or demolition permitting processes. • Reduce delinquencies in collection of fees. • Establish a residential solid waste fee as part of Real Property Tax Billing. • Establish a fee system to fund State of Hawai'l surcharge for refuse disposal. • Establish commercial tipping fees, at reduced rates,for clean loads of greenwaste, when taken to an organics-only facility. • Update existing fee system as necessary for vehicle (metal, tire, battery, etc.) removal and disposal program, including abandoned vehicles, to maintain financial self-sufficiency. • Increase funding for diversion grant program. • Establish a vehicle deposit, to be added into first time vehicle registration. • Establish a vehicle buy-back, to avoid abandoned vehicles. Collection System at Transfer Stations • Provide staffing at selected stations. • Establish coupon system for commercial haulers at staffed stations. • Provide recycling opportunities for greenwaste, scrap metal, glass, and paper. • Collection of Household Hazardous Waste at Hilo and Kona transfer stations. Add Waimea Household Hazardous Waste Collections when possible. • Provide collection of used residential motor oil, tires and batteries at staffed stations. • Incorporate beverage deposit collection at transfer stations as deemed necessary by State and County. Reuse and Recycling Program • Establish organics diversion program (greenwaste, commercial food scraps,fish waste, biosolids, other ) wastes organic in East and West Hawai'i. 9 • Maintain a self-sufficient metal recycling program. • Include greenwaste, metal, glass and paper recycling in SORT operations. • Establish a Recycling and Reuse Enterprise Park at Pu'uanahulu Landfill. • Establish an ongoing public conversation through the Environmental Management Commission to explore and promote economic opportunities through reuse and recycling. • Establish East and West Hawai'i construction and demolition recovery facilities by 2005. • Provide and/or promote economic/legislative incentives for private recycling efforts. • Provide technical and/or financial assistance to promote recycling efforts. Waste Reduction and Landfills • Apply to State Department of Health for vertical expansion at Hilo landfill. • Establish a privately operated Sort Station in East Hawai'i in 2004, at least 3 months before landfill is full. • Begin closure of the Hilo Landfill when capacity is reached. • Establish an operating Municipal Solid Waste reduction facility for the County by 2007. • The waste reduction facility shall meet or exceed the following criteria: • Shall be capable of accepting all Municipal Solid Waste. • Shall be capable of significant reduction of all waste. • Shall be flexible to accommodate future needs of Hawai'i County. Revised 11/20/02 Page 2 of 4 I . Shall operate in an environmentally benign manner, capable of meeting all present and Ifuture State and Federal regulations. • Shall be privately constructed and operated. ■ Shall be economically viable. • Shall include appropriate maintenance and operating provisions to minimize impacts to our landfill and transportation operations. ■ Shall include provisions to transport and/or dispose of residues that cannot be placed in a I municipal landfill. ■ Shall not interfere with_or degrade existing public or private recycling efforts. I Illegal Dumping • Establish an island-wide bulky-waste drop-off program. • Establish an island-wide bulky waste pick-up program. I • Continue to provide convenient waste disposal to all residents and visitors. • Review Hawai'i County Code on penalties for dumping. • Review enforcement options. Other Council Action • Establish County policy to encourage reuse and recycling. To also establish a County-wide goal I of 50% diversion from the landfills in 5 years and 80%within 10 years. Ultimately our goal needs to be Zero-Waste. • Increase in commercial tipping fees. • Illegal dumping initiatives. • Funding for diversion programs, in the short-term to provide long-term savings. • Greenwaste ban at transfer stations and landfills. • Instituting any new fees for mixed solid waste. • Other landfill bans as necessary. I I I I I I IRevised 11/20/02 Page 3 of 4 Solid Waste Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Component 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 > Increase commercial tip fees > Establish fee system to > Establish vehicle > Establish > Establish vehicle > Increase education & promotion budget fund State of Hawaii deposit system residential buy-back > Review fair share contributions in surcharges for refuse > Update Highway Solid Waste ➢ Review and permitting process disposal Beautification fees. fee system. update fees as. > Reduce delinquencies in fee collection ➢ Review and update > Review and necessary > Establish reduced tip fees for cleanfees as necessary update fees commercial greenwaste as necessary > Update abandoned vehicle fees Funding > Increase funding for diversion grant Plan program . > Begin staffing selected centers. > Establish coupon system > Continue to fine-tune > Continue to > Continue to fine- > Provide ongoing recycling opportunities. for commercial haulers at collections fine-tune tune collections > Continue ongoing Household staffed centers > Provide collection of collections > Establish bulky Hazardous Waste Collections > Provide collection of tires & batteries at ➢ Add Waimea waste pick-up Collection motor oil at staffed staffed locations Household program System locations ➢ Incorporate beverage Hazardous At Transfer deposit collections as Waste Stations necessary Collections > Maintain self-sufficient vehicle & metal > Begin.providing & > Begin providing > Open recycling program promoting technical and/or recycling and > Collections of greenwaste, metal, glass, economic/legislative financial assistance reuse park at & paper included in Sort operations incentives for private > Establish Construction Pu'uanahulu > Explore/promote recycling opportunities recycling efforts & Demolition recovery Landfill Reuse and with Commission Recycling > Establish organics diversion program in Program East and West Hawaii Waste > Apply for vertical expansion at Hilo > Open Sort station in East > Close Hilo Landfill > Open Municipal 1 Reduction & landfill Hawai'i Solid Waste Landfills reduction facility. > Review HCC for penalties ➢ Establish➢ Continue convenient waste disposal bulky- Illegal > Establish bulky waste drop-off program and enforcement options waste pick-up Dumping program Other > Establish policy encouraging recycling > Illegal dumping initiatives > Greenwaste > Other landfill bans Council and setting diversion goals. ban as necessary Action Revised 11/20/02 Paae 4 of 4 p. I I CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 1.0 Introduction 1 1 1.1 Objectives and Purpose 1 1.2 Scope 2 1.2.1 Original Scope 2 1.2.2 Revised Scope 2 1.3 Planning Process 3 I 1.4 Government Regulations and Policies 4 1.4.1 Federal 4 1.4.2 State of Hawaii 4 • 1.4.3 Hawaii County 6 1.5 Historical Background 8 2.0 Existing Conditions 12 2.1 Natural Environment 12 2.2 Human Environment 12 2.3 Solid Waste Stream 14 2.3.1 Sources 15 2.3.2 Quantities 16 I 2.3.3 Composition 19 2.4 Solid Waste Management System 21 2.4.1 Transfer Stations 21 I 2.4.2 Landfills 23 2.4.3 Remaining Capacity 25 2.4.3.1 South Hilo Landfill 25 I 2.4.3.2 Pu'uanahulu Landfill 25 2.4.4 Recycling 26 2.4.4.1 Metal 28 I 2.4.4.2 Green Waste 28 2.4.4.3 Fiber 29 2.4.4.4 Glass 29 2.5 Factors Affecting Recycling in Hawai'i County 30 I2.5.1 Market Conditions 30 2.5.2 Off-Island Transportation Costs 36 2.5.3 Local User Market 36 I 3.0 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System 37 I 3.1 Long List of Alternatives 37 3.2 Short List of Alternatives 38 3.2.1 Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives 38 1 3.2.2 Descriptions of Alternatives 40 0710LA Harding ESE i 3.2.2.1 Reduction, Reuse and Recycling 40 3.2.2.2 Waste Reduction Technologies 51 3.2.2.3 Disposal 61 3.3 Evaluation and Selection of Alternatives 64 4.0 Plan Implementation 67 4.1 System Components 67 4.1.1 Enhanced Source Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Program 75 4.1.1.1 General Overview 75 4.1.1.2 SWAC Recommendations for a County Recycling Program76 4.1.2 Collection and Transportation — New Sort-Station 84 4.1.3 New Waste Conversion / Reduction Facility 85 4.1.3.1 General Overview 85 4.1.3.2 Procurement Process 86 4.1.4 Landfill of Residual Waste 87 4.2 Implementation Schedule and Actions 91 4.3 Project Financing and Delivery 92 4.3.1 County Financing 96 4.3.2 Private Financing 96 4.4 System Funding 97 4.4.1 Solid Waste Fees as Part of Real Property Tax Billing 97 4.4.2 Tipping Fees 98 4.5 Contingencies and Back-up Systems 98 4.5.1 Short-term Contingencies 98 4.5.2 Long-term Contingencies 99 TABLES 1 Summary of Solid Waste Management Components of Previous ISWMP (Barrett, 1993) with Present Status and Future Application 2 Resident and De Facto Population Projections, State and County of Hawai'i: 1980 to 2020 3 Resident Population, by Districts, Hawai'i County, 1980, 1990, and 2000 4 Composition Estimates by Weight: Overall 5 Quantities of Solid Waste from Transfer Stations for Year 2000 6 Hawai'i County Waste Generation 7 Hawai'i County Waste Diversion by Material 8 Summary of ISWMP Components 9 Summary of Plan Recommendations from ISWMP (Barrett, 1993) and 2002 Addendum FIGURES 1 Resident and De Facto Population Projections County of Hawaii: 1980 to 2020 2 Waste Disposal Rate 3 Waste Disposal in Hawai'i County 4 Projected Annual Waste Streams in East and West Hawai'i ii Harding ESE 0710LA FIGURES (Continued) 5 Overview of the Overall Waste Stream Entering South Hilo Landfill 6 Estimated Composition of County Waste Stream from 1993 ISWMP 7 County of Hawaii Landfills/Transfer Stations 8 County of Hawai'i Projected Landfill Capacities 9 The Bulk Grades of Paper a. Mid '90s Northwest Mill Prices b. Recent, Northwest Door Prices 10 The High Grades of Paper a. Mid '90s Northwest Mill Prices b. Recent, Northwest Door Prices 11 Ferrous Metals a. Mid '90s Northwest Mill Prices b. Recent, Northwest Door Prices 12 Aluminum Cans a. Mid '90s Northwest Mill Prices b. Recent, Northwest Door Prices 13 Glass Cullet- Recent, California Prices 14 Plastics a. Mid '90s Northwest Mill Prices b. Recent, Northwest Door Prices 15 Projected Capacity of Pu'uanahulu Landfill 16 Implementation Schedule 17 Implementation Action Plan 18 Funding Schedule APPENDIXES A Hawai'i Revised Statutes, Chapter 342G, Integrated Solid Waste Management B Sections 2.1.5 and d 2.1.6 of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawaii C Waste Composition Study, South Hilo Landfill, County of Hawai'i D Waste Flow Alternatives E Evaluation Matrices F Vendors of Waste Reduction Technologies G Comments Received from the Public about the Draft Addendum to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawai'i H Glossary 0710LA Harding ESE iii 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Objectives and Purpose This addendum updates the Hawai'i County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP), as required by state law (HRS 342G). The original plan was compiled in 1993 and adopted by the Hawai'i County Council by Resolution 291 94 on October 5, 1994. HRS 342G requires counties to submit revised plans to the Department of Health (DOH) once every 5 years. This addendum is the first revision of the ISWMP. In addition to compliance with the state mandate for updating the plan, Hawai'i County has an urgent need for a new solid waste disposal system on the east side of the island. South Hilo Landfill, which receives waste from the east side of the island, is expected to reach full capacity in the summer of 2004. When that landfill is full and ceases to accept waste, there must be a system in place for managing the east Hawaii waste stream. The objectives of the addendum to the plan are to: • Outline needed changes in Hawai'i County's solid waste system, • Select systems and programs from available alternatives for solid waste management that will be cost-effective, efficient, and convenient for the users; and ' • Outline the basic steps necessary to implement the needed changes in the system. The main goals of the Department of Environmental Management and the Solid • Waste Division are: • Establish financial self-sufficiency for the Solid Waste Division; • Maximize convenience to the public; • Develop economic opportunities for diverting waste from landfills (with the county acting as a catalyst but not an operator); and • Utilize the best available technology to minimize solid waste volume. 0710LA Harding ESE 1 Introduction This ISWMP is a general planning document to provide the basis for improving and updating the county's solid waste management system. It is not intended to provide specific details of program implementation, facility procurement and design, nor day-to-day operation of the system. Implementation of the ISWMP will require the participation and cooperation of various branches of county government, the state government, and the residents of the county. Implementation of the plan cannot be accomplished through the efforts of only the county administration, the Environmental Management Commission, the Environmental Management Department, and the Solid Waste Division. 1.2 Scope 1.2.1 Original Scope The original scope of the project to update the ISWMP for the County of Hawai'i was to: a. Characterize the waste stream from the east side of the island to provide data with which to analyze alternatives to disposal at South Hilo Landfill; b. Convene several meetings with an appointed Solid Waste Advisory Committee to discuss solid waste issues and develop plans for the county solid waste management system; c. Compile a draft of the plan update, d. Conduct public hearings at which to present the plan and to receive comments ' and input from the public; e. After the public hearing process, revise the draft plan for review by the SWAC and the County Council, and make a presentation to the County Council about the plan, and f. Finalize the plan for submittal to DOH. 1.2.2 Revised Scope After the first three meetings with the SWAC, the committee was reconstituted and the focus of Item b. was modified and redirected with the primary focus of planning for a 2 Harding ESE 0710LA Introduction system for solid waste management in east Hawai'i. This change in focus acknowledged the reality of the imminent closure of South Hilo Landfill. 1.3 Planning Process The SWAC met several times to deliberate and determine their preferences for various options. During the early meetings, criteria for evaluation of available alternatives were discussed. Criteria included such items as capital cost, operating cost, overall cost per unit of waste, environmental impacts, social impacts, financial risks, ease of implementation, public acceptance and many more. During later meetings, the SWAC applied the evaluation criteria to specific alternatives involving reuse and recycling of wastes, technologies for reducing the waste stream, and methods of disposal. The SWAC's role in the process was to represent the views of, and interests of, the users of the system, the citizenry, commerce and business, and other stakeholders. The Consultant's role in the process included being organizers; meeting facilitators; providers of technical information, recommendations, and expertise; and analyzers and evaluators of alternative management strategies and options; Managers of the Department of Environmental Management and the Solid Waste Division represented the county administration at the meetings. ' Afterreparin a draft of the addendum to the ISWMP, public meetings provided p 9 opportunity for public input. The document was then revised and submitted to the SWAC. The next step of the process was review and consideration for adoption by the Hawai'i County ICouncil and the Environmental Management Commission. Finally, the addendum to the ISWMP was submitted to DOH for their acceptance and approval. 0710LA Harding ESE 3 Introduction 1.4 Government Regulations and Policies 1.4.1 Federal The federal government regulates solid wastes in the United States under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Subchapter I (40 CFR 239 to 299). On October 9, 19.93, new federal regulations went into effect for the control of MSW landfills. These regulations are in 40 CFR 258 (also known as RCRA Subtitle D), Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Under authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers Title 40 regulations and enforces solid waste regulations and policies through its Office of Solid Waste (OSW). The U.S. EPA goal for MSW management as defined for the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is as follows: By 2005, facilitate source reduction to reduce MSW generation to 4.3 lbs/person/day and facilitate increased recycling, including composting, to divert at least 35 percent of MSW from landfilling and combustion by 2005. EPA solid waste policy is defined in "The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action" (EPA530-SW-89-019). The document adopted the integrated waste management hierarchy, which has since been clarified to include: ' • Waste prevention • Recycling, and • Disposal. 1.4.2 State of Hawai'i The Hawai'i Office of Solid Waste Management (OSWM) is part of DOH and was established by the Integrated Solid Waste Management Act, Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) 342G. A copy of HRS 342G is included in Appendix A. OSWM is responsible for implementing solid waste management policies and regulations on the state level. Hawai'i Administrative Rules, Title 11 Chapter 58.1 (HAR 11-58.1) regulates landfills, composting 4 Harding ESE 0710LA Introduction facilities, recycling operations, used oil transporters and salvage yards. HAR 11-58.1 incorporates the provisions of the federal regulations relating to solid waste disposal facilities, RCRA Subtitle D (40 CFR 258). In 1993, EPA approved Hawai'i's solid waste program and, thereby, delegated the responsibility for permitting and regulating solid waste disposal facilities to DOH. OSWM is also responsible for integrated solid waste planning as required by HRS 342G. Among other provisions, HRS 342G requires that each county shall consider the following solid waste management practices and processing methods in their order of priority: (1) Source reduction; (2) Recycling and bioconversion, including composting; and (3) Landfilling and incineration. The respective roles of landfilling and incineration shall be left to each county's discretion. Goals of HRS 342G include. Reduction of the solid waste stream prior to disposal by: (1) Twenty-five per cent by January 1, 1995; and (2) Fifty per cent by January 1, 2000; through source reduction, recycling, and bioconversion. Where feasible, the office shall establish other state goals for specific commodities, recognizing market considerations. (b) It is the goal of the State to reduce by not less than twenty-five per cent the I I amount of office paper generated by all state and county agencies by January 1, 1995, through source reduction. The base year for calculating progress toward this goal shall be total office paper consumption by state and county agencies in 1990. The Hawaii 2000 Plan for Integrated Solid Waste Management completed in July ' 2000 made the following policy recommendations: The state's 50 percent solid waste reduction goal was not achieved in the time frame designated by law in 1991. However, 50 percent reduction of the waste stream is practical and achievable given more time and a dedicated effort. 0710LA Harding ESE 5 Introduction The Hawai'i State Legislature should reaffirm its commitment to reducing the solid waste stream by 50 percent. The Hawai'i State Legislature should extend the date for achieving 50 percent waste reduction to the year 2010. The Hawai'i State Legislature should be asked to reaffirm its commitment to the priorities of solid waste management: •. Source reduction, • Recycling and bio-conversion, and • Landfilling and incineration. In 2002, the Twenty-First Legislature of the State of Hawai'i passed House Bill 1256, also known as the bottle bill. The bill imposes requirements and fees for beverage containers to discourage littering and promote recycling. Beverage distributors must register with the state. A beverage container deposit special fund will be established. Beverage containers will be redeemable for a refund of a 5-cent deposit. 1.4.3 Hawar i County Chapter 20 of the Hawaii County Code, Refuse County laws regarding solid waste are codified in Chapter 20 of the.Hawai'i County Code. It contains articles on littering, clearing unoccupied lands, refuse disposal, and solid waste fees. ' Final Year 2000 County Charter Commission - Charter Amendment No. 4 In the election of November 2000, a county charter amendment was passed that established the Department of Environmental Management within the Hawai'i County Administration. Charter Amendment No. 4 transferred the county's solid waste, wastewater, and recycling programs from the Department of Public Works to the new Department of Environmental Management. 6 Harding ESE 0710LA ' Introduction The mayor appoints the director of the department, with county council confirmation. ' There is an environmental management commission to advise the department, and to have other powers, which might later be delegated to it by ordinance. It consists of nine members with one member from each county council district. The members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the county council. Effective date: December 4, 2000. County Of Hawai'i Ordinance No. 95-41 The Solid Waste Division is part of the Department of Environmental Management. The division operates under the authority of County of Hawai'i Ordinance No. 95-41, which provided for the amendment of Chapter 20, Article 3, Section 20-35 of the Hawaii County ICode in 1995 to establish a waste disposal permitting process and solid waste disposal fees. Subject ordinance provides for the amendment of Chapter 20, Article 3, Section 20- 35 of the Hawai'i County Code to establish permitting process and solid waste disposal fees. Effective date: March 21, 1995. Administrative Rules for the Solid Waste Refuse Control and Disposal Fees, County of Hawaii Administrative rules to establish minimum standards for refuse operations, maintenance of solid waste disposal and transfer station systems, and a fee structure for the system were approved by the mayor on April 4, 1995, and submitted to the Lieutenant ' Governor on April 25, 1995. County of Hawaii General Plan—[Preliminary] Draft[Ill] dated December 21, 2001 (note that this ' remains a draft as of[August 24, 2001] October 29, 2002, pending action by the County Council) The following are excerpts from PUBLIC FACILITIES section of the County of Hawai'i General Plan, Preliminary Draft III that relate to solid waste management: • Appropriately designed and cost-effective solid waste transfer station (convenience center) sites shall be located in areas of convenience and easy access to the public. I • Continue to encourage programs such as recycling to reduce the flow of refuse deposited in landfills. 0710LA Harding ESE 7 Introduction 1 • Investigate the possibility of developing new landfill sites on the island. • Encourage the full development and implementation of a green waste recycling program. The County of Hawai'i General Plan also includes provisions for transfer stations to be built in Waikoloa and in Ocean View Estates. 1.5 Historical Background In compliance with new federal and state statutes and regulations, Hawaii County developed an ISWMP that was completed in 1993 and adopted by the County Council in 1994. A summary of the components of the plans is presented in Table 1. The county landfill in Waimea had already been closed by then and the landfill in Kailua-Kona was nearly full. The county landfill in Kailua-Kona was closed before the federal and state regulations went into effect. A new landfill was developed at Puuanahulu to replace Kailua Landfill. Pu'uanahulu Landfill is a modern, state-of-the-art facility with adequate capacity to serve Hawai'i County for decades. Continued operation of South Hilo Landfill under a state permit required the development of an operations manual, which included groundwater and gas monitoring plans and closure and post-closure plans. Operations were upgraded at South Hilo Landfill in accordance with the regulations and the operations manual. South Hilo Landfill predated the ' current regulations and was not designed in accordance with current regulatory standards, which among other provisions requires an underlying liner to collect leachate. South Hilo Landfill is not equipped with a liner, and abundant rainfall percolates through the accumulated waste and creates abundant leachate, which is a concern to regulators. Significant groundwater contamination has not been detected, however. 8 Harding ESE 0710LA Introduction Table 1. Summary of Solid Waste Management Components of ISWMP (Barrett, 1993)with Present Status and Future Application Program Description Implementation Present Status Future Application I System Full-scale waste Done for east Pending for west Carry forward for west Administration characterization study Hawai'i Hawai'i Hawai'i Establish Solid Waste Partially done Pending Carry forward Division as utility enterprise Evaluate privatization Done Clarified by court of system action and legislation Implement review and Not done Still pending approval process Establish an Done In effect enterprise zone Update ISWMP Done In progress Carry forward Hire Recycling Not done In progress Carry forward Coordinator I Source User fee for non- Done In effect Consider raising tipping Reduction and residential refuse fees Public Hawaii County Not done Still pending Carry forward Information recycling logo Printed material Done In effect Maintain, enhance development and distribution I School recycling Done In effect Maintain, enhance education program County procurement Not done Still pending Carry forward I policy Seminar program for Not done Still pending Carry forward educators Backyard composting Done In effect Maintain, enhance I program and workshops Speakers bureau Not done Still pending Carry forward I Award recognition Not done Still pending Carry forward program Slide and video Not done Still pending Carry forward presentation I Business group Not done Still pending Carry forward workshops User fee for Not done Still pending Carry forward residential refuse I Advance disposal Partially done In effect for Carry forward fees abandoned autos Waste exchanges Not done Deferred to state I Product bans Not done Deferred to state Bioconversion Pilot-scale green Privately done Discontinued and waste composting (Renew Hawai'i) I Composting facility Two full-scale green Mulching facilities In effect Maintain, enhance waste composting or continue to mulching facilities operate in Hilo and IKailua-Kona 0710LA Harding.ESE 9 Introduction _, I Program - Description Implementation ' " Present Status Future Application Recycling Curbside collection of Not done Mandatory curbside recyclable materials in collection rejected Hilo and Kailua-Kona by County Council in 1994 Two material Not done " Still pending Carry forward recovery facilities Upgrade transfer Not done Still pending Carry forward stations for recyclable . materials and green waste Waste Curbside collection of Not done Mandatory curbside Collection solid waste in Hilo collection rejected and Kailua-Kona by County Council in 1994 Upgrade certain Not done Still pending Carry forward, transfer stations enhance Close certain transfer Not done Not relevant stations Waste Disposal Close Kailua Landfill Done Completed Construct and Done In effect Maintain operate Pu'uanahulu Landfill Select site, design, Not done Cancelled by _ construct, and recommendation of operate new east County Hawai'i landfill Administration Close South Hilo Not done Still pending Carry forward Landfill Special Wastes Maintain/improve Done In effect Maintain residential waste oil collection sites Advance disposal fee Not done Still pending Deferred to State for waste oil Fee for failure to Not done Still pending Deferred to State return lead/acid battery Fee for tire disposal Not done Still pending Carry forward I Ban white goods with Not done Still pending Carry forward refrigerants Fee for white goods Not done Still pending Carry forward disposal I Fee for vehicle Not done Still pending Carry forward disposal Advance disposal fee. Done -In effect Maintain, enhance for vehicles . Review and approval Not done Still pending Carry forward process for medical waste disposal Household hazardous Done In effect Maintain, enhance waste collection program II 10 Harding ESE 0710LA 1 I Introduction Although the county planned to close South Hilo Landfill in the mid-1990s, it was not Iclosed. The last permit from DOH for operating the landfill lapsed in 1998. Regardless of permit status however, the landfill will soon be full. The footprint of the landfill is limited by Iproperty boundaries, and lateral expansion is not allowed by current regulations unless the new waste management units are lined. The landfill's ultimate height will be limited by the geometry of the footprint and the side slopes. The most urgent solid waste issue facing the Icounty is future management of the waste stream that is now deposited in South Hilo Landfill when it can no longer accept waste. 1 I I 1 I I 0710LA Harding ESE 11 2.0 Existing Conditions 2.1 Natural Environment Hawai'i County comprises the entire island of Hawaii, the largest island in the Hawai'ian chain with a land area of more than 4,000 square miles. The land is the result of lava that erupted from five volcanoes: Kohala, Mauna Kea, Hualalai, Mauna Loa, and Kilauea. The island is also the youngest island in the chain, and continuing volcanic activity is still adding to the land. Because the rock is geologically young, soil is generally sparse. The northwestern side of the island faces the prevailing trade winds, and annual rainfall ranges up to 300 inches on the windward side of Mauna Kea. In Hilo, annual rainfall ranges from 150 to 300 inches depending on location. Annual rainfall is much less in the lee of the volcanoes, and ranges from only about 10 inches along the coast near Puako. The climate is generally warm and humid and is moderated by the surrounding ocean. Temperatures are generally lower at higher elevations, and most winters there are occasional winter snowfalls on the tops of the higher mountains, Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. Detailed information about the natural environment, flora, and fauna already are well documented in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawai'i (Barrett Consulting Group, 1993, Sections 2.1.5 and 2.1.6), and the pertinent sections of the plan are included in Appendix B. ' 2.2 Human Environment According to data from the Hawai'i Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, the resident population of Hawaii County was approximately 150,000 in the year 2000. The de facto population is approximately 165,000 or about 11 percent more than the resident population. Population in Hawaii County is expected to increase at a rate of between one and two percent per year. 0710LA Harding ESE 12 I Existing Conditions Table 2. Resident and De FactO Population Projections State and County of Hawai'i: 1980 to 2020 Resident De Facto State Hawaii State Hawaii Year Total County Total: CountyI 1980 968,500 92,900 1,055,400 99,300 1985 1,039,700 105,900 1,138,000 112,500I 1990 1,112,900 121,500 1,257,000 136,500 1995 1,179,200 137,200 1,287,100 149,700 2000 1,238,500 149,600 1,372,800 165,900 2005 1,304,000 160,600 1,463,000 181,900 2010 1,366,700 173,900 1,548,600 200,400 2015 1,430,500 189,100 1,633,300 220,900 2020 . 1,494,100 205,400 1,720,200 243,300 Source: Hawai'i State Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, Research and Economic Analysis Division, Population and Economic Projections for the State of Hawaii to 2020: DBEDT 2020 Series(May 1997), pp.3 and 4. Figure 1. Resident and De Facto Population Projections County of Hawai'i: 1980 to 2020 I 300,000 - ... .: :.. . 250,000 De Facto Population: 200,000 : 150,000 0-110111 Resident.Po ulation 100,000 --:--.' . :: ^;: , I 50,000 . .. . .....:........ :... ...... .. .. . . ........ .......... ..............: • 0 fI II I I ITI 1 I 13 Harding ESE 0710LA Existing Conditions The largest population centers are in Hilo plus Puna and along the Kona Coast in INorth Kona and South Kohala. The remaining population is spread throughout the island in smaller communities. The average de facto population density of the Island of Hawai'i is Iapproximately 37, which is small in comparison to 1,537 on Oahu. Table 3. Resident Population, by Districts, Hawaii County 1980, 1990, and 2000 Percent change Resident . April 1, April 1, April 1, • 1980 to 1990 to Population District.. 1980 1990 2000 1990 1 2000 Density, 1990 State 964,69.1 1,108,22 1,211,53 14.9 9.3 172.5 9 7 Hawai'i 92,053 120,317 148,677 30.7 23.6 29.9 County IPuna 11,751 20,781 31,335 76.8 50.8 41.6 South Hilo 42,278 . 44,639 47,386 5.6 6.2 113.2 I North Hilo 1,679 1,541 1,720 -8.2 11.6 4.8 Hamakua 5,128 5,545 6,108 8.1 10.2 9.6 North Kohala 3,249 4,291 6,038 32.1 40.7 32.3 I South Kohala 4,607 9,140 13,131 98.4 43.7 26.0 North Kona 13,748 22,284 28,543 62.1 28.1 45.6 South Kona 5,914 7,658 8,589 29.5 12.2 22.8 Kau 3,699 4,438 5,827 20.0 31.3 4.8 ISource: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing Unit Counts, Hawai'i, 1990 CPH-2-13 (March 1993), table 8; and Census 2000 Redistricting Data, (Public Law 94-171) Summary File; figures compiled Iand calculated by County of Hawai'i, Department of Research& Development. 2.3 Solid Waste Stream 1111 Since the ISWMP was produced in 1993, the county installed scales at the landfills Iand most of the solid waste stream has been measured. Source reduction and reuse divert waste from the county system and are not otherwise directly measured, but do not appear to Ihave a significant effect because the rate of increase in solid waste disposal has been rising Ifaster than the rate of population growth. Agricultural waste does not enter the county system because it apparently is recycled at the sources. Otherwise the Hawai'i County Solid Waste I 07.10LA Harding ESE 14 Existing Conditions Division disposes of all solid waste that is not diverted by recyclers. Recyclers measure and report to the county, the state, or both thequantities of wastes that theydivert. p Y 2.3.1 Sources The entire population of the county contributes to the solid waste stream from their activities at home and at work. The waste, except for the portion that is diverted for recycling, reaches the landfills either through the county transfer stations (such facilitiesare known elsewhere as conveniencecenters) or is hauled directly to the landfills by commercial enterprises or by individuals. By county ordinance, only "single family household waste" may be deposited at transfer stations by "individuals not acting as, or on behalf of, a business, publicagency, religious entity or non-profit organization." The county Solid Waste Division maintains the transfer stations and transports the accumulated waste from the transfer stations to the landfills. Approximately 49 percent of the solid waste entering South Hilo and approximately 37 percent of the solid waste entering Pu'uanahulu Landfill is from county transfer stations. Commercial haulers deliver solid waste to the landfills using a variety of vehicles including packer trucks (garbage trucks), roll-offs (primarily open boxes), and other vehicles ' (e.g. flatbeds, pickups, etc.). The waste they deliver is collected from both residences and businesses. During county Fiscal Year 2001-2002, approximately 56 percent of the solid waste entering South Hilo and approximately 62 percent of the solid waste entering Pu'uanahulu Landfill was from commercial haulers. It has been estimated that approximately 50 percent of the residential waste in densely populated areas is collected and delivered to the landfills by commercial haulers (Hawai'i 2000 Plan for Integrated Solid Waste Management, Hawai'i Department of Health, July, 2000). Self-haulers include residents, contractors, businesses, and public entities. They deliver loads of solid waste to the landfills in small vehicles (e.g. autos, pick-ups, etc.) or large 15 Harding ESE 0710LA I Existing Conditions vehicles (e.g. dump trucks, flatbeds, etc). Approximately 14 percent of the solid waste entering ISouth Hilo and approximately 6 percent of the solid waste entering Pu'uanahulu Landfill is from self-haulers. I 2.3.2 Quantities IThe total amount of solid waste that is managed by the county system was approximately 160,000 tons in the Year 2000. Approximately 45 percent, or 70,000 tons, was Ideposited in South Hilo Landfill, and approximately 55 percent, or 90,000 tons, was deposited Iin Pu_uanahulu Landfill. Since 1995, the quantities of waste being delivered to both landfills have increased at an average rate of approximately 5 percent per year. Between 1995 and I I 7 - Hawaii County Per Capita Waste Disposal Rate 6 I • 5 . - . 4 US Per Capita Waste Disposal Rate I 3 2 I 1 0III , I # 435° 1 # OP (1§S' Figure 2. Waste Disposal Rate I2000, the average daily per capita solid waste disposal rate in Hawai'i County rose from approximately 5.5 to 6.0 pounds. The overall waste generation per capita daily rate for the IUnited States is 4.6 pounds compared to 6.2 pounds for the County of Hawai'i and 5.8 pounds for the state of Hawai'i. 0710LA Harding ESE 16 Existing Conditions Figure 3. Waste Disposal in Hawai'i County 'M¢aMri.<ax9.asxszxk:,va+axeiec.«ssru9a ro'ra'ae Hzrs>rs�m:..c:x�oa�':S�x:.acatarsw:'k3nn•om i.;2.:..,.,:.:.':ate:.:.,..,.o.......:...: ..�.:.. <, ex<,. < ,'4".,:.,.._.¢• j({����/'��/�� � SYS s.K¢Y,Nff Hens>1'.::avn`...eF.k..�w�,t<.,R..S:ems£k.K¢A.fiY..v+:Akdiil.OV?3s`?:¢iti'fi'S:X'S'S:lJs:i3ie:..F::::'.K�xN'i:.•:.il.•:::.1L•.. ..,..:........'.,<'.6,t'o.y'¢":'.y�: .>a:e...,.....¢<.:.�.p.�...::.:....>::...::.. 4N!f:NS:A£sR:4<Hs.R.>.:.Lv..h:K>.SnA°d:.:SNSSMHhX0.3..m:¢:\x?RSY�us�.5>ttn%f.tlr�kSNfi84!a[$ai)0>CA?fitAWYCYGSki;:esti'%:Yn33A'Ek<N3'a`YRR:r'.t?SNkQSL'<NkNY.`$ff?.N:GY#it))4Mvk.i4H:XA¢rtl2+0n4:Y5 3 e$ 16000 ' 14000 i • x. Ccrntbined Taal for Courtly 3iF$ fix u@C ' x ; :yfiY a Z 120 * 1.sF1 ,:::',. kjt :� . xs, . SzYy. i °' " , .= 11 x 10000 ' �� R.lu'artahulu Landfill O80003 3 Z gie y, k' a •,, �v` �.b.,, :,. .sa s `, �'a . .. , 3ar '. G ». § " .v a '.k� n i '''Y' t r `.� S3 �.. Zaa c Z ',!\:‘,\J;' 2xb 4 A d 8Y S �k F c C��� * . ., `t' ¢ ��. a gyp"` �j». 3 9 tee:: '�kMk. <� a�: •\, '�a0ti� `�'' ,,Ci` a a`,Z W\C '<:h �x'.i a SD k. >, gawk `+::Y 2Y ,� s; ` :. ;°S t>¢;h:: > Z ,'pkv l� a"�� �\ .°�'{ 4 6000 ' a a 1: " - b a Dt .0 ° Y 0 i '€ k r1l 4000 South I-ilo Landfill f . . am 111} I F i1 �� e r O .w..,.,..w,.:..,:M......:.......:.....�.........�....»....,...,,,..,»,,.....,,.....,........,,...........,.,......,....,.».....,.,........,.,,..,.....:.......,,,,,.....,,,.,....,,,....:..,,........,...,,:»..»....,.d:x:S..'l:T::,r'.J.:::""A:M��'iS„:„�:IXC#�A:.«:l�w,�:;:,».�:.w::::.::::'..:�::,, Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 17 Harding ESE 0710LA M M N N NM 1111111 IMMO O I NNE I ME O M I M M 1111111 O • Existing Conditions According to estimates in Population and Economic Projections for the State of Hawai'i to 2020 by the Hawai'i Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, the de facto population of Hawai'i County is expected to grow at approximately 2 percent per year up to the year 2020. Although per capita waste disposal increased in the 1990's, the reason for the increase is unknown and future increases cannot be projected. Figure 4 shows the projected waste streams in east and west Hawai'i. These projected quantities will be affected by many factors including actual population and economic development, the distribution of growth, inclusion of transfer stations in the east or west region, and many others. Figure 4. Projected Annual Waste Streams in East and West Hawai'i. 180,000 - III2 160,000 - II West Hawai'i co 140,000 - L ap 120,000 .- N c 100,000 II i 60,000 I I I II I I I I I I pp9' citP` cZ° 99 99 �0�� (19 (P �0�� cLO�� `10�� (V 99`cLp`�' Year 1 0710LA Harding ESE 18 Existing Conditions 2.3.3 Composition During April and May of 2001, Cascadia Consulting Group performed a waste composition study for the waste stream entering South Hilo Landfill. Their report is included in Appendix A. Figure 5 summarizes the overall composition of the South Hilo Landfill waste stream and shows the relative abundance of the largest components. When combined, organic materials and paper are more than half of the waste stream. Construction and demolition waste accounts for another 18 percent by weight. The construction and demolition category includes such components as clean lumber and gypsum scrap. The organic materials are a broadwaste category that contains such components as food, textiles, and vegetation prunings: . Figure 5. Overview of the Overall Waste Stream Entering South Hilo Landfill Household Special Mixed Hazardous 6.2% 1.3% 0.3% Paper 23.5% Construction s :r� M and Glass .� Demolition 3.0% 18.1% Metal 8.8% Organics 30.4% Plastic 8.5% - ' Figure 6. Estimated Composition of County Waste Stream from 1993 ISWMP Food Wastes ;:,:;Y... Paper Yard Wastes Organics ti Glass 5 28 % Metals • Plastics 8% 11 % /o 19 Harding ESE 0710LA I Existing Conditions Table 4 lists the composition percentages, by weight, of the 58 component categories in the overall waste stream. I Table 4. Composition Estimates by Weight: Overall Calculated ata 90%confidence interval Tons Mean Low High Tons Mean Low High Paper 15,724 23.5% Construction and Demolition 12,143 18.1% I Cardboard 5,556 8.3% 6.7% 9.9% Treated Lumber 2,153 3.2% 1.5% 4.9% Bags 313 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% Concrete 710 1.1% 0.2% 1.9% Newspaper 1,673 2.5% 1.9% 3.1% Asphalt Paving 944 1.4% 0.0% 3.1% White Ledger 687 1.0% 0.7% 1.4% Asphalt Roofing 182 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% Colored Ledger 76 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Clean Lumber 5,956 8.9% 6.2% 11.6% I Computer 27 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Gypsum Board 291 0.4% 0.0% 0.9% Office 653 1.0% 0.7% 1.3% Rocks and Soil 138_ 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% Magazines 852 1.3% 0.9% 1.7% RIC Demo 1,769 2.6% 0.9% 4.3% Directories 61 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Household Hazardous 221 0.3% Miscellaneous 2,060 3.1% 2.6% 3.5% Paint 38 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% R/C Paper 3,768 5.6% 4.6% 6.7% Vehicle Fluids 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% I Glass 1,985 3.0% Oil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Clear Containers 747 1.1% 0.8% 1.4% Batteries 77 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Green Containers 570 0.9% 0.6% 1.1% • RIC Hazardous 84 0,1% 0.0% 0.2% Brown Containers 522 0.8% 0.5% 1.0% Special 4,176 6.2% Other Containers 12 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ash 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% I Flat Glass 52 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% RIC Glass 82 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Industrial Sludge 1,414 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% Metal 5,888 8.8% Treated Medical 137 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% Tin Cans 613 0.9% 0.7% 1.1% Bulky Items 1,713 2.6% 1.1% 4.0% White Goods 611 0.9% 0.0% 2.3% Tires 809 1.2% 0.7% 1.7% Ferrous 2,702 4.0% 2.3% 5.8% R/C Special 88 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% I Aluminum Cans 286 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% • Mixed 860 1.3% Nonferrous 216 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% Mixed Residue 860 1.3% 0.8% 1.8% RIC Metal 1,459 2.2% 1.1% 3.2% Plastic 5,677 8.5% #2 Containers 337 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% . I #1 Containers 411 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% Other Containers 215 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% Film 1,842 2.7% 2.3% 3.2% Durable 1,161 1.7% 0.8% 2.7% R/C Plastic 1,712 2.6% 1.9% 3.2% I Organics 20,351 30.4% Food 10,402 15.5% 13.1% 17.9% Leaves and Grass 1,119 1.7% 0.9% 2.5% Prunings 2,502 3.7% 2.0% 5.4% ' Stumps 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% I Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Textiles 1,456 2.2% 1.4% 3.0% RIO Organic 4,872 7.3% 5.1% 9.5% I I Total Tons 67,025 Sample Count 100 IFigure 6 shows the composition of the island-wide waste stream estimated for the 1993 . ISWMP for comparison with the Cascadia study. There are some differences in the categories I of the waste, but the relative amounts of paper, glass and metal in the South Hilo waste Istream are less than those in estimated in the 1993 ISWMP. The relative amounts of plastics 071 OLA - Harding ESE 20 Existing.Conditions and,organic,.materials are approximately the same in both, although the materials included in the organic materials category are different. 2.4 , . Solid Waste Management System Hawai'i County does not provide waste collection services. Private companies haul approximately 50 percent of the waste generated in areas that have relatively dense residential development to county landfills. The remaining 50 percent, or possibly greater, is self-hauled. Most self-hauled waste is taken to the county's transfer stations, which are provided for disposal of waste from single-family residences. 2.4.1 Transfer Stations The county has 21 transfer stations, where single-family householdsmay discard their household-waste. Fees and permits are not required at the transfer stations. The locations of the existing transfer stations, two proposed new transfer stations, and the.county's landfills are shown on a map of county solid waste facilities, Figure 7. 111 Only six of the transfer stations are gated with set hours of operation. Most are open facilities that are monitored by rotating county attendants or security guards who provide some public education and monitor for hazardous wastes. There is no charge for disposal at the transfer ' stations and they are intended for residential-waste only. The transfer stations have proven to be an economical alternative to county collections in areas with sparse populations and long haul distances. 21 Harding ESE 0710LA { I Existing Conditions I Figure 7. County of Hawaii Landfills and Transfer Stations [(convenience centers)] sua t,P1Afi.4E 33.$ i ELA9r'�.. ;P q:. :p., V3fY,, 7 4a79iP'bttnS'"3. .. sol7PLI FACILITIES: - ;3, s- LAN `ILL I TRANSFER STA TIA �� $ $1r1I0 ,r(Td ' - Note-r:h vmFrA =9b�t .:oalty rf l ai4 4�??�ia t^i�. +' ,i L( f; l i'.,. k ame.Dopa,*i * .C�(.intrn.�Ja.,if;tr •same " � t !mar t ps : nr `Paad front ik vmd 4 a. .:`T 3L ZAL.U int saPimi e• nutti l.a° c�at,bwaz.7 (IN 6gt.tAtivA of the da.a. FP„. z''.3i�1 til it x� x e t _ ikou.4T a ,t ..t:1 'e�.ri 174'0 site!) pp..��:.� t„�r -'- ,-..,e ,. Ma gist, I .:N• ;... ,5 r::.t".'§.ei.i PrOff'u'ok6.^at'd l,S'i t eii,`'ll'r" ei,,A•..'•.h£`to'.s'asBw„', . t*Kkault44 1. :111:3) .... • f p� _ > • p4419.y.C.a?.( si?t6?i€srtl L7.t i 'q{ r`i3 J. .4abl7l AUR,y ,. .I e4�f s l 1 l:f rco te,»�3"=l..aia f.i",S) £,:s1`C. . ,(11) Ag Map—8, County of Hawaii General Plan Revision From website: http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/general_plan_rev/revision/maps.htm According to the County of Hawai_i General Plan —proposed revision dated I December 21, 2001, two more transfer stations are planned in addition to the 21 existing I transfer stations. One planned transfer station will be in Waikoloa and the other will be in Ocean View. I I 0710LA Harding ESE 22 Existing Conditions Table 5. Quantities of Solid Waste from [Convenience Centers] Transfer Stations for Year 2000. . - Transfer Annual. - Percent of Percent of. Station Tonnage Subtotal Total East Side _. I Hilo 11,757.41 35.9% 17.5% Kea'au 6,371.34 19.5% 9.5% Pahoa 4,515.53 13.8% 6.7% Kalapana 767.15 2.3% 1.1% Glenwood 2,244.23 6.9% 3.3% Volcano 1,351.15 4.1% 2.0% Pahala 1,196.79 3.7% 1.8% Papaikou 2,901.95 8.9% 4.3% Honomu 1,565.22 4.8% 2.3% Other 48.68 0.1% 0.1% I SUBTOTAL 32,719.45 100.0% 48.7% West SideI Kailua 7,535.19 21.8% 11.2% Keauhou 4,741.25 13.7% 7.1% Keei 2,022.37 5.9% 3.0% Waiea 1,844.51 5.3% 2.7% Milolii 228.79 0.7% 0.3% Waiohinu 2,363.94 6.8% 3.5% Waimea 4,956.04 14.4% 7.4% Puako 2,495.01 7.2% 3.7% Kohala 3,157.38 9.1% 4.7% Honokaa 2,976.06 8.6% 4.4% Paauilo 1,107.32 3.2% 1.6% Laupahoehoe 985.88, 2.9% 1.5% Other 112.75 0.3% 0.2% . SUBTOTAL 34,526.49 100.0% 51.3% TOTAL 67,245.94. '1.00.0% 1 2.4.2 Landfills ` Hawai'i County has two landfills. Pu'uanahulu Landfill in west Hawai'i is operated by county personnel with management assistance from Waste'Management of Hawai'i, Inc. (WMI). WMI also is'responsible for construction and site development of landfill cells, environmental monitoring.of the facility, and closure andpost-closure care of the landfill. South Hilo Landfill is near Hilo International Airport and is owned and operated by the county. I I 23 ' Harding ESE 0710LA I Existing Conditions The county charges a $35 per ton tipping fee for disposal at the landfills. Persons Irepresenting a business, a federal or state agency, a religious entity, or a non-profit organization also are required to have county disposal permits, for which an application fee of I $25 is charged. Permits are free to others. Permits are valid for a period of one year after Iissuance. South Hilo Landfill must be closed in the near future when it is full. This landfill was established in the 1970's before there were federal Subtitle RCRAregulations and is ( D) unlined. Though unlined, no significant groundwater contamination has been detected during quarterly monitoring. IHawai'i County planned to close South Hilo Landfill in 1996, but the plan was not Iimplemented. The Hawai'i Department of Health has not renewed the solid waste facility permit for South Hilo Landfill that expired in 1998. IPu'uanahulu Landfill is on state land and was originally operated by WMI. It was the subject of litigation between the United Public Workers (UPW) Union and Hawai'i County (KonnoI v. Countyof Hawai'i). The UPW claimed that the Countyhad illegally privatized II ) 9 Y I services that were traditionally performed by civil service workers. The Konno Decision by the Hawai'i Supreme Court upheld the claim and forced the county to make arrangements with the Iprivate operator to provide jobs for county landfill operators. In 2001, the Twenty-First ILegislature of the State of Hawai'i enacted Senate Bill 1096, which establishes a chapter in the Hawai'i Revised Statutes addressing privatization of public services. The bill enables the Igovernor, mayors, and heads of public jurisdictions to contract with private entities (businesses Iand individuals outside of the government) to provide government services when there is a reasonable basis to believe those services can thus be provided at lower costs and in Iequivalent or better quality than that which could be provided by a government agency. I 0710LA Harding ESE 24 I Existing Conditions I 2.4.3 Remaining Capacity Projections of the capacities of the county's landfills are shown graphically on Figure 8. These assume a constant per capita rate of disposal, the current diversion rate, and population increases of 2.04% per year. Figure 8. County of Hawaii Projected Landfill Capacities I 14,000,000 N 112,000,000 00p0❑❑000❑❑r7❑❑ u° � , , 0❑O0❑u (138 000 000 • 6,000,000 ❑❑0�❑u❑°❑° 73. 4 000 000 V 2,000,000 ❑❑0000❑❑ o wn o in o in o in o 1n - o O O r r N N M M V N O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N Year O Seriesl Pu'uanahulu Landfill O Series2 South Hilo Landfill. 1 2.4.3.1 South Hilo Landfill South. Hilo Landfill is nearing full capacity and must be closed in the next few years. As of mid-2001,,the remaining air space was approximately 500,000 cubic yards, which is I estimated to be enough for less than 2 years of operation at the current rate of waste disposal. The landfill is expected to be full by the summer of 2004. 2.4.3.2 Pu'uanahulu Landfill As of 2002, Pu'uanahulu Landfill has more than 12,000,000 cubic yards of permitted air space, which should be enough to accommodate the [current] waste stream from west Hawai'i for approximately 40 years. However, diversion of waste by recycling and the use of 25 Harding ESE 0710LA. Existing Conditions waste reduction technologies would reduce the disposed waste stream and extend the life of the landfill. As in most communities in the United States, it is increasingly difficult in the State of Hawai'i to acquire suitable sites, obtain government permits, and develop new landfills. The County of Hawai'i would be well advised to conserve its landfill capacity and extend the life of its existing facilities as long as possible. 2.4.4 Recycling Hawaii County is an island community where great distances and sparse populations make provision of recycling services difficult. In addition, waste disposal transfer is free for residents, reducing economic incentives to recycling. The county does not now have staff dedicated solely to recycling, and operates its recycling and public education efforts primarily through contracts with outside organizations and businesses. Recycle Hawai'i, a non-profit organization, provides waste recycling assistance and public information under contract with the county. DOH OSWM permit files show that there are 13 recycling companies in Hawai'i County. The two largest companies providing recycling services are Business Services Hawai'i and Environmental Recycling, both of which operate balers for export of recyclable materials. In addition to its collection service, Business Services Hawai'i performs monthly ' collections at three community recycling events. Environmental Recycling also performs bimonthly rural collections. The County of Hawai'i pays quarterly diversion grants, at $40 per ton, to companies that deliver designated recyclable materials to an end user. The recyclers must have current agreements with the county and provide evidence of transfer of the materials, such as a weight ticket, to receive the grants. The materials covered by the disposal grant include all grades of paper, plastics, bimetal and ferrous cans, and cooking oil. The county allocates a maximum 0710LA Harding ESE 26 I Existing Conditions amount that can be,spent each quarter. During FY 1998, the county paid over$285,000 in Diversion Grants to seven firms. I Diversion Statistics. Table 6 depicts waste generation and diversion rates, and Table 8 displays the weight of material diversion for Hawai'i County as reported to DOH for Fiscal Year 1998-1999. I Table 6. Hawaii County Waste Generation' I WASTE GENERATED WASTE DISPOSED WASTE DIVERTED DIVERSION RATE (in tons) (in tons) (in tons) (percent) 168,851 146,416 22,435 13 NOTE: 1 DOH, Hawai'i Waste Disposal and Diversion Survey, 1998-99. Table 7. Hawaii County Waste Diversion by Material MATERIAL TYPE WEIGHT MATERIAL TYPE WEIGHT (in tons) (in tons) TOTAL METALS 16,673 TOTAL PAPER 1,391 Ferrous Scrap Metal 16,673 Cardboard 1,221 Auto Scrap V — Newspaper 72 I Aluminum — Mixed Paper " Other Non-ferrous V — High-grade Paper 74 TOTAL OTHER MATERIALS 361 Magazines — ' Petroleum Contaminated Soil — Other Paper 24 Concrete,Asphalt, 1 Miscellaneous 348 TOTAL CONTAINERS 15 Tires 13 Glass — TOTAL ORGANICS 3,995 Plastic Containers 15 1 Green Waste/Wood Waste 3,995 TOTAL 22,435 Food/Wet Waste — - Il 27 Harding ESE 0710LA Existing Conditions The County of Hawaii diverted approximately 13 percent of its waste during FY 1998/1999 compared to a rate of 19 percent for the state and 28 percent nationally. Ferrous metals accounted for the largest fraction of the amount diverted, followed by green waste/wood waste, cardboard, glass and tires. The Hawai'i Island Economic Development Board, a non-profit organization, joined with other interested parties to form the Opala Recycling Enterprise (formerly the Community Recycling Center Task Force), which submitted a proposal for a grant from the U.S. EPA for a community recycling demonstration project. The grant was approved with the county as the grantee so funding will be provided through the county administration. The task force intends to develop a demonstration recycling center at the Kea'au Transfer Station. This project is discussed further in Section 3.2.2.1 2.4.4.1 Metal Hawai'i Metal Recycling Co. (HMR) has county contracts for removal of abandoned vehicles and waste metal in both east and west Hawai'i. HMR bales and transports those materials to Oahu for further processing and eventual recycling. This contract is partially funded through a $4 per auto charge on annual registration fees. Some appliances are recycled by HMR with the autos and other metal. In 2002, HMR renegotiated the terms of its contract with the county because of financial losses. Future contracts are expected to be at much higher rates, and corresponding increases in charges on annual auto registration fees may be needed to maintain the same proportional funding of the vehicle removal program. Numerous recycling businesses payfor aluminum bythepound. There is a healthy 9 market for aluminum waste without government subsidies. 2.4.4.2 Green Waste Green waste is diverted at South Hilo landfill and at the Kealakehe Transfer Station servicing Kailua-Kona. Residents and commercial haulers may drop green waste at these 0710LA Harding ESE 28 1 Existing Conditions locations free of charge. Hawai'i County budgeted approximately $190,000 in Fiscal Year 2002 for contracts for chipping green waste. As of January 2002, HMR had the contracts to process green waste in both east and west Hawaii. In Hilo, they receive $28.95 per ton of green waste received and processed by chipping; and in Kailua-Kona, they receive $34.95 per ton.•The chipped material is available free of charge for pick up by whomever wants it. Mauna Lani Resort processes green waste, producing compost and mulch for use on their grounds. According to DOH records as of March 2002, no one on the island has a current permit for composting. In 2001, Renew Hawaii closed their composting operation in Hilo. 2.4.4.3 Fiber There are four recycling companies that collect cardboard for bailing and shipment off-island. Four companies also recycle newspaper, and two companies recycle office paper. Approximately 2,700 tons of various paper and cardboard fiber was recycled in FY 1998. 2.4.4.4 Glass Glass container recycling is supported separately by state glass ADF payments. The payments are $240 per ton ($0.12 per pound), which amounted to approximately $118,000 in Hawai'i County for the second half of 2001. Markets for glass are weak and on-island uses 1 have been slow to develop. Business Services Hawaii owns drop boxes for glass that are located at five transfer stations on the island. Approximately 150 tons of glass per month are collected and I processed through these five centers as well as at a center managed by Pacific Waste, Inc. Rainbow Recycling also picks up glass from certain transfer stations. Glass is used by a number of private companies to create art and architectural glass, material for sandblasting, water filtration, and construction needs. Most recovered glass is shipped off-island. 29 Harding ESE 0710LA Existing Conditions 2.5 Factors Affecting Recycling in Hawaii County I2.5.1 Market Conditions Lately, prices for recyclable materials have generally been low, which reduces the potential profits in recycling and, thus, the incentives. Markets for metals are apparently I adequate to sustain metal recycling businesses, although in 2001 a recycler of q Y 9 9 _ majorY discarded autos on Oahu renegotiated more favorable fees with the City and County of IHonolulu for disposal of non-metal residue from vehicles to maintain profitability. Markets for other materials do not sustain recycling and government subsidies are needed for recycling 1 businesses to be viable. IThe following pages include graphs of historic market prices for the most common Irecyclable materials. Historic market prices are obtained from trade publications that conduct and publish Iregular surveys. Prices are, of course, proprietary information and there are considerable differences of assumptions and even controversies regarding the prices quoted in any I publication. They do not reflect the actual price that any given recycler or community may Ireceive for their recycled materials. Most prices are presented in a range, sometimes with a midpoint. The midpoint is Iplotted in these pages. In essence published market prices present a generalized, order of magnitude estimate, but they do a good job of showing trends over time. Data from two different sources are included in the following graphs: • The "Mid `90s" graph (first graph on each page) includes data from 1993 — 1998. Those data are from a report for the King County Market Development I Commission by Cascadia Consulting. This report is available on the internet at: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/market/Asessmnt.htm. Though specific sources are not cited, the data appears to be average, or mid range prices for the year taken from I the mill prices quoted in commodity-specific trade publications, such as the Official Board Market reports. These are prices paid by industrial end-users of commodities, or at the dock if the material is being exported. 0710LA Harding ESE 30 I Existing Conditions • The "Recent" graph (second graph on each page) includes data from 1999 to 1 present. They were derived from Waste News, a publication for the waste industry that includes a weekly table of market prices for several locations around the country. Generally the prices for the Pacific Northwest are used in the graphs, except glass for which the California price is used. The California price is used for glass because there is much greater demand for glass from California end-users, I and some glass is shipped to California from Hawai'i. Note also that historic glass prices were not included in the King County report. Essentially, the "Recent" graphs depict the prices paid to a collector of recyclable materials at the door or scale. A mid-month price has been plotted in each case. Since there may be additional processing, packing and shipping costs before the product is delivered to the end-user, these prices can be considerably different from those in the first graph. This may represent a price closer to what the county or a local recycler would receive, though additional costs unique to Hawai'i would have to be considered. Figures 9a &9b. The Bulk Grades of Paper Figure 9a. Mid `90s, Northwest Mill Prices $180 ,........ .... :.............. ... ... :.........::.,....:..., $160I $140 ...... . . .............. .....................:.... :.. M $120 ..... ........>.... ::..... ....... ............... $100 .:.:: .^..: — ................................... ... .. � ......:....................:........................ Cardboard $ ...:..:... $60 y. .................:..::..........................:.....:..............................? ,-. .... :. ... .. Newsaaaer $40I $20 $0 r...: I 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998I Figure 9b. Recent, Northwest Door Prices2 $160 :: .. , .: -_ _ - :-. I $140 $1207\s_ze...\\ $100 $80 ``--"` #8 News $60 : ............. . .......::.:. . ........ ... ..... ...........::... ........:... . y# •r•. " 6 Ne $20 $0 r i r r -1r i r f r i r r i i i 1 CardboardI O) a) a) O) O O OO O O O O N a) d) d) 9) O O) O O O 900 O O 9 9 000 L >, L > c L >, a > c L >, Q > C I 1. Source:Annual prices from "Assessment of Markets for King County Recyclable Materials, King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials, Cascadia Consulting, 1998, p. 71. 2. Source: Monthly prices from "Waste News" 31 Harding ESE 0710LA I Existing Conditions Figures 10a & 10b: The High Grades of Paper IFigure 10a. Mid `90s, Northwest Mill Prices3 I $120 — rade P e High G ap r $� $20 .�..:..:...:;.: ,..... ... w:.�M. . ..... ... Mixed Waste Paper I1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 I Figure 10b. Recent, Northwest Door Prices4 I120 $60 : . Sorted Whit Ledger k.;1 _ ._.. - Sorted Office Paper a e p II............. . . Mixed Residential ,,��,, Paper �o,� t'�� �o,� , �1O �1 \F' &- �p� ' \5)'\ ' �1 � p �� p �b gyp ® �� I I 3. Source: Annual prices from "Assessment of Markets for King County Recyclable Materials, King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials, Cascadia Consulting, 1998, p. 71. I4. Source: Monthly prices from "Waste News" 0710LA Harding ESE 32 Existing Conditions Figures 11 a & 11 b. Ferrous Metals Figure 11a. Mid `90s, Northwest Mill Prices5 $50 $45 ...... .. :..... ..........:..::..: :...:....:..... Steel Cans ........... $vim" ............. .......... .... ...... ........ ... .............. ..... ..................................... $25 a Ferrous Scrap $15 • $10 ...... ... ...... ............... $0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Figure 11 b: Recent, Northwest Door Prices6 • Ferrous Scrap Steel Cans $10 - - WhiteGoods r r 7 74o.; f r r 1 1 �_ I i i � � I O C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v— N O O O d) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 LI_ 2 2� ' (0 Z 2 co CO �'Z -� Z 5. Source: Annual prices from "Assessment of Markets for King County Recyclable Materials, King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials, Cascadia Consulting, 1998, p. 53. 6. Source: Monthly prices from "Waste News" 33 Harding ESE 0710LA I Existing Conditions Figures 12a & 12b: Aluminum Cans IFigure 12a. Mid `90s, Northwest Mill Prices' • I $1,400 .. . . . ... .. . , , . .. . . . : . . . $1,200 $1,000 ---. - _ $ Aluminum Cans I I I 1983 1994 1995 1986 1987 1998 I Figure 12b. Recent, Northwest Door Prices8 I $600 • • $500Aluminum Cans $400 :.....:. $300 I $200 A $100 - i II I I I I I I I I ,.. �aoF O p I 1> szQ p �ez,' I 7. Source: Annual prices from "Assessment of Markets for King County Recyclable Materials, King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials, Cascadia Consulting, 1998, p. 52. I8. Source: Monthly prices from "Waste News". 0710LA Harding ESE 34 I Existing Conditions Figure 13 Glass Cullet Recent, California Prices9 $35 Flint d Amber ° : $30 •.. • • •. • + '• "• • • •---4•---4 ♦ • t. • • • • • • * • • Glass an $25 A"-A-.-A.-A .A--1--1-=.J->A- A-* $20 $15 . Green Glass$1p . $5 ,,•• cpp QO no 59ao ► gyp►• ►� N p� 5)N NZQ CP- I I Figures 14a & 14b: Plastics Figure 14a. Mid `90s, Northwest Prices10 $600 $500 $400 $300 E Bottles $200 : :: T Bottles $100 $0 r l i I 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 I I I 9. Source: Monthly prices from "Waste News". 10. Source: Annual prices from "Assessment of Markets for King County Recyclable Materials, King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials, Cascadia Consulting, 1998, p. 83. I 35 Harding ESE 0710LA Existing Conditions Figure 14b. Recent, Northwest Door Prices' $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 , HDPE Bottles $200 $150 $100 • ET Bottles $50 -. $0III 11111111111111 2.5.2 Off-Island Transportation Costs The price of off-island transport of recyclable material is approximately $1,400 per 40- foot container. A container loaded to capacity with 20 tons of recyclable material costs $70 per ton to ship to Oahu. Most recyclable materials are then shipped out of state for further processing, which adds another cost similar to inter-island shipment. Therefore, recyclable materials must be saleable in an out-of-state market for approximately $140 per ton just to justify the transportation expense. 2.5.3 Local User Market Very little processing of and manufacturing with recyclable materials are done locally. Newspaper is shredded for use as packing material, and chipped green waste is used for mulch. Lack of local user markets and high export costs discourage recycling efforts. 1 11. Source: Monthly prices from "Waste News". 0710LA Harding ESE 36 3.0 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System 3.1 Long List of Alternatives IAt early meetings of the SWAC, alternative systems for managing solid waste were considered. These alternative systems are shown graphically in Appendix B and include: 1. The current system of separate waste streams in east and west Hawai'i. Recyclers divert a portion of each waste stream, and the remainder is sent to I South Hilo Landfill in east Hawai'i and to Pu'uanahulu Landfill in west Hawai'i via commercial haulers directly or via self-haulers directly or through transfer stations. I 2. The current system without South Hilo Landfill where the waste streams from both east and west Hawai'i would be sent to Pu'uanahulu. This system would result if South Hilo Landfill closed and no other changes in the system were made. I3. The current system with a new Subtitle D landfill to replace South Hilo Landfill in east Hawai'i. 1 4. A system where waste (minus materials diverted by recyclers) is consolidated at a sort station in east Hawai'i for transport to Pu'uanahulu Landfill for disposal. I5. A system like Item 4 above but with increased diversion of recyclable materials. 6. A system like Item 5 above but with the sort station supplemented with a material I recovery facility, where additional recyclable materials are removed from the delivered waste before the remainder is sent to Pu'uanahulu. I 7. A system like Item 6 above but with the material recovery facility supplemented with bio-conversion capability. The supplemented facility is referred to as a central processing facility. Residual wastes are to be hauled to Pu'uanahulu for 1 disposal. 8. A system like Item 7 above but with the material recovery facility supplemented with waste-to-energy (combustion) capability. The supplemented facility is also referred to as a centralprocessingfacility. Residual wastes are to be hauled to Pu'uanahulu for disposal. I9. A system like Items 5 through 8 but with a mass burn incinerator instead of a sort station, a material recovery facility, or a central processing facility. Residual Iwastes are to be hauled to Pu'uanahulu for disposal. 10.A system with a sort station in east Hawaii; a central processing facility that I would receive the waste streams from both east and west Hawai'i, remove recyclable materials, and generate electricity at a waste to-energy facility; and disposal of residual wastes at Pu'uanahulu. 0710LA Harding ESE 37 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System 11.A system like Item 5 above but with maximum diversion of recyclable materials. All eleven of the alternatives include landfill disposal of residual wastes because there are no practical methods of recycling or otherwise diverting all waste from the landfills. These alternatives focus mainly on the east Hawai'i waste stream because South Hilo Landfill is facing imminent closure whereas west Hawai'i has abundant landfill capacity at Pu'uanahulu. However, methods that are successful in east Hawai'i to reduce the residual waste stream that must be landfilled should be applied in west Hal/ye' as soon as practical to extend the life of Pu'uanahulu Landfill. 3.2 Short List of Alternatives A short list of alternative system components was developed along with criteria with which to judge and select from the alternatives. The alternative system components included1 systems for recycling and reuse to divert waste from the waste stream, waste reduction technologies, and disposal options. The short-listed alternatives are described and discussed in detail below in Subsections 3.2.1 Waste Reduction and Reuse, 3.2.2 Waste Reduction Technologies, and 3.2.3 Disposal. 3.2.1 Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives Criteria for evaluation of various solid waste management alternatives are explained below. The first set of criteria was applied to the short-listed alternatives in all of the topic areas. The second set of criteria, which follows the first set was applied only to individual specific topic areas. Evaluation Criteria Applicable to All Topic Areas • Estimated initial capital cost -- Capital costs of each alternative will be estimated for comparison purposes. • Estimated annual operating cost -- Costs for personnel, fuel, operation and maintenance, and administration, as well as revenues from product sales, will be estimated for comparison purposes. 38 Harding ESE 0710LA Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System • Estimated cost per ton -- Based on projected quantities of solid waste processed, a cost per ton will be estimated. • Facility siting, design, permitting and construction requirements -- Regulatory, planning and decision-making requirements for implementation of each alternative will be identified. • Ownership/Operation -- Potential ownership arrangements, including public and private sector roles, will be identified. • Environmental impacts -- Both negative (e.g. energy use) and positive (e.g. energy generation) environmental impacts will be identified. • Social impacts -- Both negative (e.g. increased traffic) and positive (e.g. convenience of waste services) social impacts will be identified. • Implementation roles and considerations -- Roles of different parties in implementing the alternative will be identified. • Risks -- Potential financial risks will be identified, including the possibility that the alternative could fail to deliver on its promises. Evaluation Criteria Applicable only to Specific Topic Areas • Reduction of east Hawai'i Waste Stream Effectiveness of reduction of east Hawai'i waste stream -- The percentage reduction of the east Hawai'i waste stream that would result from each alternative will be estimated, as well as the specific waste materials that would be targeted. • Disposal of east Hawaii Waste Stream • Impacts on island residents and businesses -- Impacts on specific groups or population segments will be identified. • Island-Wide Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Programs • Reduction of island-wide waste stream -- The percentage diversion of waste from landfill or mixed-waste processing technologies that would result from each alternative will be estimated, as well as the specific waste materials that would be targeted. The alternatives for solid waste management described below were analyzed by applying the above evaluation criteria to them in a set of matrices. The evaluation matrices are 111 included in Appendix C. 0710LA Harding ESE 39 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System 3.2.2 Descriptions of Alternatives The descriptions of the short-listed alternatives for solid waste management are grouped below in three categories: • Section 3.2.2.1 Reduction, Reuse and Recycling, • Section 3.2.2.2 Waste Reduction Technologies, and • Section 3.2.2.3 Disposal, 3.2.2.1 Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Source Reduction and Reuse Source reduction and reuse can be successful methods of reducing waste generation. These are generally the most preferred methods in the hierarchy of solid waste management. Source reduction and reuse have many environmental benefits and can generally be implemented fairly easily and quickly. Source reduction and reuse practices that can be implemented in the County of Hawai'i include grasscycling, backyard composting, two-sided copying of paper, enhancement of reuse activities by existing organizations and providing areas at selected transfer stations for reusable furniture and materials. The City and County of Honolulu manages green waste in various ways. Backyard composting workshops are available for those who are interested. The county collects separated yard waste twice per month in residential areas. Green waste may also be dropped off at 6 convenience centers and at both county transfer stations. Green waste from , commercial and government sources is banned from county disposal facilities. Chipped green waste is made available to residents free of charge for use as mulch. Two commercial enterprises produce compost from green waste for sale. One sells compost in bulk and the other packages compost for sale in garden shops. 40 Harding ESE 0710LA Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System In 2001, the latest year for which data are available, approximately 60,000 tons of green waste was recycled in the City and County of Honolulu. That is approximately 4 per cent of the waste stream. Approximately 140,000 tons of green waste was processed by H- Power or delivered to the county landfill for disposal. The County of Kauai accepts separated green waste at 3 transfer stations and the county landfill. Green waste is accepted from residents free of charge, and commercial haulers pay a tipping fee. The County shreds the green waste, which is given away for use as mulch. Approximately 10,000 tons of green waste per year is diverted from the landfill. That is approximately 12 per cent of the waste stream. I The Countyof Maui offers home composting workshops for those who are interested. p 9 P Green waste may also be delivered to 3 composting companies. Residents are not charged but the composting companies charge a small per-ton fee. A combined total of approximately 1 20,000 tons of green waste were composted last year. That is approximately 9 per cent of the waste stream. The main key for a successful green waste management program is the convenience of collection or drop-off locations. In Hawai'i County, green waste is received at Hilo Transfer Station and Kailua Transfer Station. The waste is chipped and given away for use as mulch. These locations are not very convenient for those who dispose of their waste at the other 19 transfer stations, and more green waste could be diverted from the landfills if there were separate bins for green waste at all the transfer stations. Reuse of discarded items is done informally in most communities, and organizations such as Goodwill Industries and other charitable organizations provide facilities and services involving reuse of discarded items. 0710LA Harding ESE 41 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System Some communities have established recycling/reuse centers that manage both recyclable materials and discarded items that are reusable. Such facilities are generally material recovery facilities (MRFs) with areas and/or shelters to the storage of reusable items. Drop-Off Facilities at Transfer Stations The intent of this option would be to divert additional materials from the east Hawai'i waste stream through expanding drop off services to all or most east-side transfer stations and to utilize the existing system of contracts, diversion credits, and other support for local recycling businesses to handle the collected materials. In addition, it would provide services to residents and would enhance the economies of scale for local recyclers due to the increased tonnage. This alternative could also tie in with the alternative to build a recycling/reuse center. Each of the transfer stations would need to be evaluated for suitability. Additional drop-boxes would need to be purchased; some sites may need to be expanded or altered; and monitoring and collection services would need to be provided. This could be an expansion of the existing services provided at some transfer stations. This expansion could include dedicated areas for recovery of: An expanded list of recyclable materials, e.g. plastics, textiles, etc. 1 • Appliances and electronic equipment • Green waste. ' Enhanced public education through a wide variety of methods is an essential component of this alternative in order to promote wide participation and to instruct the public as to the methods of material preparation. Drop-off centers located at trash disposal sites offer a one-stop convenience to residents. This reinforces recycling as an easy and practical alternative to landfilling. 42 Harding ESE 0710LA I Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System A drop-off location can be equipped with compaction or densification capacity to Iincrease the quantity of materials that can be efficiently transported to a processing facility. Fewer trips with larger payloads greatly improve the efficiency of transportation. IEvery drop-off location should have containers with clear signage that tells residents Iwhat materials are appropriate for that specific container, and they should take advantage of increasing the opportunity to educate citizens. Displays can be particularly useful tools for resident awareness of the range of recyclable materials collected. IDrop-off based recycling systems can be very effective if they are accompanied by supportive policies. For example, Leverett, MA has achieved a 31 percent recycling rate via their drop off system, with another 22 percent from green waste reduction, with a net recycling Icost of$36 per ton. They receive free processing services from the State. Their drop-off facility accepts a wide range of commingled materials and includes a reuse center. They also Ihave pay-as-you-throw and have banned recyclable materials from disposal in their landfill. Mandatory recycling, in which counties pass ordinances that require citizens to I recycle, also has been shown to increase recycling participation. National statistics show that Imandatory programs have over 20 percent higher participation and diversion rates than voluntary programs. I If drop-off centers are operated in with a recycling/reuse center that P P conjunction would process materials, the county should consider collecting mixed recyclable materials, rather than source separated materials. Mixed, or commingled collection, make the Ipreparation of materials more convenient for residents and encourage wider participation. For Icurbside collection systems, national studies have shown that commingling can increase the amount collected by 10-20 percent. The City of Portland, with a recycling-conscious public, IIexperienced a sustained 12 percent increase when it instituted commingling. I 0710LA Harding ESE 43 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System Commingling comes in many forms. The most common are: • A single stream with all recyclable materials, or even all dry wastes, in a single sort. • A two-stream sort with all containers in one sort and all paper in another. • A three-stream sort with all containers except glass in one, glass in a second, and all paper in another. (This sort prevents contamination of other materials with broken glass and enhances the recovery of glass.) There is little consistent data on the costs of drop off recycling systems. Many systems operate with a fair amount of volunteer labor, possibly through community groups or charities, often in exchange for revenue from the materials sold. Hawaii County has opportunities to cooperate with local organizations and community groups to reduce operating costs. The state of Delaware utilizes a system of drop-off locations and has tracked their full costs. With approximately 5 times the population of Hawai'i County, they operate 147 centers, recovering approximately 20,000 tons a year, with a collection cost of$1.8 million and a net processing cost after material revenues of$850,000. Scaled to Hawai'i the annual cost for a comparable drop-off system, assuming comparable operating costs and market revenues, would be just over $500,000. With a commingled collection system, management of the bins at the transfer stations could be easier and.cheaper. However, there is an added cost of processing. For information on processing costs see the Recycling/Reuse Center alternative discussed later in this section. In 2002 through the efforts of the Opala Recycling Enterprise (formerly the Community Recycling Center Task Force), the County of Hawai'i received a grant from U.S. EPA to develop a demonstration Community Recycling Center at the Kea'au Transfer Station. Although the county government will administer the grant, the Opala Recycling Enterprise will carry out this project. The purpose of the project, according to the congressional language 44 Harding ESE 0710LA I Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System that established the grant, is "to establish and implement a community development model for Irenewable resource management by upgrading solid waste transfer stations into community recycling centers." This project will implement a public education program in the Kea'au area I and test a model recycling center with the intent "to collect a full range of material likely to be IIIrecyclable or reusable" through operation of the facility for nine months. Based on the lessons learned from this demonstration facility, the project will develop a strategic plan to replicate the model at other transfer stations, and to develop local markets. This project can be an opportunity for the county to obtain some valuable information about how best to implement this alternative island-wide. The county should assure that it is Ilproperly organized and managed to provide data and information regarding the following key llfactors for implementation of drop-of centers in Hawai'i County: • The waste stream components, including recyclable materials and reusable items Ithat can be effectively received and managed at a typical county transfer station. • The level of citizen participation and recovery of recyclable materials and reusable items that should be projected for the transfer stations, and how participation and recovery can be maximized. • The materials and reusable items that have existing or potentially developable Imarkets, with preference given to on-island markets. • The revenue that can be expected for these materials and reusable items and the I actions that should be taken to enhance the revenue and to develop local markets. I • Space and equipment on site that is required to properly handle these materials and reusable items at a county transfer station. 1 • The configuration of drop-off equipment and signage that works best at a solid waste transfer station to promote recycling. • The materials that can be effectively commingled at the transfer stations to increase convenience to the public and the quantity of materials recovered. • central Processingservices that should be provided byprivate operators at a ce t a recycling/reuse center to handle and market the materials and reusable items from the transfer stations. I 0710LA Harding ESE 45 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System • Support or diversion credits that will be necessary to facilitate public/private partnerships to operate the transfer stations. • Terms and conditions that should be required of private drop-off center operators. • The outreach and education that the county should implement island-wide to increase public support and use of the transfer station system. Recycling/Reuse Center A dedicated recycling facility could serve multiple functions and substantially increase the quantity of material diverted from the east Hawai'i waste stream. A center could provide any or all of the following functions: • A material recovery facility (MRF) to clean, process and prepare for market source separated recyclable materials that are collected at transfer station drop off facilities. • A facility to recover recyclable materials from selected waste streams such a dry commercial waste from businesses that is high in cardboard and office paper. •- A location to aggregate and pack recyclable materials from private operations on the east side to achieve lower shipping rates or better market prices. • A facility to prepare recyclable materials for specially developed on-island markets. - A center to select, repair and market reusable items, including used building materials, that could be either delivered to the center by residents, or recovered at the transfer stations. - A facility to receive and aggregate electronic equipment and white goods for 1 recycling and proper disposal. - A location to sell or give-away mulch and compost products. l - A collection facility for household hazardous wastes, batteries, tires or other problem wastes. A key component of a recycling/reuse center would be the MRF for source separated recyclable materials, a "clean MRF". Clean MRFs can be either low- or high-technology depending on the amount of sophisticated mechanical sorting. For Hawai'i's purposes a low- tech facility would be most practical, including hand sorting of materials that are moving on 46 Harding ESE 0710LA I Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System elevated conveyors, material holding bunkers, a glass crusher, a horizontal baler, and mobile Imaterial handling equipment. Implementation of a new facility, funded in part by government, must be cautious to I not undermine existing recycling operations and end up simply displacing, or even reducing, Ithe amount of material that is being diverted by those operations. A multi-purpose recycling/reuse center that is opened for operation by private businesses should enhance Iexisting operations rather than undermine them. How the project is implemented will be critical Ito assuring increased recycling. Consequently such a facility plan should be developed in close consultation with the local recycling industry. IIt is difficult to estimate costs since the services provided at a recycling/reuse center Ihave not been selected. For planning purposes a 25 ton-per day-low-technology clean MRF could have a capital cost of$2 to $2.5 million. The annual operating cost would approach $1/2 Imillion, or in the $55-70 per ton range. A high-tech facility to process 100 tons-per-day could easily double both capital and annual operating costs. I Mixed Waste Processing Facility— "Dirty" MRF IA "Dirty" MRF is defined as a material recovery facility that receives mixed solid waste for separation of marketable or reusable products. They are also called mixed waste Iprocessing facilities. The separation techniques include several different types of equipment Iused in processing waste materials: Manual Systems: I • Dumpand Pick in which waste materials are tipped on a floor and crew members PP pick through the materials, possibly with the aid of Bobcats. I • Conveyor sorting systems in which workers manually remove selected materials from the waste stream moving along a conveyor belt. I 0710LA Harding ESE 47 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System Mechanical Systems — In addition to equipment that supports manual sorting, more highly mechanical systems utilize: • Bag openers which open garbage bags to provide access to materials. • Trommel screens which tumble the waste inside a rotatingcylinder with different size holes for separating waste by particle size. • Disc and vibrating screens which move waste over a flat screen with holes to separate materials by size and density. • Air classifiers that use a stream of air to separate materials by density. • Magnets that recover ferrous metals from the waste stream. • Non-ferrous metal separators, such as eddy current separators, which separate aluminum and other metals. • Optical scanners for separation of colors of glass or grades of plastics. • Balers and other densifiers for packingmaterial for shipment to market. P Most dirty MRFs use a substantial amount of mechanical equipment since the amount of required sorting is much greater than for a source separated material MRF. However, they also have a high level of manual separation since waste materials are difficult to process into pure, marketable streams by means of only their physical characteristics such as size and density. The number of Dirty MRFs nationally, 52, is much fewer than MRFs that accept only ' separated recyclable materials (MRFs thataccept separated but commingled recyclable materials ), which includes nearly 470 facilities. California has just more than half of the Dirty MRFs nationally, due to their legislation that mandatesa high recycling rate and the presence of public subsidies. 48 Harding ESE 0710LA ' Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System Dirty MRFs are frequently sited in conjunction with a transfer station, landfill or a compost facility, and process a variety of different types of material streams. The most common varieties process: • Household waste from commercial haulers and transfer stations for recovery of ferrous metals, marketable paper, recyclable containers, etc. • Commercial and perhaps household loads for recovery of organic materials. • Select paper-rich commercial loads, e.g., commercial collection routes designed to include only office buildings. • Select C&D-rich and yard trimmings-rich self haul and commercial loads. • Mixed waste to prepare Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) a compostable feedstock by removing bulky wastes, non-organics, and some recyclables, with possible size- reduction for fuel preparation. Though the number of MRFs overall is continually growing nationally, the number of Dirty MRFs has seen a 17 percent drop since 1997, with more closures expected. The causes are many, including their high capital costs, lower than anticipated recovery rates, operating difficulties, and demanding market specification regarding the cleanliness of materials. Dirty MRFs have been termed "somewhat of an endangered species" (Eileen Berenyi of Governmental Advisory Associates). Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Recovery C&D waste consists of several recoverable materials, including metal, concrete, rock and rubble, asphalt, gypsum, wood, and cardboard. Cardboard and metals can be marketed off-island. However, many of the other materials can be reused on-island. The presence of treated lumber in Hawai'i —the hazardous contaminants it contains and the difficulty of distinguishing it from untreated lumber— present an additional complexity to recycling old wood. 0710LA Harding ESE 49 1 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System A program to reduce the C&D waste stream in Hawai'i County requires four steps that would need to be coordinated around a strategy to target specific materials for recovery. The four steps are as follow: i. Separating Processible Materials at Construction/Demolition Sites It requires a combination of educational efforts and incentives, and possibly regulatory requirements, to transform industry practices. Educational outreach materials for the construction industry are available from Hawai'i's Advanced Building Technologies Program. Education must be combined with higher tipping fees for disposal. C&D separation and recovery can save money for developers, but this must be demonstrated and promoted. County building regulations, such as a requirement for a material recycling planto receive a demolition or construction permit, can further encourage participation. ii. Delivering Processible Materials to a Processing Facility This is primarily an economic issue since it requires keeping loads clean of contaminating materials and delivering them to the processing center. The difference between the tip fee at the processing center and at the transfer station /landfill is the key factor. iii. Processing Materials for Recovery Wood that has been processed in a tub grinder or hammermill can be used as fuel or, if clean of contaminants, as a bulking agent for composting. Crushed concrete and rock can be used as aggregate. Clean drywall from new construction can be added to compost. Given the relatively small size of the Hawai'i County eastside waste stream, a facility dedicated to specific C&D materials, such as debris from new construction only, is more likely to be more cost feasible. Such a facility would likely be low-tech-involving dumping and manual sorting. 1 50 Harding ESE 0710LA Alternatives for Improvement of the.Solid Waste Management System iv. Building Markets for Recovered Materials ' An essential predecessor to investing in a facility to recover C&D materials is to develop product-marketing plans and to work with potential local users to assure strong markets. The composition study found C&D material in the east Hawai'i waste stream to be 12,000 tons or 18 percent. A typical processing facility could have 20 percent residue, resulting in a net reduction of up to nearly 10,000 tons or 14 percent of the waste stream, assuming that a wide range of C&D materials are recovered. Residue materials can often be used for clean fill or disposed in a landfill dedicated to inert materials. It is difficult to estimate the costs for building a C&D processing facility since the materials that will be handled, and therefore the equipment needed, are variable. Operating costs for C&D processing are substantially lower than for MSW or for source separated recyclables, and can.be in the $20 per ton range. These costs should allow for a lower tipping fee than for MSW. Contractors who are operating for-profit businesses generate the largest portion of C&D waste. The key factor for success of a C&D diversion program is to make the cost of alternative management less than landfill disposal. When contractors realize economic benefits by recycling or discarding waste in C&D facilities, less of these materials will be delivered to the landfills. 3.2.2.2 Waste Reduction Technologies 1 Waste-to-Energy (Combustion) ) There are two basic technologies within MSW combustion: • Mass burn in which MSW12 is burned as it is received, and 12 MSW is Municipal Solid Waste and refers generally to mixed,that is, non-source separated,wastes. 0710LA Harding ESE 51 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System • Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) in which MSW is size-reduced before burning and processed into a "fluff' or pellets. Either of the systems may include a pre-burn MRF that separates and removes recyclable and unburnable materials from the combustor feed stock. RDF systems may separate some recyclable or non-burnable materials mechanically after shredding. There are three main types of combustion technologies for MSW: • Mass burn stokers use moving grates to move and agitate the waste. • Rotary kiln incinerators use a revolving, slightly inclined cylinder to tumble the waste during combustion. • Fluidized bed incinerators use a heated bed of sand-like material within which RDF is suspended (fluidized) by a rising column of air. Fluidized bed combustion is considered an improvement for high-moisture content fuels, such as MSW. The scrubbing action of the bed material, which may include lime, increases the rate of combustion and thermal efficiency, minimizes char, and reduces emissions. MSW combustion can reduce the volume of burnable waste (after removal of recyclable and non-burnable materials) by up to 90 percent by volume. It is estimated that the parts of the east Hawaii waste stream that cannot be incinerated plus the ash from the parts that can be incinerated totals approximately 23 percent. That is the residual waste that would be sent to a landfill for disposal. Most systems generate hot water and steam, which can drive electricity-generating turbines. Air pollution control is critical for MSW combustion and can amount to 30 percent of the system cost. Dust particles are typically trapped in filters and other pollutants are removed in exhaust scrubbing units. Combustors can receive the full MSW stream, but usually problem materials, such as large appliances, are removed. Attempts may also be made to remove toxic materials, such as occur in electronic equipment, through disposal bans or other means. 52 Harding ESE 0710LA I Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System Energy is the primary product of MSW combustion, though some systems recover Iferrous and other metals from the ash. From an environmental perspective, combustion systems produce several pollutants of concern, especially dioxins, furans, carbon monoxide, acid gases, metals, volatile organic Icompounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. These result from incomplete combustion or characteristics of the combustion environment. They can Ibe cleaned from the combustion air. Emissions of airborne pollutants (including dioxins and Ifurans) from MSW combustion facilities are subject to strict limits in federal regulations. Combustion can also concentrate metals in the ash, possibly requiring its disposal as a hazardous waste. Currently ash from MSW combustors is not considered by the regulatory Iagencies to be hazardous, but the ash must not be mixed with other wastes in landfills. Combustion emits large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. However, except for Iplastics, most of the carbon in MSW was drawn from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, resulting in only a small net contribution to global warming. If MSW combustion produces I energy that replaces fossil fuel consumption, it should result in a net reduction of atmospheric Icarbon. MSW combustion is a fully commercialized process and is widely implemented with I over three hundred units in operation in the United States includingover a hundred small P I combustion units (handling 100 tons per day or less). Aerobic Composting of MSW IMSW composting involves the decomposition of large organic molecules through the Iaction of microorganisms in the presence of oxygen. The essential operational characteristics for effective composting include: I • Achieving and maintaining elevated temperatures so that the proper microorganisms can thrive and accomplish decomposition, I 0710LA Harding ESE 53 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System • Aeration of the material to prevent growth of anaerobic organisms, and • Adequate residence time to achieve compost maturity as measured by stabilization of the compost process and the proper carbon/nitrogen ratio. Therima c p ry objectiveis to produce an evenly and thoroughly composted material, and to assure complete kill of weed seeds and destruction of pathogens. Composting includes a variety of technologies, both enclosed (in-vessel) and open systems. Open systems commonly use windrows that can either be static piles with forced aeration, or piles that are turned to expose the material to air. In-vessel systems, though higher in capital cost, provide the best control of the composting process including air supply and temperature. 111 Another form of composting, called vermicomposting, uses worms to digest organic materials. Organic material is converted into worm biomass and feces, which can be readily separated from inert residue. An advantage of vermicomposting is that the worms will not ingest inert or contaminating material, so that the final compost product is very fine and high quality. Composting systems receive and process the organic fraction of MSW. This fraction can be delivered in different forms: 1. Un-segregated MSW, without any previous source separation of recyclable or undesirable (e.g. household hazardous wastes) materials, 2. The wet (organic) fraction from a wet-dry collection system after source separation of recyclable or undesirable materials, or 3. Source separated organics. The most compatible materials for MSW composting are food waste, green waste, woody material, paper and other organics. Approximately 54 percent of the east Hawaii waste stream would be compatible feedstock for MSW composting. The residual 46 percent of the waste would be sent to a landfill for disposal. 54 Harding ESE 0710LA Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management.System Products of aerobic composting include primarily soil amendments used in agriculture or landscaping. The quality of the compost is sensitive to both the process and the degree to which undesirable material has been excluded from the waste. Potential resort users would be Iespecially sensitive to potential contamination and compost quality. A waste stream with an industrial component, or where household hazardous wastes have not been separated, can result in contaminated compost. MSW composting is fully commercialized and widely implemented, especially in Europe, with 12 facilities operating in the U.S. as of 1995. However, facilities have faced a number of public perception and technical problems. A primary problem is odor, since organic decomposition always generates odor. Many plants have been shut down due to odor problems and costs have increased for others to combat odor. In addition there have been reported occurrences of the emission of harmful airborne fungi, and the presence of metals in the compost product. There was a decline in MSW compost facilities nationwide of 25 percent between 1992and 1995 due to public opposition and technical problems. However, it has been demonstrated that compost facilities can be operated with a minimum of off-site odor, but this requires good implementationof both technology and management. Facility siting is also a critical factor. With in-vessel systems the exhaust air can be more easily cleaned, eliminating odors. From an environmental perspective, aerobic composting is a net consumer of energy, since it produces no energy in a usable form to offset the process energy. Also, if the feedstock includes hazardous materials, they could end up as contaminants in the final compost. Different sources conflict over comparative emissions of carbon from composting versus anaerobic digestion. Composting is considered to generate somewhat less global 0710LA Harding ESE 55 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System warming gases than landfilling due to the avoidance of methane emissions, however this is offset by the fact that woody material does not degrade fully in a landfill, sequestering carbon. Greenhouse gas emissions for composting are approximately the same as incineration. Thermal Gasification Waste can be heated in a controlled oxygen environment to drive off reduced or only partly oxidized gases. A variety of different technologies, all of which drive off biogas from the waste, fall within this group, including: • Pyrolysis, which heats the waste in the absence of oxygen. • Gasification, which heats the waste and reacts it with a controlled input of oxygen. • Plasma arc, which runs high voltage electricity through the waste, in the absence of oxygen. Some of the technologies may include vitrification of the residue, in which the residue is transformed into a stable, non-leachable, glassy material. There are many vendors developing somewhat differenttechnologies, but all of which- generate.a biogas fuel that is either burned on site or purified and sold. Potentially these technologies could convert the synthetic gas to hydrogen for utilization in a fuel cell. ' Some sources claim that these emerging technologies are the advent of a new age in waste processing. They call them "molecular recycling", see them as a major alternative to fossil fueldependency, and urge that they be designated as a new level in the waste management hierarchy, not to be lumped with combustion. Thermal transformation processes the organic fraction similar to mass burn', but in some cases the residue may be vitrified. The waste is generally first processed to an RDF. Pyrolysis and other thermal transformation technologies may also be used for tires, auto shredder residues, and sewage sludge. 56 Harding ESE 0710LA I Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System The products of thermal transformation are a biogas fuel, and can include energy and a compost product. For planning purposes, it is estimated that the parts of the east Hawai'i waste stream that can not be processed plus the residue from the process totals approximately I 42 percent. That is the residual waste that would be sent to a landfill for disposal. IPlasma arc technology, which is used for hazardous materials and medical waste, has the added advantage that its process results in an inert, vitrified mass, which will not leach Icontaminants. Proponents claim that the residue can even be used as a construction material. If so, this would be the only technology that could potentially not require a landfill for residues. I These technologies have certain advantages over combustion: I • The energy conversion efficiencies are higher, • Less air is used, requiring less pollution control, and • The synthetic gas can be either used on site or transported. These technologies are not now fully commercialized for MSW in the U.S., though Isome plants are operational in Europe. However, prototypes for MSW are in pre- commercialization or early-commercialization stage. Several of these technologies have been Idemonstrated at the rate of several tons per hour. It is expected that a number of plants will be Iconstructed in Europe over the next several years. Capital and operating costs for gasification technologies are generally similar to Iowner-operated mass burn facilities. IFrom an environmental perspective, many of the same benefits claimed for anaerobic digestion apply also to thermal processing. Also, they are net producers of energy and Ioperate within a controlled environment that can control potential pollution problems. I I 071 OLA Harding ESE 57 Alternatives for Improvement of the SolidWaste Management System Anaerobic Digestion . Anaerobic digestion entails the breakdown of large organic molecules through the . • action of microorganisms. The process occurs in the absence of oxygen through containing it in an airtight vessel, called a reactor or digester. A different set of microorganisms, or bacteria, are involved than occurs in aerobic composting. Low solids anaerobic digestion for wastewater is relatively common. High solids processes, such as used for solid waste, are less numerous and do not have.a long history. - Several different digester technologies have been implemented. Most common'are cylindrical vessels with a vertical or horizontal turbine to mix and move the material. Following anaerobic process, the solids may be cured in standard composting type systems. The digestion process occurs through the combined action of a consortium of, generally, four different microorganisms, attacking the organic molecules at different stages in the breakdown, and under different environmental conditions. Anaerobic digestion targets the same materials as MSW composting, but not including wood, since woody material does not decompose completely in a reactor. Approximately 50 percent of the east Hawai'i waste stream would be compatible feedstock for ' digestion. The residual 50 percent would be sent to a landfill for disposal. The useful products of anaerobic digestion include biogas — methane' (between 55 percent and 95 percent of the. product) and carbon dioxide. It can also produce.a stabilized compost product. Anaerobic digestion has several advantages over aerobic digestion, or composting: • A high degree of reduction of organic matter is achieved with a relatively small amount of bacterial biomass. • The biogas produced can be used as an energy source. • Reduction of toxic compounds. 58 _ Harding ESE 0710LA Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System Also, the solid end product of anaerobic digestion (digestate) can be matured into a ' compost product, which is reported to have a higher nitrogen content than compost, since ammonia is not volatilized in the process. However, more thorough testing is required. Anaerobic digestion of wastes entails creating andmanaging a microbial ecological system. As such it is highly sensitive to the feedstock and a variety of environmental factors. Mixed solid wastes are extremely difficult to digest, due to their heterogeneity and toxic chemicals. The process is fully commercialized in use for sewage sludge, livestock or agricultural waste and, less commonly, for food waste. A substantially greater capital investment is required than for composting, but the net costs per ton are approximately the same, and about half those of incineration. Treatment of MSW is a relatively new application of the technology, and poses special considerations. There are over 115 full-scale plants digesting MSW worldwide in operation or under construction, with five million tons of installed capacity. In the U.S. new firms are arising with the intent to commercialize anaerobic systems. From an environmental perspective, since all gases are contained in anaerobic digestion, they are available for use and are not emitted into the atmosphere. In addition biogas can reduce society's dependency on fossil fuels. The biomass contained in MSW was, for the most part, originally produced by photosynthesis of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Its return to the atmosphere from the combustion of MSW-generated biogas does not therefore add a net atmospheric carbon load. Bio-Refining Biorefining involves the breakdown of large organic molecules in waste through hydrolysis by acids, enzymes or stream. (Hydrolysis is the use of water [oxygen and hydrogen] to decompose another molecule.) Biorefining is used here to distinguish processes 0710LA Harding ESE 59 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management,System that use physical and/or chemical reactions for the initial decomposition or waste, as distinct from composting and anaerobic digestion, which use microorganisms. In application, biorefineries may also use microorganisms for fermentation of sugars after the initial decomposition. The most common process is: • To hydrolyze cellulose into glucose, and • Then to ferment the glucose into alcohol. Biorefining is being used increasingly on organic waste streams, especially agricultural wastes, to produce ethanol. However, cheap fossil fuels combined with efforts by the fossil fuel and automobile industries have prevented its wide scale development. Processes are now emerging for producing ethanol from MSW. Biorefineries receive and process the same fraction of MSW as composting and anaerobic digestion. Approximately 50 percent of the east Hawai'i waste stream would be compatible feedstock for biorefining. The residual 50 percent would be sent to a landfill for disposal. Biorefineries produce a wide range of commodities such as food ingredients, pharmaceuticals, and industrial fibers, adhesives and other chemicals. The primary products 1 from MSW would be ethanol as an energy source. Alternatively, biodiesel is generally produced from waste cooking oil. The technology is currently in pre-commercialization or early-commercialization stage for MSW. A plant is being built in New York to process 230,000 tons/year of MSW and 49,000 tons/year of sewage sludge. The process will include co-collection of recyclables and garbage (in separate bags) and claims it will achieve 90 percent landfill reduction. It includes a Dirty MRF on the front end to separate recyclables and an acid hydrolysis/fermentation digester to produce a market-grade ethanol. Methane is also produced, which is used on site for process energy. 60 Harding ESE 0710LA Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System Acid hydrolysis is the closest to commercialization, though enzymatic hydrolysis, if it can overcome the high cost of purchasing cellulose-decomposing enzymes, also has its proponents. I From an environmental perspective, ethanol has definite benefits as a replacement for fossil fuel, from the perspectives of both resource conservation and global climate change. Ethanol can be used as a fuel, or as an anti-knock additive to gasoline to replace lead and IMTBE. The biorefining process is reported to be environmentally benign. 1 3.2.2.3 Disposal Haul to Pu'uanahulu Landfill IIf the county decides to operate only one landfill on the island of Hawai'i, a new sort Istation would be sited in east Hawai'i, possibly near South Hilo Landfill and the existing transfer station. However, unlike the existing county transfer stations, this facility would Iinclude a material recovery facility (MRF) to reduce the waste stream and equipment to load, Icompact and densify waste in long-haul trailers. The trailers would then be hauled to Pu'uanahulu Landfill for disposal. IBased on the current waste stream but depending on the reduction actually achieved Iat this sort station, less than 10 loads per day would haul waste to the landfill. The sort station would occupy about 10 acres and include an indoor tipping floor where private vehicles, Icommercial collection trucks, and county trucks from outlying transfer stations could deposit their loads, either manual or mechanical sorting systems, equipment to pick up, place and I compact the waste in the trailers, and storage for recovered materials. IIt appears likely that other waste management alternatives cannot be implemented before South Hilo Landfill reaches capacity and must be closed. Therefore, hauling residual Iwaste to Pu'uanahulu will probably be a necessary interim solution for management of the east Hawai'i waste stream. However, a sort station should at least reduce the amount of 0710LA Harding ESE 61 • Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System waste transported and thus minimize cross-island traffic by consolidating and compacting the loads and removing recyclable materials from the loads to be hauled. A new sort station will be a costly facility, and should be designed to be incorporated into a long-term system that will be implemented to manage the east Hawai'i waste stream. New Landfill in East Hawaii Since October 1993, MSW landfill construction and operations are governed by federal (RCRA Subtitle D) and state (HAR Title 11, Chapter 58.1) regulations. The new regulations make landfilling waste much more expensive than before because of requirements for liners, leachate control, landfill gas control, daily and final cover, groundwater monitoring, post-closure care, operator training, and much more. The liabilities for environmental effects of leachate and landfill gas releases also increased dramatically. Although the changes in landfill regulations have generally led,to renewed interest in alternative technologies for solid waste management, landfilling remains the only economical option for discarding some wastes including the residuals from some other processes. The main challenge to developing a new landfill in east Hawai'i is management of leachate. Throughout most of east Hawai'i, average annual rainfall exceeds potential i evapotranspiration, and lined landfills in such an environment will produce large quantities of leachate. Such leachate must be treated before it may be discharged, and the operating costs for leachate treatment would likely equal the operating costs of the landfill itself. Of all the waste management alternatives considered, landfilling in east Hawai'i is the most costly because leachate treatment adds approximately $50.per ton to the expenses. For comparison, trucking the east Hawai'i waste stream to Pu'uanahulu adds approximately $20 of expense. 62 - Harding ESE 0710LA Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System Except for the production of large amounts of leachate and appurtenant leachate 1 control and treatment facilities, a new landfill in east Hawai'i would resemble the facility at Pu'uanahulu Landfill. Recent experience in Hawai'i and elsewhere has shown that the time required to open a new landfill after the decision is made is at least 5 years. Landfilling remains the most common method of solid waste management in the United States. In 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated there were more than 3,500 landfills in the United States and about 57 percent of the generated waste is still disposed of in landfills. Landfills are becoming less popular in Europe: some countries there now have legislated against raw waste landfilling, and interest in alternative technologies is growing. In this country, it has become increasingly difficult to site and obtain permits for landfills because few want these facilities as neighbors. This feeling is particularly acute in the state of Hawai'i because of limited land area. The state legislature enacted a law that established a preference for source reduction, recycling and bioconversion over landfilling because of environmental and economic benefits to be gained by reducing the amount of wastes that go into landfills. Bioreactor Landfill Bioreactor landfills are a recently developed technology for managing landfills to ivof landfills designed the decomposition of solid waste. One of the objectives a d .fill s des gned and operated in accordance with RCRA Subtitle D regulations is to exclude moisture and remove leachate so that it cannot affect underlying groundwater. Bioreactor landfills, however, are tmanaged in a moist condition to create an environment in the waste that promotes rapid decomposition. Usually leachate is circulated through the waste and, at some facilities in arid climates, moisture is added when necessary. In Hilo however, rainfall would provide more than adequate moisture for bioreactor landfills; and in fact, there would still be surplus leachate that would require treatment and disposal. 0710LA Harding ESE 63 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System In addition to managing the moisture content of the waste, bioreactor landfills capture landfill gas from which methane can be separated and used for fuel. The waste in bioreactor landfills is covered with an impermeable membrane and piping systems to collect the gases. Besides fuel production, the benefits of accelerated decomposition include reduction of the waste mass and therefore increased capacity, reduction in the release of greenhouse gases, long-term improvement in the quality of leachate, and earlier stabilization of the landfill after closure which facilitates post-closure care. Landfill waste volume reduction is expected to be 30 to 40 per cent. V In.the past two to three years, bioreactor landfills have been constructed in Virginia, California, and North Carolina. All are demonstration projects and all needed special relaxation of regulations to proceed. Liquids are normally banned from landfills, so permission was required to add moisture in the landfill in California. The east coast landfills have liner systems that are not strictly in compliance with RCRA Subtitle D regulatory standards (although they are alternative systems approved by state regulations as allowed in the federal regulations). Bioreactor landfilling remains an experimental technology and needs further 1 development to be a-fully mature, commercial-scale technology. 3.3 Evaluation and Selection of Alternatives Comparison of the alternatives with the evaluation criteria was done with a set of matrices, which are included in Appendix C. The SWAC, in the end, opted for the following: • Construct no new landfill in east Hawai'i; • Emphasize the recovery of recyclable materials at the planned east Hawai'i sort station; . 64 Harding ESE V 0710LA ' I Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System P 9 Y • Procure a waste reduction facility for the east Hawai'i waste stream using either waste-to-energy combustion, thermal gasification, or anaerobic digestion Itechnology; and • Establish a county recycling program with a long list of elements that has the Ipotential to increase the waste diversion significantly. The SWAC rejected new landfill development as an alternative for disposal of Iresidual waste. Under federal regulations now in force, new landfills must have liner systems to collect and manage water that comes into contact with waste (leachate). In areas where rainfall exceeds potential evaporation, treatment of leachate will be a major additional Iexpense. Average annual rainfall in almost all areas of the east side of the island of Hawai'i Ifrom Na'alehu to Waimea exceeds potential evaporation. The cost per ton for landfilling solid waste near Hilo would be approximately twice as much as the cost per ton for managing with a Iwaste reduction facility and approximately 50 per cent more than disposal at Pu'uanahulu ILandfill, including transportation costs. The SWAC rejected a stand-alone "dirty MRF", aerobic composting of MSW, andbio- Irefining for waste reduction. The planned sort station will incorporate features of a MRF, and the sort station will become part of a waste reduction facility. However, a "dirty MRF" by itself I would not adequately reduce the amount of residual waste that would be transported to IPu'uanahulu Landfill for disposal if a waste reduction facility were not provided. The SWAC deemed an anaerobic composting facility unsuitable because of the potential for offensive I odors from such a facility. Bio-refining was rerejected because of lack of evidence that it is a J I commercially viable technology. There is one known example of a bio-refining facility that manages MSW, and it has been operation for only a few years. IThe SWAC rejected Pay-as-You-Throw because it would require radical changes in Ithe present system and, thus, would not be practical to implement. Disposal fees and user fees in general are often regarded as new taxes when first introduced, particularly if there are I 0710LA Harding ESE 65 Alternatives for Improvement of the Solid Waste Management System no offsetting reductions in other taxes. Furthermore, there were concerns that charging fees for disposal of household waste may result in increased illegal dumping of trash on the sides of lightly traveled roads and other out-of-the-way places in the county. Disposal fees are used in many communities; and by a combination of providing convenient drop-off sites, bulky item pick-up service, and increased enforcement and fines, illegal dumping can be controlled. Once communities become committed to new waste management practices and develop new habits, neighborhood watches, community associations, and police support work together against illegal dumping. 1 66 Harding ESE 0710LA 4.0 Plan Implementation 4.1 System Components The plan for improving the solid waste system of Hawaii County includes four major components: 1. Source reduction, reuse, and recycling; 2. Collection and transportation; 3. Waste conversion / reduction processing; and 4. Residual waste disposal. Planned facilities or programs corresponding to each of these major components are discussed below and summarized in Table 8. The planned system includes waste management components that continue or carry forward from the original 1993 ISWMP plus new components introduced in this addendum. The components that continue or carry forward from the 1993 ISWMP are indicated in the ' remarks column of Table 8. This addendum does not cancel any of the program from the 1993 ISWMP, however a few items were cancelled by the County Council resolution that adopted the plan, notably mandatory curbside collection of residential waste. The resolution 1 also called for consideration by the County Council of a recommendation by the County Administration regarding operation of only one landfill in the county. A review of the components of the 1993 ISWMP andpresent status is presented in Table 1 in Section 1 of this P addendum: Table 9 also presents a listing the elements of the ISWMP and the addendum 1 referenced to the parts of the documents in which the elements are located. 0710LA Harding ESE 67 Plan Implementation Table 8. Summary of ISWMP Components Year to be Implemented .-.Remarks Source Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling:Program Hire County Recycling Coordinator Year 1 Increase Budget for Promotion and Education Year 1 and Subsequent Years Ban Yard Trimmings at Transfer Stations and Landfills Year 4 Upgrade Transfer Stations Carried forward from 1993 ISWMP a. Establish Drop-Off Centers at Transfer Stations Year 1, 2 and 3- b. -b. , Establish Drop-Off Centers at Shopping Centers, etc. `Year 2 and 3 c. Reconfigure Transfer Stations to Emphasize Recycling Year 4 and 5 Increase Funding for Waste Diversion Program. . - Year 1 and Subsequent Years Establish County Policy to Restrain Disposal of Recyclable Materials Year 1 Increase Tipping Fees at Landfills Year 1 Enhance C&D Waste Recovery Year.1 and Subsequent Years Emphasize Recycling in Design of Sort Station Year 1 Increase Incentives for Diversion of Clean C&D Wastes Year 3 Phase-in Landfill Bans on Recyclable C&D Wastes. Year 2 Enhance Local Markets for Recyclable Materials Year 1 and Subsequent.Years Institute New Fee System for Waste Management Year 1 Sort Station Funding Year 1 Select consultant _ Year 1 Environmental Assessment Year 1 Planning and Design Year 1 Bid and Award Year 1 ' Permitting Year 1 Construction Year 1 and 2 ' Haul Residual East Hawaii Waste to Pu'uanahulu Landfill . Year 2, 3, 4 and 5 ' 68 Harding ESE 0710LA Plan Implementation Table 8. Summary of ISWMP Components (Continued) Year to be Implemented Remarks Waste Reduction Facility Develop Financing Scheme Year 1 Select Project Delivery Method Year 1 Consultant Selection /Procurement Year 1 Solicitation of Expressions of Interest from Prospective Vendors Year 1 Prepare Solicitation Year 1 Advertise Year 1 Site Selection/Survey Year 1 RFP Year 1 Preparation of Request for Proposal Year 1 Solicitation / Publication Year 1 Pre-Submittal Meeting Year 1 Clarification/Modification Year 2 Receipt of Proposals Year 2 Evaluation of Proposals Year 2 Contract Negotiation Year 2 Award Contract Year 2 Planning and Design 35% Yearn EIS Year 2 EIS Preparation Year 3 EIS Public Review& Hearing Year 3 EIS Revision (if necessary) Year 3 Design 65% Year 3 and 4 Permitting Year 4 Design 100% , Year 4 Construction Year 5 Operation Year 6 69 Harding ESE 0710LA Plan Implementation Table 8. Summary of ISWMP Components (Continued) Year to be Implemented Remarks Close South Hilo Landfill Consultant Selection, Procurement Year 1 Environmental Assessment Year 1 Design, Contract Documents Preparation Year 2 Contract Procurement ' Year 2 Closure Construction Year 2 and 3 Administration Establish Solid Waste Division as Utility Enterprise Year 1 and Subsequent Years Carried forward from 1993 ISWMP Establish Solid Waste Fees as Part of Property Tax Billing Year 4 Update of ISWMP on 5-Year Schedule Year 5 Continuation from 1993 ISWMP Waste Characterization of West Hawaii Waste Stream Year 5 Carried forward from 1993 ISWMP Special Waste Program ' Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program ' ' Year 1 and Subsequent Years Continuation from 1993 ISWMP Abandoned Vehicle Program Year 1 and Subsequent Years Continuation from 1993 ISWMP Ban on White Goods with Refrigerants - Year 1 and Subsequent Years 'Continuation from 1993 ISWMP Retail Waste Oil Collection or Fee- Year 1 and Subsequent Years Continuation from 1993 ISWMP Fee for Disposal of White Goods ' Year 1 Carried forward from 1993 ISWMP Fee for'Disposal of Tires Not Applicable Deferred to state Advance Disposal Fee for Waste Oil Not Applicable Deferred to state Fee for Failure to Return Lead/Acid Batteries Not Applicable Deferred to state • 70 Harding ESE ' 0710LA Plan Implementation ITable 9. Summary of Plan Recommendations from ISWMP (Barrett, 1993) and 2002 Addendum Program 1993 Plan 2002 Addendum Remarks - I System Full-scale waste ISWMP East Hawai'i study Add'm Carry forward Administration characterization study Section done App. C recommendation planned for entire county 11-7, for west Hawaii 12.3.1 study I Establish Solid Waste ISWMP No change Add'm Carry forward Division as utility Section Section enterprise 11-7.1 4.4 I Evaluate privatization of ISWMP Recommend Add'm Clarified by court system elements Section recycling services be Section action and 11-4.3 .. provided by private 4.1.1.1 subsequent enterprises legislation I Implement review and ISWMP Not addressed Carry forward approval process Table 12-4 I Establish an enterprise ISWMP Already zone Table accomplished, not 12-4 addressed by Addendum I Update ISWMP ISWMP Accomplished with Add'm Carry forward Section Addendum all recommendation 12.5 sections I Hire a Source Reduction ISWMP Hire County Recycling Add'm Hiring process is and Public Information Section . Coordinator Section already in progress Liaison, Recycling 11-2.3, 4.1.1.2 Coordinator 11.2.5 I Source User fee(tipping fee)for ISWMP Recommend Add'm Carry forward Reduction and non-residential refuse Section increasing the fees Section Public 11-2.2 4.1.1.2, Information 4.4.2 I Hawai'i County recycling ISWMP No change Carry forward logo Section 11-2.2 I Printed material ISWMP No change Maintain, enhance development and Section distribution 11-2.2 School recycling ISWMP No change Maintain, enhance I education program Section 11-2.2 County procurement ISWMP Not addressed Carry forward I policy Section 11-2.2 Seminar program for ISWMP Not addressed Carry forward educators Section 11-2.2 Backyard composting ISWMP No change Maintain, enhance program and workshops Section 11-2.2 I Speakers bureau ISWMP Not addressed Carry forward Section 11-2.2 I Award recognition ISWMP Not addressed Carry forward program Section 11-2.2 0710LA Harding ESE 71 Plan Implementation Table 9. Summary of Plan Recommendations from I ISWMP (Barrett, 1993)and 2002 Addendum (continued) Program 1993 Plan 2002 Addendum '"Remarks. I Source Slide and video ISWMP Not addressed Carry forward Reduction and presentation Section Public 11-2.2 Information Business group ISWMP Not addressed Carry forward (continued) workshops 'Section 11-2.2 User fee for residential ISWMP Not recommended at Add'm Carry forward for refuse Section this time 4.1.1.2, future 11-2.2 4.4 Advance disposal fees ISWMP Recommend Add'm Deferred to state Section increasing the fee for 2.4.4:1 for items other than 11-2.2 vehicles, no change vehicles otherwise Waste exchanges ISWMP No change Deferred to state Section 11-2.2I Product bans ISWMP No change Deferred to state Section 11-2.2 . Ban yard trimmings at Add'm transfer stations and 4.1.1.2 landfills ' Increase funding for Add'm waste diversion 4.1.1.2 • _program. ' _ _ Establish policy to ' Add'm restrain disposal of 4.1.1.2 recyclable materials Bioconversion Pilot-scale green waste ISWMP Not addressed Privately done and Composting composting facility Section (Renew Hawaii) 11-3.1 and now discontinued. Two full-scale green ISWMP Maintain and expand Add'm - Mulching facilities I waste composting or Section ' to incorporate green 4.1.1.2 continue to operate mulching facilities 11-3.2, waste from transfer ' in Hilo and Kailua- 11-3.4 stations ' Kona Recycling 'Curbside-collection of. ISWMP Not addressed Mandatory curbside recyclable materials in Section . collection rejected Hilo and Kailua-Kona 11-4.5 by County Council . in 1994 Two material recovery ISWMP Recommendation for Add'm Carry forward facilities(MRF) Section one material recovery Section . recommendation 11-4.2 facility in conjunction 4.1.1.2. for west Hawaii with a sort station ' 4.1.2 ' facility in the future' = Upgrade transfer stations ISWMP Establish drop-off ' Add'm Carry forward for recyclable materials Section centers at transfer Section and green waste 11-4.4, stations and other 4.1.1.2 11.4.6 locations, and reconfigure transfer stations to emphasize recycling 72 Harding ESE 0710LA Plan Implementation ITable 9. Summary of Plan Recommendations from ISWMP (Barrett, 1993) and 2002 Addendum (continued) IProgram 1993 Plan - 2002. Addendum Remarks I Recycling Enhance C&D waste Add'm (continued) recovery Section 4.1.1.2 Emphasize recycling Add'm I at proposed sort Section station 4.1.1.2 Increase incentives Add'm I for disposal of Section separated C&D waste 4.1.1.2 loads _ • Phase-in landfill bans Add'm on C&D waste Section 4.1.1.2 Enhance local Add'm markets for recyclable' Section I materials 4.1.1.2 Waste Curbside collection of ISWMP No change Mandatory curbside Collection solid waste in Hilo and Section collection rejected I Kailua-Kona 11.5.1 by County Council in 1994 Upgrade certain transfer ISWMP Establish drop-off Add'm Carry forward and stations- Section centers at all transfer Section expand to include 11.5.3 stations and other 4.1.1.2 all transfer stations locations, and reconfigure transfer I stations to emphasize recycling Close certain transfer ISWMP Not relevant Curbside collection stations affected by Section has not been mandatory curbside 11.5.3 implemented, so all collection transfer stations are still needed. Additional transfer stations are proposed in the County General I Plan Plan,design, Add'm construct, and Section operate a sort station 4.1.2 for the east Hawai'i waste stream Waste Disposal Close Kailua Landfill ISWMP Not addressed Completed I Section 11-6.1 Construct and operate ISWMP Operate Pu'uanahulu Add'm Maintain Pu'uanahulu Landfill Section Landfill for west Section I 11.6.2 Hawai'i waste stream 4.1.4 and residual from east Hawaii waste stream that cannot be Imanaged otherwise 0710LAHarding ESE 73 Plan Implementation Table 9. Summary of Plan Recommendations fromI ISWMP(Barrett, 1993) and 2002 Addendum (continued) Program .1993 Plan 2002 Addendum Remarks Waste Disposal Select site, design, ISWMP Determined to be not Add'm Recommend a (continued) construct, and operate Section economically Section waste reduction new east Hawai'i landfill in 11.6.3, feasible 4.1.3 facility in east accordance with RCRA 11.6.4, Hawai'i Subtitle D -. 11.6.5 Close South Hilo Landfill ISWMP Utilize South Hilo Add'm- Recommend Section Landfill to maximum Section closure when the 11-6.1 capacity and then 4.1.4 facility is full close . Special Wastes Maintain/improve ISWMP Not addressed Maintain, Recycle residential waste oil Section Hawai'i is collection sites 11-9 permanentlly 111 operating at several island sites Advance disposal fee for ISWMP Not addressed Deferred to State waste oil Section 11.9.2.5 Fee for failure to return ISWMP Not addressed Deferred to State lead/acid.battery Section 11.9.3 Fee for tire disposal ISWMP Not addressed Carry.forward Section 11.9.7 Ban white goods with ISWMP Not addressed Carry forward refrigerants Section 11.9.8.2 Fee for white goods ISWMP Not addressed Carry forward disposal Section 11.9.8.4 . Fee for vehicle disposal ISWMP Not addressed Carry forward Section t 11.9.9.4 Advance disposal fee for ISWMP Recommend Add'm vehicles Section increasing the fee Section I 11.9.9.5 2.4.4.1 Review and approval ISWMP Not addressed Carry forward process for medical waste Section. disposal 11.9.6 Household hazardous ISWMP No change Program now waste collection program Section includes two 11.10 collections per year. Carry forward recommendation for four collections per year at four locations I 74 Harding ESE 0710LA I Plan'Implementation 4.1.1 Enhanced Source Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Program 1 4.1.1.1 General Overview IThe Solid Waste Advisory Committee expressed a strong desire for an expanded county recycling program. This also is in line with the established goals of the,state and federal Igovernments, both of which have policies favoring waste reduction, reuse, recycling over all other methods for management of solid waste. With geographic disadvantages that make export of recyclable materials expensive and lack of manufacturing facilities that use recyclable materials, Irecycling programs in Hawai'i have not been as successful as in some other locations. Analysis of the long-term costs of solid waste management shows that recycling probably will be slightly more costly than waste reduction (incineration, thermalgasification, and anaerobic 1 111 digestion) and less costly than landfill disposal, but there are other perceived, off-setting benefits to recycling that make it attractive to many. For a county recycling program to be successful, there Imust be a sustained and consistent commitment by the county government, the citizenry, and supporting organizations. A program that starts and stops and then starts again will not succeed. A critical issue will be financing recycling efforts, especially with the difficult economic Iconditions that have been experienced lately by the state and the county and that appear likely to continue. To establish a more aggressive recycling program will take up-front investments of I capital and labor with lagging economic benefits. Some of the greatest economic benefits are not Ireadily apparent, such as deferred expenses realized by extending the lives of the island's landfills. A county recycling program can only be improved at the rate that funds can be made Iavailable for that purpose. IWe recommend phased implementation of the various elements of a recycling program, and using the contracted services of non-government organizations to the greatest extent Ipossible, as is now done for public education and information (Recycle Hawai'i) and management of metal waste and green waste (Hawai'i Metal Recycling Company). Furthermore, non- 0710LA Harding ESE 75 Plan Implementation government organizations now provide recycling services and should be encouraged by the county to expand, but the county should not take on the new additional tasks such as directly transporting, processing, and marketing recyclable materials. The county may have to provide facilitiessuch as material recovery facilities to be operated byothers, space for contractors' operations at county facilities such as the transfer stations, and upgraded the transfer stations; but the county should avoid adding employees to the county staff whenever and wherever possible. The Opala Recycling Enterprise (formerly the Community Recycling Task Force), with a grant from the U.S. EPA, is developing a demonstration recycling center at Kea'au Transfer Station. As discussed 'in Section 3.2.2.1, that project will provide real experience about upgrading the county transfer:stations to collect recyclable materials and develop local markets for those materials. The project should also generate valuable information about the economics of recycling within the county and the costs of establishing and operating a countywide recycling program at the transfer stations. Generally, on-island recycling is preferable to exporting recyclable materials. The better jobs that are created by recycling are in manufacturing, distribution and sales of goods made of or containing recycled materials, not the sorting,,packaging, and shipping of the recyclable materials. Furthermore, transportation costs for exporting recyclable materials are relatively high and should be avoided whenever possible. 4.1.1.2 SWAC Recommendations for a County Recycling Program The SWAC selected the following elements for the Hawaii County recycling program: 1. Hire a County Recycling Coordinator - If the county is to have.a serious recycling program, the Solid Waste Division must have the leadership of a county recycling coordinator who is dedicated full time to implementing and enhancing the county's recycling program. The recycling coordinator will be responsible for establishing and maintaining the recycling program in the county and will champion the recycling program within the administration, the County Council, and state government. This should be the first of the recycling program actions to be implemented, and the recycling coordinator must be the main driving force for implementing the rest of the recycling program. 76 Harding ESE 0710LA Plan Implementation The expense to the county for a full-time recycling coordinator including salary, benefits, support and administrative costs is estimated to be $96,000 for the first year and increasing by 4 percent each subsequent year. This action is of highest priority to the solid waste program, 1 on a scale of 5, because the entire county recycling program will depend on the recycling coordinator. 2. Enhance/Improve Source Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Promotion and Education Public and in-school education is an essential element of any source reduction, reuse and recycling program. The county [currently] has a multi-year renewable contract with Recycle Hawaii, Inc. for recycling education and outreach. Grasscycling and backyard composting should be encouraged. The most commonly effective techniques include direct mail, distribution of pamphlets, education in schools, public service advertisements (newspaper, TV and radio), and community informational meetings. The county [currently] contracts with Recycle Hawaii for recycling promotion and education. The amount of funds available for this purpose can be increased by county budget action. This program should be directed and administered by the county recycling coordinator. The countyshould also developa recognizable recycling theme, logo and design. 9 Y 99 A common look should be developed for all publicity materials and for all recycling drop-off centers. The common look will help to reinforce the message of recycling. For planning purposes, we estimate expenses for aggressive promotion and education to support source reduction, reuse and recycling will total $130,000 the first year of implementation and then increase by similar amounts in subsequent years. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of this program will be problematic. Promotion and education should have a priority of 2 on a scale of 5 because it will be essential for gaining the cooperation of the general public.. 3. Ban Yard Trimmings at the Transfer Stations and Landfills ' The county [currently] contracts with a private business for processing of green waste at Hilo and Kailua-Kona. Loads of green waste arriving at the landfills are diverted to a separate area where green waste is chipped and available for free ' pickup by anyone who wants it for use as mulch. However at the transfer stations, green waste is deposited in trailers with other refuse and then transported for eventual disposal in the landfills. A well-publicized ban on disposal of yard trimmings could reduce the amount ofgreen waste enteringthe landfills. 9 There are no significant expenses connected with this action item. The main benefit of banning green waste will be to extend the lives of the landfills. The avoided costs of landfilling the green waste are estimated to range from $70 to $100 per ton. This should have a priority of 3 on a scale of 5. 0710LA Harding ESE 77 Plan Implementation 4. Establish Drop-off Centers at Transfer Stations for Source-Separated Recyclable Materials Drop-off centers should be incorporated into all of the transfer stations. The drop- off center program should collect two-stream commingled recyclable materials other than green waste, construction and demolition waste, and scrap metals (e.g. mixed paper and mixed containers), making separation and storage convenient. Bins for selected recyclable materials should be installed at all transfer stations. Contractors could provide bins, but there should be county-established standards for the drop-off centers so that the same services will be available to all transfer station users. Maintenance of the drop off facilities and transport of the recyclable materials could best be done by contractors. To insure that all transfer stations are included in the program, the county could execute contracts for maintenance and transport covering groups of transfer stations. Estimated average capital costs for establishing drop-off facilities at the transfer stations are approximately $14,000 each. Most of this cost is for purchase and delivery of bins for recyclable materials and would be spread over a 3-year period. The cost-effectiveness of this action is related to avoided costs of landfilling. The operating costs of the drop off centers are included in the projected costs of the diversion grant program. This action has a priority to the solid waste program of 1 on a scale of 5, because it has the potential to significantly reduce the volume of the county waste stream. 5. Establish Drop-off Centers at Locations Other Than Transfer Stations Besides at transfer stations, bins for recyclable materials are provided by private businesses at a few locations within the county. The County could encourage private recycling companies to make recycling bins available at additional satellite drop-off sites at community centers, stores, and/or schools. School groups, community organizations, or contractors could manage the facilities under cooperative agreements with the recycling companies. Estimated average capital costs for establishing drop-off facilities at locations other than the transfer stations are approximately $10,000 each at 20 locations. Most of this cost is for purchase and delivery of bins for recyclable materials and would be spread over a 2-year period. The cost-effectiveness of this action is related to avoided costs of landfilling. The operating costs of the drop off centers are included in the projected costs of the diversion grant program. This action has a priority of 3 on a scale of 5, because it will make recycling more convenient but is not expected to greatly increase the volume of material collected. 6. Reconfigure Transfer Stations to Emphasize Recycling The configuration of each transfer station — including the placement of recycling drop-off stations, traffic flow patterns and signage —eventually should be designed to convey the message that recycling is a priority of Hawai'i's waste management system, not an afterthought. Some ideas include: Entering vehicles would first pass prominent recycling centers before reaching the disposal chute; Prominent signs 78 Harding ESE 0710LA Plan Implementation would be place on the disposal chute that convey the message that they are not suitable for recyclable materials. This is a final phase of the development of drop- off centers at the transfer stations. Estimated average capital costs for reconfiguring the transferstations are approximately $40,000 each. This includes limited grading and paving, providing signage, etc., and would be spread over a 2-year period. Evaluation of the cost- effectiveness of this action is problematic. This action has a priority of 2 on a scale of 5, because it will make recycling more convenient but is not expected to greatly increase the volume of material collected. 7. Increase Funding for the Existing .Diversion.Grant Program The county [currently] has agreements with various businesses to pay $40 per ton for diversion of certain wastes from the landfills. The wastes include paper, cardboard, metal cans (not aluminum), and cooking oil. The amount of funds available for this purpose can be increased by county budget action. The program could be expanded in include more materials, increased pay rate(s), and more participants as funding permits. The main economic benefits to the county will be reduced waste transport and disposal costs and extension of the lives of the county landfills. This program should be directed and administered by a county recycling coordinator. The estimated recycling diversion in the first year of implementation is 27,500 tons, and the estimated expense to the county is $1,100,000. It is estimated that these will increase by approximately 10 percent per year until the drop-off centers are established. This action has a priority of 1 on a scale of 5, because it will provide the incentive to commercial recyclers who will be a key to the program's success. 8. Institute a County Policy that Restrains Disposal of Recyclable Materials The county should institute a policy that communicates that disposal is not appropriate for recyclable materials. This could be a strong `intent to recycle' decree by the County Council with the mayor's endorsement. This important message from the county leadership is that the preferred way of handling waste is through source-separation of recyclable materials and use of the recycling facilities provided by the county and private recycling organizations and businesses. Instituting a county policy to restrain disposal of potentially recyclable materials will not have expense, however, it will need effort from the recycling coordinator and other county staff and the cooperation of the County Council. The resulting increase in recycling will be incremental. However, this action has a priority of 2 on a scale of 5, because it will demonstrate the county government's commitment to the recycling program. 0710LA Harding ESE 79 Plan Implementation 9. Increase the Tipping Fee at Landfills Increasing the tipping feeat the landfills will generate revenue for the county and help to encourage waste diversion by recycling as opposed to landfill disposal. Hawai'i County [currently] has the lowest tipping fee in the state, $35 per ton. Tipping fees in other counties range from $43 to $72.25. It is extremely difficult to estimate the actual full cost of landfilling, but our studies indicate that landfilling costs in Hawai'i range from about $70 to $100 per ton. User fee increases are like tax increases and are seldom politically popular. Increases in fees for waste management may lead to unwanted effects such as more illegal dumping and a need for increased security at solid waste facilities. By incrementally increasing disposal fees and giving advance notice, the county should be able to avoid adversely affecting the survival of marginally profitable businesses. In the past, the County Council has established solid waste fees by county ordinance. Unless that authority is transferred to the Environmental Management Commission or the Environmental Management Department, changes in disposal fees can only be accomplished by the County Council through another ordinance. Increasing the tipping fee will not be a significance expense but will need effort from the Solid Waste Division and the Department of Environmental Management and the cooperation of the County Council. This action has the highest priority of 1 on a scale of 5, because it can be an important step toward making the Solid Waste Division financially self-sufficient and will make recycling and diversion less costly relative to disposal. 10. Enhance Construction and Demolition Waste Recovery Construction and demolition waste consists of several recoverable materials, including metal, concrete, rock and rubble, asphalt, gypsum, wood, and cardboard. Metal and cardboard can be managed with metal and cardboard from other sources at existing facilities. Concrete, rock and rubble, asphalt and gypsum can be used as fill if it is reduced to acceptable-sized particles. If inert materials that can be used as fill are processed at the demolition site and then transported to a site needing fill, additional permits may not be necessary. It is likely that there are county project sites that could benefit by receiving fill generated by construction and demolition projects. Untreated wood can be reused or recycled, but treated wood (if notreused) should be disposed in a lined landfill in accordance with the policy of the Hawai'i Department of Health. Getting contractors to recycle as much as possible will take the efforts of many. The Public Works Department can be a key player in construction and demolition recycling by requiring acceptable recycling plans of contractors applying for building permits: The requirement could be applied to large projects initially and eventually include all permitted construction and demolition projects in the county. Plans for construction projects that will generate a significant quantity of solid waste should be routed through the Recycling Coordinator at the Solid Waste Division for review. The Recycling Coordinator will establish how much detail shall be required of the plans, how accountability will be monitored, and how enforcement will be managed. 80 Harding ESE 0710LA Plan Implementation The waste composition study found construction and demolition material in the east Hawai'i waste stream to be 12,000 tons or 18%. A typical processing facility could have 20% residue, resulting in a net reduction of up to nearly 10,000 tons or 14 percent of the waste stream, assuming that a wide range of construction and demolition materials are recovered. Residual materials can often be used for clean fill or disposed in a landfill dedicated to inert materials. Essential elements of successful construction and demolition recovery programs include • The availability of facilities for recovery and processing construction and demolition wastes as alternatives to municipal solid waste landfills, I • Lower tipping fees for management of clean construction and demolition waste than for municipal solid waste to provide financial incentive and encourage recovery, and • Pressure in the form of building permit requirements to further encourage planning and implementing construction and demolition waste recovery at construction projects. The City and County of Honolulu encourages recycling of construction and demolition debris by requiring recycling plans for large projects. The military also requires recycling plans for their projects. The City and County and the State Department of Transportation have programs for recycling asphalt pavements by cold-planing roads to be repaved. The cold-planed material is then processed for base material. Island Demo, Inc. operates an "in-town" C&D recovery facility in at their Mapunapuna facility. They segregate mixed loads and recover materials for reuse or recycling. Residues are landfilled. Construction and demolition debris may be discarded at the county landfill or at PVT Landfill, a private facility that accepts only construction and demolition debris for a tipping fee that is less than the rate at the county landfill. Diverted construction and demolition debris is approximately 7 per cent of the waste stream. tOn Maui, commercial construction and demolition debris is banned from the county landfills. Maui Demolition and Construction Landfill in Ma'alaea, a private landfill receives such debris from commercials haulers for disposal. Kauai recently began requiring recycling plans for relatively large construction projects. Other than material that is recycled, construction and demolition debris is discarded at the county landfill. 1 Cost Considerations: It is difficult to estimate costs for building a construction and demolition processing facility since the materials that will be handled, and therefore the equipment needed, are variable. Operating costs for construction and demolition processing are substantially lower than for MSW or for source separated recyclable materials, and can be in the $20 per ton range. These costs should allow for a lower tipping fee than for MSW. Construction and demolition diversion has a priority of 2 on a scale of 5. 0710LA Harding ESE 81 Plan Implementation 11. Integrate the Solid Waste Division's Proposed Sort Station into the Program with Emphasis on Material Recovery One of the recommendations of the SWAC is that the sort station should also be integrated with the county recycling program, and the station should emphasize material recovery. To accommodate material recovery, the sort station should be master-planned to include space to divert and process metals, whites goods, and green waste, as is currently done, plus store reusable items and process other recyclable materials such as fiber and plastic. A center should also provide any or all of the following functions: • A material recovery facility to clean, process, and prepare for market source- separated recyclable materials that are collected from drop-off facilities at transfer stations and other locations. • A facility to recover recyclable materials from selected waste streams such a dry commercial waste from businesses that is high in cardboard and office paper. • A location to aggregate and pack recyclable materials from private operations in the east Hawai'i to achieve lower shipping rates or better market prices. • A facility to prepare recyclable materials for specially developed on-island markets. • A center to select, repair and market reusable items, including used building materials, that could be either delivered to the center by residents, or recovered at the transfer stations. • A facility to receive and aggregate electronic equipment and white goods for recycling and proper disposal. • A location to sell or give-away mulch and compost products. • A collection facility for household hazardous wastes, batteries, tires and other special wastes. A key component of a recycling center would be the MRF for source separated recyclable materials, a "clean MRF". Clean MRFs can be either low- or high- technology sorting.depending on the amount of sophisticated mechanicalsort g. For Hawai'i's purposes a low-tech facility would be most practical, including hand sorting of materials that are moving on elevated conveyors, material holding bunkers, a glass crusher, a horizontal baler, and mobile material handling equipment. Theand location of a sort station for east Hawai'i are a design issues to be size g determined by designers; but for planning purposes, a five acre site should be adequate. Future planning may consider whether a similar facility would be appropriate for west Hawai'i. The original construction plans for Pu'uanahulu Landfill included an area for development of a MRF. 82 Harding ESE 0710LA Plan Implementation Implementation of'a new facility, funded in part by government, must be cautious to not undermine existing recycling operations and end up simply displacing, or even I reducing, the amount of material that is being diverted by those operations. A multi- purpose, recycling center that is opened for operation by private businesses should enhance existing operations rather than undermine them. How the project is I implemented will be critical to assuring increased recycling. Consequently such a facility plan should be developed in close consultation with the local recycling industry. Private industry could be involved by the county contracting for recycling services at the [regional transfer] sort station. Consolidation and transport of refuse to the landfill in west Hawai'i could still be done by county employees since that is one of their traditional functions. IThe proposed sort station is discussed further in a following section of this document. This action has the highest priority of 1 on a scale of 5. I 12. Increase the Incentives for Alternatives to.Disposal of Construction and Demolition Waste I When recycling alternatives to disposal become available for construction and demolition waste, the tipping fees for disposal of those wastes at the landfills could be increased to make recycling relatively more attractive. IIncreasing the incentives for disposal of construction and demolition waste will not be a significance expense but will need effort from the Solid Waste Division and the I Department of Environmental Management and the cooperation of the County Council. This action has a priority of 3 on a scale of 5. I13. Institute Landfill Bans on Recyclable Construction and Demolition Waste When the construction and demolition waste recycling program matures and I alternatives to disposal are well established, the recyclable materials generated by construction and demolition can be banned from the landfills. This action should be in conjunction with incentives for alternatives to disposal. Banning potentially recyclable construction and demolition waste will not be a significance expense but will need effort from the Solid Waste Division and the IDepartment of Environmental Management and the cooperation of the County Council. This action has a priority of 3 on a scale of 5. I14. Enhance Local Markets for Recyclable Materials Public agency use of recycled materials can provide a local market for recovered I glass, construction and demolition waste materials, green waste, and even some grades of paper fiber. The County could also help enhance local private markets by promoting secondary material use, providing product certification, or promoting Ipublic-private partnerships. 071 OLA Harding ESE 83 Plan Implementation Enhancing local markets for recyclable materials will not have significance expense though it will need sustained effort from the recycling coordinator. The resulting increase in recycling will be incremental and difficult to evaluate. This action has a priority of 2 on a scale of 5, but will help develop a healthy recycling program. 15. Institute a New Fee System for Waste Management,for Example an Item on the Property Tax Bill, with Revenues Earmarked for the County Solid Waste Division There are many advantages to be gained by establishing a fiscally self-sufficient, solid waste management organization within the county. The first step in that direction could be a new system of user fees and mechanisms for collecting revenue for solid waste management. This could help bring parity between residential and commercial users. This action has a priority of 3 on a scale of 5. 4.1.2 Collection and Transportation -- New Sort Station South Hilo Landfill will be closing in 2004, and a waste reduction facility cannot be built and operable until several years after that. The only feasible alternative for management of non- recycled part of the waste stream will be disposal at the landfill in west Hawai'i after recyclable materials are recovered. In the present collection and transportation system, waste from ten transfer stations is hauled to South Hilo Landfill. As 70 percent of this waste is generated in the Hilo, Kea'au, and Pahoa areas, handling and transportation costs can be minimized with the use of a sort station. Existing facilities and equipment are not adequate to transport the east Hawai'i waste ' stream to Pu'uanahulu. For efficiency, long-haul trailers should be used between Hilo and Pu'uanahulu, rather that the compactor trailers that are used to haul solid waste from the transfer stations to the landfills. The existing Hilo Transfer Station is not configured or equipped to I consolidate waste for transport. The Solid Waste Division is proceeding with plans for the design and construction of a sort station in Hilo. The main purpose of this facility will be to receive the waste stream that now is deposited in South Hilo Landfill and consolidate it for truck transport to Pu'uanahulu Landfill on the west side of the island. Pu'uanahulu Landfill will be the only operating landfill on the island after South Hilo Landfill closes in the next few years. 84 Harding ESE 0710LA I Plan Implementation A sort station first should be built to perform the function of consolidating waste from east Hawai'i for transport by truck to Pu'uanahulu. It should be master-planned for eventual expansion to include material recovery activities as well as be compatible with a waste reduction facility that likely will come on line several years later. The estimated capital cost for a sort station is $7 to $9 million plus $2 to $3 million for trailers and other collateral equipment and improvements. 1 The existing trailers for transporting waste from the transfer stations to the landfills are 1 not efficient for long hauling because they have built-in compaction equipment that reduces the payload that they can carry. That equipment is needed at the transfer stations, but the planned sort station will be equipped to load and compact the waste in the trailers without equipment built into the trailers. Using long-haul trailers will minimize the number of trips by carrying bigger payloads. Furthermore, operating costs for long haul trailers can be 20 to 25 per cent less than operating costs of the existing transfer station trailers used for long hauling. Selection and purchase of long haul trailers should take into account the roads to be traversed because large and heavy trailers may have difficulty negotiating tight corners and steep grades. ' 4.1.3 New Waste Conversion / Reduction Facility 4.1.3.1 General Overview A new MSW landfill near Hilo would be expensive to manage because the amount of Ileachate resulting from high rainfall in that area. Transporting the entire waste stream to west IHawai'i is also undesirable because it would be relatively expensive and would increase traffic through the communities on the route between Hilo and Pu'uanahulu. Recycling 100 percent of the entire east Hawai'i waste stream cannot be accomplished practically, and non-recyclable residual waste must be processed and/or disposed of. The SWAC concluded that residual waste stream from the east side of the island should be reduced as much as possible before hauling the residual to Pu'uanahulu Landfill in west Hawai'i. Therefore, this plan includes a waste reduction facility, which could be a waste-to-energy 0710LA Harding ESE 85 Plan Implementation incinerator, a thermal gasification facility, or an anaerobic digestion facility. Although these facilities employ different processes, they all reduce the waste stream considerably, can be operated in conjunction with a material recovery facility to extract recyclable materials from the feedstock, can be configured to produce electric power, and will produce a fractional residue that must be sent to a landfill. The SWAC recommended that the final selection of one of these processes should be combined with the selection of a specific vendor through a request-for-proposal procurement process. Interested vendors would submit proposals for waste reduction facilities, which the county would evaluate in accordance with a set of criteria based on the attributes that the county desires. 4.1.3.2 Procurement Process When the county commits to the procurement of a waste reduction technology, a financing plan should be developed. Financing could be by the county or by the vendor. Financing by the county will likely require the up-front outlay of the capital for the entire project. Funding by the vendor will likely obligate the county to specific monthly payments over an agreed term. Typical tipping fees for privately funded and operated waste reduction facilities range from $60 to $90 per ton, however, tipping fees are very specific to technology, location, waste stream volume, and many other factors. A preferred project delivery method should be selected and support for funding should be secured. Delivery methods to be considered may include traditional county/consultant design and contractor bid and build; contractor design and build; contractor design, build, operate, transfer; and contractor design, build, own, operate, and transfer. The county may need the services of an engineering consultant for help in procurement process. Before a request-for-proposal is prepared, the county should advertise their intent by soliciting expressions of interest from prospective vendors. The extent of interest of vendors may depend on the county's demonstration of commitment to the project. Responses to the solicitation 86 Harding ESE 0710LA Plan Implementation willgive the countyan indication of which vendors with which type of technologymight prepare Yp 9 proposals for the facility. If there are no interested vendors of certain technologies, the request and the selection criteria can be tailored to only those that are interested. The types of technologies that will be offered may also affect the selection of a project site. A list of possible vendors who are in the business of waste reduction technology is provided in Appendix D. After expressions of interest are received and evaluated, a project site should be Iselected, acquired, and surveyed to provide suitable and appropriate information to prospective vendors in the request for proposal. Other information that must be provided to prospective vendors includes data that characterizes the waste stream, the county's plans for recycling, expected life of the facility, vendor selection criteria, and the form of the contract. The request for proposal must then be advertised. There should be a pre-submittal meeting of vendors with county officials, there may be needs for clarification and amendment of the request in response to questions from vendors, there will be a proposal evaluation by a selection committee, contract negotiations, then finally award of a contract to the selected vendor. It may take 18 to 24 months to reach the point of contract execution. Design, environmental assessments, permits and construction are estimated to take three additional years. 4.1.4 Landfilling of Residual Waste South Hilo landfill must be closed when it is full. At the present rate of waste disposal, it will likely be full in 2004. Closure must be in accordance with state regulations, Hawai'i ' Administrative Rules Chapter 58-11. The county must begin closure activities within 30 days after last receiving waste at the landfill. Closure must be complete within 180 days after closure activities begin. The Operations Manual for South Hilo Landfill contains a conceptual plan for closure. 0710LA Harding ESE 87 Plan Implementation Hawai'i County will need the consultant services of an engineering company, that specializes in landfill and landfill closure design, to develop detailed closure construction plans for procurement purposes and prepare environmental assessment documents. Hawai'i County will need the services of a construction contractor for the actual closure. Design, environmental assessment, and procurement tasks should be done before the landfill receives its last deposit of waste. A schedule for South Hilo Landfill closure is included in the implementation schedule. After South Hilo Landfill stops receiving waste, Pu'uanahulu landfill will remain as the onlylandfill for disposal of solid waste from the entire island. Solid waste that cannot be managed p g by alternative methods, such as recycling or conversion by a waste reduction technology will be transported to Pu'uanahulu landfill for disposal there. Figure 15 shows projections of the capacity of the landfill under several scenarios of disposal. The first series of points on the chart represent the projected capacity of Pu'uanahulu Landfill if it were to receive only the west Hawai'i waste stream at the current rate of diversion. This series accounts for increases in the waste stream due to population growth, and assumes that recycling and other diversion of waste remains at approximately 13 percent, the rate reported by the Hawai'i Department of Health for Fiscal Year 1998-1999. The second series of points on the chart represent the projected capacity of the landfill if it were to receive onlythe t e west Hawai'i waste stream at an increased rate of diversion, which increases from 13 percent in 2002 to 50 percent in 2006 and then remains at 50 percent. That increase in diversion would extend the life of the landfill for 17 years. That increased diversion is in accordance with the goals in Chapter 342G of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes. The third series of points on the chart represent the projected capacity of the landfill if it were to receive the county's entire residual waste stream with the increased rate of diversion. These capacities are nearly identical to the first series. The fourth series of points on the chart represent the projected capacity of the landfill if it were to receive all of the county's residual waste 88 Harding ESE 0710LA Plan Implementation 111 stream with the increased rate of diversion and a waste reduction facility in east Hawai'i. This assumes that the waste reduction facility would be operating by 2008. The effect of the waste reduction facility would be to extend the life of Pu'uanahulu landfill by approximately 12 years. Although it is difficult to place a dollar value on the extended life of Pusuanahulu Landfill, postponing the need for a new facility would at least defer the major t xpenditure that a new facility would require. i 0710LA Harding ESE 89 I Plan Implementation Figure 15. Projected Capacity of Pu'uanahulu Landfill. 14000,000 0a. _ . 12,000,000 • ! !Al 00 n 10,000,000 ®B• . '0p♦ , , •0 _g tt 00 T BBe_ AA ,�v00. 5 8,000,000 --BB B A p Q a Q•p00Q a_ ®®0 00. 6�,� BB ' '®p . 'OQ z BB SAA OQ n 4�,�_ B_ ' ' A 0♦ 6 _® o® OQ BB_ ®A . Q0. 2�,� BB_ ' AA ♦000 0 �A . . 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Year ❑Seriesl Receiving only west Hawaii waste with current diversion rate 0 Series2 Receiving only west Hawaii waste with increased diversion rate —Series3 ReceMng all county residual waste with increased diversion rate A Series4 ReceMng all county residual waste with increased diversion rate and east Hawaii waste reduction facility 90 Harding ESE 0710LA Iiii MI MN I MI MI. ® IMO IMEN IlMi MI ® E NM NM M I Plan Implementation 4.2 Implementation Schedule and Actions. An implementation schedule was developed and is shown graphically on Figure 16. The schedule shows the recycling program phasing-in over a period of several years.. Some components of the recycling program have prerequisite components. For instance, disposal bans on recyclable materials cannot be implemented until recycling systems have been established for those materials that offer alternatives to disposal. Putting emphasis on recycling in the design of the sort station must be implemented when the sort station design is done. The sort station project is the most urgent because it must be ready when South Hilo Landfill stops accepting waste. Implementation of a waste reduction technology will take the longest time, other than the continuing recycling components that have,no planned end. The schedule for a waste reduction facility is also the most uncertain because it will requirea full EIS procedure. IThe schedule for closure of South Hilo Landfill depends on when the last waste is received. Design, contractor procurement, and other preparations for closure must be completed before the landfill closes because regulations require the start of closureactivities within 30 days after the last waste is received and completion of closure activities within 180 days later (210 days after the last waste is received). The Hawai'i County Department of Environmental Management and the Solid Waste Division have most of the responsibility for implementing the ISWMP. Some tasks, notably those involving engineering design of facilities and improvements and obtaining permits for facility construction and operation, may be done by consultants under contract with the County of Hawaii. The County of Hawaii also uses consultants for promotion and education of reduction, reuse, and recycling. Construction and capital improvements are normally done by contractors. 0710LA Harding ESE .91 Plan Implementation The County Council must approvefunding for the program. County ordinances are • needed to make or change the rules and policies that,pertain to waste management. . Resolutions by the County Council also may be needed for implementation of some programs. Permits from the Hawaii Department of Health will be needed for new solid waste facilities. Figure 17 is an outline of action required of the various organizations for , implementationofthe ISWMP. • 4.3 Project Financing and Delivery The facilities and programs outlined in this plan will require funding."A schedule of - funding is presented in Figure 18. The costs in the figure and elsewhere in this plan are planning-level estimates, and actual costs may vary significantly. Actual costs will depend on many designfactors, vendor andcontractor competition, methods of finance, interest rates and economic conditions, and.other influences that cannot be determined at this stage of the planning process. The costs presented here are based on experiences of other communities that have recently undertaken similar projects. •Projects can be financedusing either the traditional county budget process for capital improvements or private sector investments. The type of project financing selected by the • County of Hawai'i will determine, to a certain extent, the project delivery methods. The County will need to decide the type of project financing that will be used for the implementation of a [regional transfer] sort station, a waste reduction technology, and the closure of South Hilo Landfill. 1 92 Harding ESE 0710LA EAST HAWAII SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Figure 16 Estimated Months after adoption of Plan - ACTIVITY Duration(months) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ' Waste Reduction.Reuse,and Recycling Program Hire County Recycling Coordinator 3 1.:-..-:`,-::::-.;.:7Increase Budget for Promotion and Education continuous I.: pr '�"�w� ., � ,4 a :� , r .- _ ri. ;b..,... :.^..: m .. ( .,:'.�, .' ..;... • ._ '.Khe � !Mt:: ,;'��,_ ,. rI ,'n"vn . :� Ch • '...�.,-,...,4 �iH}. .�_~t .. �..,a 0: ,Ban Yard Trimmings at Transfer Stations and Landfills continuous Establish Drop-Off Centers at Transfer Stations 12 F Establish Drop-Off Centers at Shopping Centers,Community Centers,Schools 24 . -;' :,.,r.>,..,;;k .i-;,�, :_.. _.- .V;h.,':yr m,:j., .'i`:: ..`' .,, • `,1.;1..,.; - ; '- - -.", iti Reconfigure Transfer Stations to Emphasize Recycling 24 ' 1 ..,. ° . 7,7;,-,.:.-7,777,r,, . >ts . ' {. y., is, ;:t.,.,: x*'.• ': 7, •.` „ " ,- , ' ' ,- ' r .. ,,, Increase Funding for Waste Diversion Program continuous .,a €��`r . . ,r 'r^,6 ,i:...�� :'' f[-� : F > � .�. :', ".. ' arv,. �TmiIr t•xwm tea_ .q.." .._.w 'Y'��:�-T,''_:,.7# ""�7 rsyy7-- ,tP.'r "` c":r' . -�F.�Ti':.� ,, 'r.Yt" , >, -s' �,; ,r;�� 1 .r7'l.l ' . : . . Establish County Policy to Restrain Disposalof Recyclable Materials continuous _ r �:�_, ' ; ���F �,�: , im "r�.�.�..,.�� � .4: ..a -. , ..�F. , �. .."A , . _� �'+" :. �. '' .�, �r��<<...� : �.:�..:>��r -.. ,a� : � . .=r ����;•�> ., vw�� .�� � 15��kilitikeetttifil.,7 Increase Tipping Fees at Landfills 6 f" '7!" 91'-"" I Enhance C&D Waste Recovery : -.. •..,-;,.,,.�...�,��,.'••:..�..,.�;t,wt:�,"«.�: ,�i-'�A , . . _fry,� - n_,.� . _ ',',;:5.:.!''',1, .„.-‘; c'� : 1.,~trw� _.. �. a: ,, !:�.�„k,�_ . . ,!��:� �.� �:a.l ,; '-.r.* t, .,. ,_. ��� _•, ,+.�• r= rs�;��';` ,�.r���,.•� . rY Emphasize Recycling in Design of Sort Station 6 ,;� e;!rex,;'lx„;y,., .','fit'' e',.•.SeS`d"`,'a:..."ar•;5!:• "�'sr :T:F 'i7+•,",.'("n/kis -FAia!A' ''"i;^ ^".n'pe :: .ti° 'r'x ^�FY:• ou"i Increase Incentives for Diversion of Clean C&D Wastes continuous w "=.,.•:.:'t '' s." '" t' "" ='�' .��; . .r 173. : _ `' '� ': "'" • 'i" ,. ''",,as . Phase_ ."Ww�i'4.:":t"' -i9.i5�•u:_ d ,,pt"r :r' i' '.'� :-,. •'�^ ,..s= �h!�•, xr-�i r x. ,4 `ir„;.'':n- ''r+''t•':s•.. .4 -, -in Landfill Bans on Recyclable C&D Wastes continuous `'' .. :�.�; - „�., ,: ,��:. ;M; - .<� .� .., �' .`� +:�v „�... �;�. ..�. .i:.,._ �a�a�:....��.;��' T��n,....�....�_� :,,aJ... �.���.�r' .�. -.�.. �4'int h:.r ,,,�, �.....«b 'wY^ "7777,1774,74:' ,!.'';'9i');,:47;7::',',2',7. :•.' •A��,w',a•,rsn �aY ,:r*'7+"a r .� .,.,:W •r.+ ..c^".*9a', :•y,.+, ..lur,.'^-aa'%"w ^+rri' Ae : J 4., ..`^'K... '..m7» ^7:7 +`,'2 !nr,., a h :,;;''',77,..,"",ATA itr, 'et., F+S^. continuous ., -�'. `', `�,. .. „fir , . .`:��. � ..,<.. M. ,..� '•rte : ,. .r. Enhance Local Markets for Recyclable Materials �,.,�>� `. � .,E��� .� ..F-. , �. _ .�:.-;�. , -� ��.���:. .�s�!*� -�.n� .,<�t Institute New Fee System for Waste Management 6 .f liy_,ru`�' ' - Sort Station o Funding 1 ..9 Select consultant 3 O Environmental Assessment 6 - Planning and Design 6 rn c Bid and Award 1 m o I Permitting 3 , Construction 12 Haul Residual East Hawai'i Waste to Pu'uanahulu Landfill 28 I Waste Reduction Facility ' Develop Financing Scheme 1 E m I i 1 1 I Select Project Delivery Method 1 Consultant Selection,/Procurement 3 I k- !`.:..,....,i Solicitation of Expressions of Interest from Prospective Vendors 1 c Prepare Solicitation ' 1 71 m I , Advertise 1 ' hI — 1 , Site Selection/Survey 3 c RFP a I ' Preparation of Request for Proposal 3 !MOM o Solicitation/Publication 1 ' 7 _���y s , Pre-Submittal Meeting 1 ,;'A c Clarification/Modification 2 ;•-/: cn° Receipt of Proposals 1 AVM 1 I I I Evaluation of Proposals 1 •- Contract Negotiation 1 L , I Award Contract 1 ` I I I I _`o Planning and Design 35% 6 „ , EIS -° N EIS Preparation 6 i "" � a� ,' 1 �"� I Et ' EIS Public Review&Hearing 6 . EIS Revision(if necessary) 3 I , Design 65% 4 I.. ' <:°47r;,•... I Permitting 12 I War; �1 '5 r �yti �. ��a2I c F 1 Design 100% 6 I Construction 12 w” r.� taef.'. SFA. ..; ,xk.. .,,,z ."t„ �: p I I I c I Close South Hilo Landfill' rn Consultant Selection,Procurement 3 ,4 I ' 1 m Environmental Assessment r 6 I I ' , . Design,Contract Documents Preparation 6 . ! ... ' Contract Procurement 3 ' Closure Construction 1 12 1 I 1 This schedule for closure assumes South Hilo Landfill will receive its last deposit of solid waste 18 months after adoption of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. , I I 93 I S 'I I I I t , I EAST HAWAII SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure 17 IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN o coc lE 0 : o E w' c ca L It1J c , amE If lij1 co 0cu c•c�, 0 0 c `_ 'R-w 3 :p m o. co ACTIVITY o2ci rp 00 00 0w 0 < Ix ' Approval of ISWMP Addendum I I ( 1 Waste Reduction,Reuse,and Recycling Program - Hire County Recycling Coordinator Increase Budget for Promotion and Education i. Ban Yard Trimmings at Transfer Stations and Landfills Establish Drop-Off Centers at Transfer Stations Establish Drop-Off Centers at Shopping Centers,Community Centers,Schools Reconfigure Transfer Stations to Emphasize Recycling Increase Funding for Waste Diversion Program Establish County Policy to Restrain Disposal of Recyclable Materials Increase Tipping Fees at Landfills Enhance C&D Waste Recovery Emphasize Recycling in Design of Sort Station Increase Incentives for Diversion of Clean C&D Wastes Phase-in Landfill Bans on Recyclable C&D Wastes . Enhance Local Markets for Recyclable Materials -. • Institute New Fee System for Waste Management Sort Station . Funding Select consultant Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Bid and Award Permitting Construction . Haul Residual East Hawai'i Waste to Pu'uanahulu Landfill Waste Reduction Facility Develop Financing Scheme County Action " County Funding Select Project Delivery Method Consultant Selection/Procurement Solicitation of Expressions of Interest from Prospective Vendors . Prepare Solicitation Advertise Site Selection/Survey RFP Preparation of Request for Proposal Solicitation/Publication Pre-Submittal Meeting ' Clarification/Modification Receipt of Proposals Evaluation of Proposals " Contract Negotiation Award Contract Planning and Design 35% EIS EIS Preparation • EIS Public Review&Hearing EIS Revision(if necessary) Design 65% Permitting Design 100% Construction , Close South Hilo Landfill Consultant Selection,Procurement I Environmental Assessment - , Design,Contract Documents Preparation .. Contract Procurement Closure Construction 94 EAST HAWAII SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FUNDING SCHEDULE Figure 1 8 I YEAR 1 I YEAR 2 I YEAR 3 I YEAR 4 I YEAR 5 I YEAR 6 I YEAR 7 I YEAR 8 I YEAR 9 ACTIVITY Waste Reduction,Reuse,and Recycling Program County Recycling Coordinator $96,000 $100,000 $104,000 $108,000 $113,000 $117,000 $122,000 $127,000 $132,000 Increase Budget for Additional Contract Services for Promotion and Education $130,000 $260,000 $390,000 $550,000 $770,000 $1,000,000 $1,300,000 $1,600,000.00 $1,900,000 ' Ban Yard Trimmings at Transfer Stations Establish Drop-Off Centers at Transfer Stations I $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Establish Drop-Off Centers at Shopping Centers,Community Centers,Schools $100,000 $100,000 , Reconfigure Transfer Stations to Emphasize Recycling $420,000 $420,000 Increase Funding for Waste Diversion Program I $1,100,000 I $1,200,000 I $1,300,000 $1,600,000 $1,700,000 $1,800,000 I $1,800,000 I $1,900,000 I $2,000,000 Establish County Policy to Restrain Disposal of Recyclable Materials Increase Tipping Fees at Landfills Enhance C&D Waste Recovery Emphasize Recycling in Design of Sort Stationi I Increase Incentives for Diversion of Clean C&D Wastes I Phase-in Landfill Bans on Recyclable C&D Wastes . Enhance Local Markets for Recyclable Materials Institute New Fee System for Waste Management [Subtotal I $1,426,000 I $1,760,000 I $1,994,000 I $2,678,000 I $3,003,000 I $2,917,000 I $3,222,000 I $3,627,000 I $4,032,000 Sort Station Funding Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment I - Planning and Design $1,000,000 Bid and Award ' I Permitting Construction __$7,000,000 Collateral Development and Equipment $3,000,000 , ' Facility Operation $1,000,000 I $1,100,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 I $1,300,000 I $1,400,000 I Hauling to Pu'uanahulu $1,200,000 $1,400,000 [Subtotal I $1,000,000 I $10,000,000 I $1,000,000 I $1,100,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 I $1,300,000 I $1,400,000 I ' Waste Reduction Facility Develop Financing Scheme I , County Action County Funding I i Select Project Delivery Method , Consultant Selection/Procurement , I Solicitation of Expressions of Interest from Prospective Vendors Prepare Solicitation , Advertise Site Selection/Survey ' RFP Preparation of Request for Proposal '$500,000 ' Solicitation/Publication I Pre-Submittal Meeting Clarification/Modification I I ' Receipt of Proposals Evaluation of Proposals Contract Negotiation ' I I ' Award Contract Planning and Design 35% EIS I I , I ' i EIS Preparation $2,000,000 EIS Public Review&Hearing I I EIS Revision(if necessary) , I ' Design 65% , ' Permitting Design 100% $1,000,000 $2,000,000 ' Construction I $25,000,000 ,, I I Facility Operation $2,200,000 $2,400,000 ', $2,500,000 $2,700,000 $2,800,000 'Subtotal I $500,000 I $3,000,000 I $2,000,000 I $25,000,000 $2,200,000 $2,400,000 $2,500,000 $2,700,000 $2,800,000 ' I I , Close South Hilo Landfill • , „I I Consultant Selection,Procurement ' Environmental Assessment 1 I $400,000 $100,000 Design,Contract Documents Preparation Contract Procurement , . Closure Construction $12,000,000 ' Post-Closure Care $140,000 $290,000 $290,000 $300,000 $310,000 _ $330,000 $340,000 $350,000 'Subtotal I $400,000 $12,240,000 $290,000 $290,000 $309,100 $310,000 $330,000 $340,000 $350,000 ' [PROGRAM TOTAL I $3,326,000 I $27,000,000 I $5,284,000 I $29,068,000 I $6,712,100 I $6,827,000 I $7,352,000 I ' $7,967,000' I $8,582,000 i i I 95 ii , I - I Plan Implementation 4.3.1 County Financing ' Traditionally, the County of Hawai'i has financed most capital improvement projects (CIPs). The project delivery method has generally consisted of a design / bid / build approach. Under this approach, the county contracts with an architect or engineering firm for design of the project and preparation of project plans and specifications. The county then solicits bids from contractors and selects a contractor to build the project according to the design documents. The design / bid / build approach will be suitable for the sort station and for closure of South Hilo Landfill. However, because the sort station will be needed mid-2004, it may be necessary to fast-track the design / bid / build process, or use a design-build or design- build-operate approach as discussed below. One variation of that approach is design-build. Under this approach, the county appropriates funds for the project; establishes end-result criteria such asperformance standards, service quality, and technology issues; solicits bids from design-build contractors; and selects a contractor who would design and build the project. This was the approach used by the state for the Hawai'i Convention Center. Another variation is design-build-operate, which is similar to the design-build approach except the contractor is also required to operate the facility for a designated period of time. These project delivery schemes are appropriate for combustion /waste-to-energy ' facilities, but are generally not well suited for projects involving patented technologies such as gasification and bioconversion. 4.3.2 Private Financing For relatively large-scale projects, it may be possible to have the private sector finance the project. One of the ways of financing a project by the private sector is the build / own / operate/transfer (BOOT) scheme. Under this scheme, the developer provides the necessary capital for construction, builds and operates the facility for an agreed period of time 0710LA Harding ESE 96 Plan Implementation (typically 15 to 30 years) and recoups its investment throu h charges and fees such as tipping p 9 9 pp 9 fees and revenue from electricity sales. After the concessionary period, the developer transfers ownership and operation to the county. The BOOT scheme is better suited for most of the MSW processing technologies for reduction of waste because these technologies are mostly patented and, except for - p combustion /waste-to-energy technology, track records of performance are not well established. Under the BOOT scheme, the County should transfer the risk of under- performance of the facility to the vendor using performance bonds or enforceable liquidated damages provisions in contracts. 4.4 System Funding One of the main goals of the Hawai'i County Department of Environmental Management and the Solid Waste Division is to establish financial self-sufficiency for the division. The solid waste fund receives approximately 70 percent of its current (Fiscal Year 2001-2002) funding for division operations through transfers from the general revenues of the county. Tipping fees and other charges are approximately 28 percent and inter-government transfers are approximately 2 percent. Capital improvements are separately funded as needed. With approximately half of the island's waste stream coming from the system of transfer stations that are available for disposal of residential waste at no charge to users, it is • not feasible to recover county costs by commercial tipping fees alone. 4.4.1 Solid Waste Fees as Part of Real Property Tax Billing Charging solid waste fees on billings for real property tax has been proposed by the Environmental Management Department. This could be a steady source of revenue, and it would make property owners aware that solid waste management is a significant county expense. Solid waste fees could be established by county council action. 97 Harding ESE 0710LA Plan Implementation 4.4.2 Tipping Fees Tipping fees in Hawai'i County are the lowest of four main counties in the state and have not been revised since going into effect in 1995. Furthermore, the current rate is much less than the operating cost of the landfills. Higher tipping fees will tend to encourage alternatives to disposal such as reduction, recycling, and reuse. Tipping fees are established and revised by ordinance of the Hawai'i County Council. 4.5 Contingencies and Back-up Systems Unforeseen delays and changing conditions can always occur in spite of even the most thorough and careful planning. Implementation of the ISWMP will require cooperation and commitments from various parts of the county government, consultants, contractors, vendors and the citizenry. The following is a discussion of some of the things that can go wrong, some of the consequences, and back up positions and remedies. 4.5.1 Short-Term Contingencies The main objective of this plan is the management of the east Hawai'i waste stream after South Hilo Landfill is filled and closed to waste disposal. If the waste stream is reduced by the rapid success of the program to reduce, reuse and recycle, the landfill's capacity may last a little longer. At an estimated cost of approximately $20 per ton for hauling to Pu'uanahulu Landfill, prolonging the life of South Hilo Landfill will result in an avoided cost of 1 approximately $100,000 for each month of extended life. It is not likely, though, that the life of South Hilo Landfill can be extended for many months. It will be critical to have an alternative waste management system in place when the landfill closes. The planned alternative is to transport the residual waste stream to Pu'uanahulu via a sort station with equipment to efficiently consolidate and haul the residual waste. If the sort station and new long-haul trucks are not ready for operation when South Hilo Landfill closes, waste must be hauled to Pu'uanahulu by whatever means are available. The current equipment of the Solid Waste 0710LA Harding ESE 98 Plan Implementation Division is old and will not long stand up to long-haul use. Additionally, the transfer station trailers are not fully and efficiently loaded, so their payloads are only about half of the capacity of suitable long-haul units. In summary, failure to provide a sort station and long-haul equipment will result in additional operating expenses that could have been avoided. There are few choices about the closure of South Hilo Landfill. Federal and state regulations require closure within a very specific time frame after the last waste has been received. Failure to comply will likely result in regulatory penalties. 4.5.2 Long-Term Contingencies The success of the county reduction, reuse, and recycling program is the most uncertain because it requires the participation of a large part of the county's population. The program is planned to be phased-in over a period of several years that will depend to some extent on the funding that can be applied. It will be important to have a consistent program with steady funding or the public's good waste management habits will be lost or discouraged. To ensure the success of the recycling program, funding of the Diversion Grant Program by the county may need to be increased if the actual amount of recycled materials is greater than expected and grant claims exceed the budgeted funding. ' Operation of a waste-to-energy incinerator, a thermal gasification plant, or an anaerobic digestion plant will be less costly in the long run than hauling the unreduced waste stream to.Pu'uanahulu. Therefore, it will be financially beneficial to proceed with procurement I of a waste reduction technology as soon as possible. However, even in a best-case scenario, it will be several years before such a facility can be built and in operation. The process of procurement of a waste reduction facility has some inherent uncertainties. Some vendors of waste reduction technologies may not be interested in providing facilities for waste streams as small as east Hawai'i. Prospective vendors may be further discouraged by the prospect of losing a large portion of the waste stream to diversion f 99 Harding ESE 0710LA Plan Implementation for recycling. Early in the process when letters of interest are received from prospective vendors, the county must decide on a delivery method. Prospective vendors of patented processes generally want to capitalize the projects themselves and retain ownership of their 111 facilities for a long period over which they would recover their capital investment. Vendors of fully commercialized types of facilities are likely to be more flexible. It will be important that the county draft an agreement for procurement of a waste reduction facility that has adequate protection against risk of failure to perform as expected. This can be in the form of performance bonding, vendor provided insurance or other method that is acceptable to the county. Ultimately, the default solution to waste management in Hawaii County when all else fails is disposal at Pu'uanahulu Landfill. That is, however, as long ascapacity is available there. 1 0710LA Harding ESE 100 =I SIM 11E11 SIM MIN NMI MI MIMI IMO 1111111 MI MI Mill MI MINI =II 342E-33 HEALTH INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 342G-1 • • 342G-72 ENFORCEMENT Cross References O - Glassphatt use,see§264-8.5. Litter control,see chapter 339. Plastic container coding,see§§342H-4 I,42. O Special wastes recycling,see chapter 3421. Law Journals and Reviews Municipal Waste Combustion:A Wasted Investment?12 UH L.Rev_215. • PART L GENERAL PROVISIONS • CHAPTER 342G INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT §342G-1 Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context requires . otherwise: PART 1.GENERAL PROVISIONS "Agricultural solid waste"means the solid waste that results from the rearing SECTION • of animals and the harvesting of crops,and thatis normally placed in landfills. 3426-I DEFINITIONS • "Backyard composting"means the small-scale composting of organic materi- 3426-3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES als,primarily yard wastes,at the site where these materials are generated. 3426-3 GOALS "Bimetallic can".means any food or beverage container that is composed of PART H.ADMINISTRATION steel with a tin coating. l'- 3426-Il ADMINISTRATION ., „ 3426-12 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT.ESTABLISHMENT DloconVerSlon means the processing of the organic fraction of the waste 3426-13 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT stream through biological or chemical means to perform composting or generate 3426-14 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT products including,but not limited to.fertilizers,feeds,methane,alcohols,tars,and 34ZG-IS ANNUAL REPORT other products. This term includes, but is not limited to. biogassilication, acid `!a hydrolysis, pyrolysis, and fermentation. This term does not include any form of ® PART III.INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING incineration or methane gas extraction from a municipal waste landfill. = 342G-21 ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNTY INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS P d 3426-22 DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTY INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS Compost means a relatively stable,decomposed,organic,humus-like mate- lK 342G-23 STATE REVIEW OF COUNTY INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS rial, generated by a composting facility, that is suitable for landscaping or soil r• 3420-24 SUBMISSION SCHEDULE FOR REVISED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS amendment purposes. 3426-25 CONTENTS OF COUNTY INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS • "Composting" means a 342G-26 CONTENTS OF THE PROGRAM ELEMENT process. in which organic solid wastes, such as 342G-27 CONTENTS OF THE FACILITY CAPACITY AND SITING ELEMENT biosolids(sewage sludge),green or yard.waste materials,manures,and non created 3426-28 FACILITY PERMITTING wood chips and shavings, are biologically decomposed and stabilized under con- ' 342G-29 REVISIONS TO THE STATE INTEGRATEDSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN trolled conditions to produce a stable humus-like mulch or soil amendment.This 342G-30 RECORDS term includes the processing of organic and non-treated wood waste materials for the 3420-31 GUIDELINES _ generation of wood chips or other materials that can be used as soil amendment. PART IV.GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION planting mixes, mulches for horticultural and agricultural applications, landfill 3420-41 GOALS FOR RECYCLED PRODUCT PROCUREMENT • cover,and land reclamation.The process of Composting under methods approved by 342G-42 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RECYCLED PRODUCTS PROCUREMENT the department is a recycling activity. Land application of uncomposted organic 3420-43 REPORTING solid waste shall not be considered an approved solid waste management activity. 342G-44 DOUBLE-SIDED COPYING • "Coordinator" means the state solid waste management coordinator estab- 342G-45 ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OFFICE PAPER AND OTHER MATERIALS RECOVERY PROGRAM 342G-46 COORDINATION OF BIOCONVERSION PROGRAMS lished within the office of solid waste management.in the department of health. 342G-47 STATE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE PROMOTION OF BIOCONVERSION "Corrugated paper"means a paper product fabricated from two layers of kraft 3426-48 RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT linerboard sandwiched around a corrugating medium. PART V.SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SURCHARGE "Courtly coordinator" means the person within each county government 3426 bl SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SURCHARGE whose primary responsibility is the planning and implementation of the county's 3426-62 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SURCHARGE integrated solid waste management plans and objectives. 342G-63 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SPECIAL FUND `Department" means the department of health. 342G-64 ADMINISTRATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SPECIAL FUND "Director" means the director of health. D • PART VI.ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES "Disposal" means the management of solid waste through incineration or s 3426-71 PENALTIES landfilling at permitted solid waste facilities. 4110 401 3426-1 HEALTH INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 342G-I "Disposal fee"means a fee that may be charged on items that will eventually "PET"means polyethylene terephthalate plastic and containers manufactured end up as solid waste with the intent of factoring into the price or use or disposal of from this material. the same the eventual cost of managing the goods as wastes. "Petroleum"means any petroleum,including crude oil or any fraction thereof, "Enterprise zone" means an area selected by a county and approved by the that is liquid at standard temperature and pressure(60 degrees Fahrenheit and 14.7 y governor to be eligible for.the enterprise zone program established under chapter pounds per square inch absolute). 209E. o "Environmental management special fund"means the fund created bysection "Petroleum-contaminated soil" means soil that has been contaminated by a 3426-63. release of petroleum to a degree that exceeds levels determined to be acceptable by "Feasibility assessment" means a study that analyzes a specific municipal the director. p "l mtconacmer material" means a material that has fulfilled the intent of its solid waste collection,storage,processing,or disposal system to assess the likeli-hood that the system can be successfully implemented,:including,but not limited to, original manufacture. an analysis of the prospective market,the projected costs and revenues of the system, "Processing" means any technology used for the purpose of reducing the the waste stream that the system will rely upon,and various options available to volumeofs loweight, for both,of solid wastes,or any technology used to convert part or implement the system. allof solid wastes reuse. "Processing facilities" include, but are not limited to, transfer facilities. "Ferrous metal" means any iron or steel scrap that has an iron content recycling facilities, and bioconversion facilities. • • sufficient for magnetic separation. • "Food waste"means all animal and vegetable solid wastes generated by food "Program"means the particular combination of waste management methods facilities and residences that result from the storage,preparation,cooking,or han- dling selected each county and designed to achieve the objectives of the state and dling of food. county integrated solid wastemanagement plans. "Green waste"means leaves,garden residues,shrubbery and tree trimmings, "Recovered material"means material that has been diverted from disposal for grass clippings,and similar material. the purpose of recycling or bioconversion.This term does not include those materials "HDPE" means high density polyethylene plastic and containers manufac- that are generated and normally reused on-site for manufacturing purposes. lured from this material. "Recycled content" means the percentage of a good or product composed of "Household hazardous waste" means those wastes resulting from products postconsumer materials. purchased by the general public for household use which,because of their quantity, "Recycled oil" means any oil produced from used-oil that achieves required a concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may pose a standards of purity for use as a lubricant or fuel. IS substantial known or potential hazard to human health or the environment when "Recycled paper product" means a paper product containing postconsumer improperly treated,disposed of,or otherwise managed. material that conforms to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's • = "Incineration"means volume reduction by controlled burning of combustible guidelines for recycled paper. I solid waste. "Recycling" means the collection,separation;recovery,and sale or reuse of- secondary resources that would otherwise be disposed of as municipal solid waste. X "Integrated solid waste management" means the use of a variety of waste of a manufacturing process aimed at producing a marketable a managementpracticesand processing methods to safely and effectively manage and is an integral pan solid waste with the least adverse impact on human_health_and-tfte-e-nvirenment: product made aLpostconsumertrtaterial.. "Landfill" means a land site on which engineering principles are utilized to "Secondary resources"means postconsumer material collected and processed bury deposits of solid waste without creating a nuisance or hazard to public health or for feedstock in a manufacturing process. safety. "Sewage sludge" means residual solids and semisolids resulting from the "Landfilling"means the permitted disposal of solid waste on land in a series of treatment of wastewater.This term does not include wastewater effluent discharged compacted layers and covering the solid waste with soil or other materials, from wastewater treatment processes. "Manure"means excrement generated by animals,such as cows,horses,and •"Solid waste disposal facility" means any facility which receives solid waste for ultimate disposal through landfilling or incineration.This term does not include chickens,held in captivity or used for agricultural production. "Mixed paper" means discarded paper products that are composed of two or facilities utilized for transfer.storage.processing.or remanufacturing for recycling more types of paper,including newspaper,corrugated paper,office paper,computer or reuse,or bioconversion. paper, white paper,and coated paper stock. "Solid waste management" means the entire process,or any part thereof.of "Office" means the office of solid waste management in the department of storage,collection.transportation.transfer,processing,and disposal of solid wastes health. by any person engaging in these processes. "Permitted disposal capacity" means the quantity of solid waste, measured "Solid waste or municipal solid waste" means: garbage, refuse. and other either in terms of weight or volume,or both,that can be processed or disposed of at residential or commercial discarded materials.including solid.liquid,semisolid..or an existing municipal waste disposal facility.This term includes only the weight or contained gaseous materials resulting from industrial. commercial. mining. and volume,or both,of the capacity for which the department has issued a permit.This agricultural operations:sludge from waste treatment plants and water supply treat- term does not apply to any facility that the department determines,or has previously meet plants: and residues from air pollution control facilities and community determined,has failed,or continues to fail to comply with:(1)this chapter,(2)any activities.This term does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage N rules adopted pursuant to this chapter,or(3)any permit conditions. or other substances in water sources. such as silt.dissolved or suspended solids in 402 403 MI MINI MIN =I NM NM =I =I 1=1 =II =II MI NM = I MINI MI MIII 111.1 ONO I= II= INIII MIMI MIN MIN =II =I OM 111111 MIN =I MI MI MINI EMI 342G-1 HEALTH INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 342G-14 industrial wastewater effluents, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows,or development of integrated solid waste management programs. [L 1991,c 324,pt other common water pollutants. of§2) "Solid waste reduction facility" or "waste reduction facility,, means all contiguous land, including buffer zones, structures, appurtenances, and improve- [§342G3j Goals (a) It is the goal of the State to reduce the solid waste o mems on the land used for solid waste handling.This term includes a facility used as stream prior- to disposal.by: -s a transfer station, landfill, incinerator, composting plant, bioconversion site, or (1) Twenty-five per cent by January 1, 1995;and ro recycling site utilized for the reduction,consolidation,conversion, processing,or disposal of solid waste. (2) Fifty per cent by January 1,2000; through source reduction,recycling,and bioconversion.Where feasible,the office "Solid waste stream" means the total flow of solid waste from allwaste shall establish other state goals for specific commodities,recognizing market consid- generators or any segment thereof,that must be processed or disposed of. "Source reduction"means the design,manufacture,and use of materials to: erations. (1) Minimize the quantity or toxicity,or of the produced;and (b) It is the goal of the State to reduce by not less than.twenty-five per cent the (2) Reduce the creation of waste eitheroboth,bredesigningf thwasteamount of office paper generated by all state and county agencies by January 1,1995, Y products or by through source reduction.The base year for calculating progress toward this goal otherwise changing societal patterns of consumption,use,or waste gener- shall be total office paper consumption by state and county agencies in 1990. ation. (c) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict a county from setting "Special waste" means any solid waste which, waste reduction goals higher than those of the State. [L 1991,c 324,pt of§2] because of its source or physical,chemical,or biological characteristics,requires special consideration for its proper processing or disposal, or both. This term includes, but is not limited to, PART 11.ADMINISTRATION asbestos,used oil,petroleum-contaminated soil,lead acid batteries,municipal waste combustion ash,sewage sludge that is not hazardous waste,agricultural and farm- 1§342G-11j Administration. The department shall be responsible for the generated wastes that are normally placed in landfills,medical wastes,tires,white • administration of this chapter.The director may delegate to any person within the goods,and derelict vehicles. "State plan"means the integrated solid waste management plan developed by department the power and authority vested in this chapter as the director deems the department of health. reasonable and proper for the effective administration of this chapter;provided that_._ the director shall not delegate the power to adopt rules. [L 1991,c 324,pt of§2) _ "Waste diversion" means to divert waste from the solid waste stream going into waste disposal facilities through recycling,or'bioconversion programs. [§342G-12) Office of solid waste management,establishment. There is 'O "Waste evaluation"means a review of an establishment's disposal practices to assess how those practices can be improved to reduce waste or recover postconsumer established within the department the office of solid waste management.The head of a materials. the office shall be known as the slate solid waste management coordin13 ator.The Fe' "Waste reduction"means the reduction of solid waste by weight or volume,or coordinator shall be appointed by the director without regard to chapters 76 and 77 both. through a variety of methods prior to disposal. This term includes source be and shall be compensated at a salary level set by the director.The coordinator shall a reduction,recycling,and bioconversion.This term does not include incineration and eestof the State.Thncluded in any e coordinefit nator shall hire rogram generally applicable as mayle be necessato the ry, ,withrs and employ- landfilling. ry,with regard to "White goods" means discarded, enamel-coated major appliances, such as chapters 76 and 77. IL 1991,c 324,pt of§2) washing machines,clothes dryers,hot water heaters,stoves,and refrigerators. [§342G-13] Powers and duties of the department. In the execution of the "Wood waste"means solid waste consisting of wood pieces or particles that are generated from:the manufacturing or production of wood products;the harvest- responsibilities provided under this chapter,the department shall: ing,processing,or storage of raw,wood materials;and construction and demolition (1) Establish and administer'goals and guidelines as provided for in this activities.[L 1991,c 324,pt of§2;am L 1993,c 190,§3,c 281,§§1,3,and c 312,§4] chapter: � (2) Adopt rules pursuant to chapter 91 and administer the rules as provided for in this chapter: [§342G-2] Solid waste management priorities.. (a)This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the"Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Act." (3) Fulfill the office of solid waste management's responsibilities pursuant to (b) In implementing this chapter, this chapter until the establishment of the office: each county pur- consider the following solid waste management practices and processing methods in state solid waste management agency for all n (4) Be designated as the. their order of priority: .and Recovery Act of (1) Source reduction: 1976(42 United States Code section 6901 et seq.)and any other federal poses stated in the federal Resource Conservation (2) Recycling and bioconversion, including composting:and law heretofore or hereafter enacted affecting solid waste:and (3) Landfilling and incineration.' (5) Perform other duties as specified in this chapter.IL 1991.c 324,pt of§2] The respective roles of landfilling and incineration shall be left to each county's discretion. (§342G-14] Powers and duties of the office of solid waste management. The office shall: (c) In implementing this chapter, the department and each county shall manage- consider the minimization of litter and illegal dumping as a design factor in the t Il Promote the developinent of coordinated statewide solid waste03 ment: 404 405 342C-14 HEALTH (2) Identify and monitor environmental and public health issues relating to INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 342G-23 solid waste management; (5) Results achieved by government agencies in establishing office paper and (3) Promote source reduction,recycling,and bioconversion,including home other materials recovery programs; (6) Results achieved by state and county agencies in removing barriers to the composting,through the provision of a comprehensive, innovative,and effective statewide public education and awareness program concerning development of recycling'markets and in developing markets and sop- a value of source reduction and recycling,and the way the public can porting businesses that use recovered materials; o participate in these areas; (7) A summary of results achieved by state and county agencies in the . (4) Comply with the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery:Act of program; 1976(42 United States Code section 6901 et seq.).and any other'federal pw n and exeution of the statewide public awareness and education law heretofore or hereafter enacted affecting'solid waste; (8) A summary of results achieved by agencies to improve energy efficiency (5) Seek compliance with sections 226-18,226-52, and 226-103; and to reduce reliance on imported fuels in compliance with sections 226- (6) Assess the feasibility of employing disposal fees,including fees at,the 18 and 226-52: point of introduction or sale of any product that would require eventual q (9) A summary and schedule of the key solid waste management goals and objectives planned for the following year at state and county levels;and disposition as solid waste,as possible funding sources for waste.manage- ' ment activities; (10) Revenues into and expenditures from the environmental management (7) Coordinate with the department of land and natural resources to incorpo- special fund during the previous fiscal year and projections for revenues rate solid waste management and processing concerns in the department of land and natural resources'land use planning and development efforts: and expenditures in the coming fiscal year. P (b) Upon request from the office,the counties shall provide information,to (8) Coordinate the bioconversion efforts of appropriate agency and county the best of their abilities,to fulfill the requirements outlined in this section.(L 1991.c activities,including the provision of technical assistance and the evalu- 324,pt of§2;am L 1993,c 312, §5) ation of bioconversionprograms; • (9) . Provide waste evaluation services and assistance in developing paper • recycling and other materials programs to both the public and private PART III.INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING sector, where feasible; , (10) Promote the use of enterprise zones'in each county to support source [§342G-21] Establishment of county integrated solid waste management plans. By January I,1993,each county shall submit to the office an integrated solid ZO reduction, recycling,and bioconversion-type businesses; (1 I) Create and maintain a database to assess the composition of the State's waste management plan that has been formally adopted by the county and that is 'IIwaste stream. If feasible, this database shall contain the information consistent with the requirements of this chapter. [L 1991,c 324, pt of§?J 0 necessary to generate the office's annual report; ' (12) Identify and apply for appropriate federal funds to support the programs [[§342G-221 Development of county integrated solid waste management a plans. (a)Prior to preparing a plan,each county shall form an advisory committee OC and activities authorized by this chapter;and (13) ,Cooperate with appropriate federal,state,and county agencies in carrying ' . .appointed by the mayor. The county advisory committee may,be composed of responsibilities under this chapter�(1, 1991, c 324,—pt represen+atives-from-eitizen-orgauicati6ns,industry,the private solid waste indust ry out the office's of"§2] operating within the county, the private recycling or scrap material processing • Industry operating within the county,the county coordinator,and any other persons deemed appropriate by the mayor.The county advisory committee shall review the §342G-1S Annual report. (a)The coordinator shall prepare and submit an plan during its preparation, make suggestions,and propose any changes it annual report to each county,the director,the governor,and the legislature,twenty are appropriate. believes days prior to the convening of each regular session of the legislature,describing the (b) Prior to formal adoption by the county. the county shall submit activities of the office.The annual report shall provide the information required in proposed plan to' P the office for review and comment.The office shall rovide'he this.chapter, including, but not limited to: its comments to the county within ninety daysof receiving the proposed llow- (1) A summary of the results achieved in meeting the state waste reduction ing the office's review,the county shall make the proposed lana vailablenfor oubli c review and comment for a period of not less than sixty days.The county shall hold least goals, including the amounts of waste disposed of,diverted,and gener- ated in the State,and the progress toward managing waste in consider- least one public hearing on the proposed plan during this period. ation of the state solid waste management priorities: (c)- Following formal adoption of the plan by the county, the county shall (2) Results achieved in county integrated solid waste'management planning ' submit the adopted plan to the office for review. The adopted plan shall be and the state plan, with timetables for completion and implementation: • accompanied by a document that contains for each comment received from the State (3) . Results achieved in implementing procurement programs, including the or the public,a response detailing how the comment has been addressed in the plan • amount of recycled goods and materials purchased by'the State and or,if it has not been addressed.the reason for not doing so.IL 1991,c 324, t o2 'counties: P § J (4) Total paper consumption by state and county agencies and results � achieved with the office paper reduction goal: [§34_G-23] State reg ie�� of county integrated solid waste management -p plans. (a)Prior to submitting to the office a plan that has been formally adopted by a 406 county.the county and the office may negotiate plan components the county finds • 407 ' - Mill .111 IMII MEI 11.11 11111 EN 11111 1E11 IMO ® 11111 EN Nil UN NM Mill 1E11 INN NE NMI MIN MN EN • 342G-23 HEALTH INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 342G-26 infeasible.The public shall be notified of all plan components that are determined to revision,"that person may appeal the determination to the director.The decision of be infeasible. \ the director shall be final. (b) The office shall review the county-adopted plan and approve, condi- (d) The office may require a county to modify and submit to the office an o tionally approve,approve specific elements or components,or disapprove the plan. entire plan or specific elements of a plan at a date earlier than the schedule outlined in The office shall have sixty days to render a decision,unless the office gives written this section if: o notice to the county that additional time is necessary to complete the review. (1) The county, in total, within the county and through access to capacity (c) The office shall approve any county plan or revised plan that demonstrates_ within another county, has fewer than five years of available permitted to its satisfaction that: disposal capacity, and in the judgment of the office is not making suf (1) The plan is reasonably complete and accurate,and consistent with_this ficient progress toward developing or gaining access to new capacity;or chapter and rules adopted under this chapter; (2) The county fails to demonstrate a commitment to meeting the State's (2) The plan provides for the maximum feasible development and implemen- waste reduction goals. IL 1991,c 324,pt of§2) tation of source reduction,recycling,and bioconversion programs, and demonstrates a feasible schedule,funding source,and amount for doing Revision Note SO; "July'I, 1991"substituted for"the effective date of this chapter". (3) The plan provides for the disposal of solid waste that is not reduced, recycled,or altered through bioconversion,in a manner that is consistent (§342G-25] Contents of county integrated solid waste management with the requirements of this chapter;and plans. (a)Each county plan and subsequent revision shall include: (4) The plan accomplishes all of the above in a manner consistent with (1) A program element; and _ chapter 226. (2) A facility capacity and siting element. . (d) To expedite and facilitate the plan development, review, and adoption A county may include additional elements at its discretion. process,the office,at the request of a county,may participate directly in the county (b) The program element shall include at a minimum: adoption process by attending public hearings and county council sessions. (1) A waste stream assessment component; (e) The department shall notify the public of the approval,conditional ap- (2) A source reduction component; proval,approval of specific elements or components,or disapproval of the plan.The (3) .A recycling and bioconversion component; YO director may hold a.public hearing on the plan if the director determines that a public (4) An energy-balance component; Vhearing is in the public interest. [L 1991,c 324,pt of§2] 0 (5) A special waste component: (6) A household hazardous waste component: (§342G-24] Submission schedule for revised integrated solid waste man- (7) A public education and information component: Oagement plans. (a)Each state-approved county plan shall be revised and submitted (8) A landfill and incineration component: to the office on the following schedule: (9) A marketing and procurement of materials component: ti (1) The first revised plan shall be submitted to the office not later than four (10) A program implementation component;and years after July 1, 1991;and - (I I) A program funding component. (2) Subsequent revised plans shall be submitted to the office once every five (c) The facility capacity and siting element shall include at a minimum: years. (I) An existing capacity and future needs component: All revised plans shall be consistent with the requirements of this chapter. (2) A facility implementation component; and (b) Not less than one hundred and twenty days prior to the submission of a (3) An enterprise zone component.{L 1991,c 324,pt of§2] revised plan to the office,the county shall submit a copy of the proposed revision to its county advisory committee for review and comment.All revisions determined b) §342G-26 Contents of the program element. (a)The waste stream assess- the county advisory committee or the office to be substantial revisions shall be ment component shall describe and explain the origin,composition,andweight or subject to: volume.or both.of solid waste generated within the county during the year in which (I) At least one county public hearing prior to final submission of the revised the plan is being developed,or during the subsequent years when a revised plan is plan to the office for review; being developed. (2) Reconsideration and approval by the county advisory committee;and The component shall include data that are reasonably representative of,and that (3) Review by the office, where the office shall approve,conditionally ap- reflect information that considers,seasonal and year-round patterns in waste genera- prove,approve specific elements or components,or disapprove the plan. • lion.The data developed in this component of the initial county plan shall serve as In general,any significant changes in policy,program implementation,the identifi- the baseline for future measurement of the percentage of waste reduced through cation of facilities necessary to accomplish plan goals,or funding mechanisms,shall source reduction,recycling,and bioconversion programs.For each revised plan,the be considered substantial revisions.Deadlines for the submittal of substantial revi- component shall provide a quantitative estimate of the amount of each type of solid sions shall be pursuant to the schedule outlined in this section. waste that was reduced through recycling and bioconversion during the previous (c) If neither the county advisory committee nor the office deems anyplanning period.The revised plan shall also include an estimate of reduction that has D t changes to be substantial,then those changes shall be incorporated immediately into resulted from source reduction efforts. to the extent that the reduction can be 01 the plan.If any member of the public contests a determination of"lack of substantial quantified . 408 - 409 342G-26' HEALTH INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 342G-27 (b) The source reduction component shall identify and evaluate specific , (3) Develop programs for the collection of household hazardous wastes that measures for achieving source reduction, including,but not limited to: protect the public and the environment from these substances.The house- (I) Increased efficiency in the use of all materials; hold hazardous wastes collected by the counties shall be disposed of by-a • (2) Replacement of disposable materials and products with reusable materi- : state program.A county may petition the director to be exempt from this v als and products;and . paragraph if the county demonstrates to the director's satisfaction the o (3) Reduced packaging. adequacy of its current methods of household hazardous waste collection, 0 (c) The recycling and bioconversion component shall identify and"assess: ` , recycling,exchange,and disposal to protect public health and the envi- (1) The level of waste reduction the county is achieving through existing ronment, recycling and bioconversion efforts; (g) The public education and information component shall describe'the (2) The type and amount of solid waste that it is technically and economically programs that the county will use,in coordination with the efforts of the office,to: feasible to recycle or alter through bioconversion;and - (I) Provide comprehensive and sustained public notice of the options for (3) Methods to increase and improve the recycling and bioconversion efforts, • 'alternate source reduction, recycling, and-bioconversion, and foi the including opportunities for backyard composting. - proper handling of household hazardous and special wastes; and For recycling,the counties shall assess the type and amount of solid waste. that (2) Distribute information and educational materials regarding general solid it is technically feasible to recycle,giving consideration at a minimum to clear glass, waste issues through the media,schools,and community organizations. colored glass,aluminum,steel and bimetallic cans,high-grade office paper,news-- (h) The landfill and incineration component shall: print,mixed paper,corrugated paper; HDPE,PET,and green waste. , (I) Assess the county's current,landfill capacity and ways to extend that For bioconversion,the counties shall assess the type and amount of solid waste capacity: that it is technically feasible to alter through bioconversion,giving consideration at a (2) Assess the availability of land for future landfills: • • minimum to green waste, wood waste, animal manure,sewage sludge, and food . (3) Estimate the amount of waste currently going into incineration facilities wastes. and,the remaining available capacity; (d) The energy-balance component shall describe the programs by:which the (4) Estimate the amount of ash generated at incineration facilities;and county will investigate or incorporate ways of increasing the energy efficiency of the (5) Describe provisions for ash disposal. solid waste management process, including the assessment of energy and fuel- (i) The marketing and procurement of materials component shall describe: production options such as composting,anaerobic digestion,acid hydrolysis,pro (1) Existing'county,state.or other markets for materials diverted from the duction,cif liquid fuels,incineration,or a combination thereof.The.energy compo- - solid waste stream: Ivent shall identify'and assess: . (2) Methods to increase access to markets.including the promotion of local m (1) The amount of energy input, including, but not limited to, electrical 'uses for materials derived from solid waste:and npower, gasoline, diesel fuel, coal, natural gas, propane, kerosene, and - (3) -Methods to promote the procurement..of recycled materials by county X. heating oil, required'by the plan for the accomplishment of collection. - - agencies'. -, - recycling, composting, bioconversion, waste handling, disposal, and (j) The program implementation component shall define: a- • landfilling: ' (1) Specific tasks and responsibilities: (2 The_amount-of-energy-produced-from-the-waste;including-electricity. 0.) Schedules'frti iMplementAation: - natural gas, hydrogen,and liquid fuels such as ethanol or methanol: (3) 'Identification of proposed ordinances, contracts, and other guidelines: (3) The net energy use or energy production attributable to the solid waste - - and program.Where feasible,this assessment shall include energy used in the (4) Methods for evaluating the effectiveness of the county plan. original manufacture of these goods. National averages of energy con- (k) The program funding component shall: sumed may be incorporated in these estimates;and (I) Provide for each of the components.where applicable,the estimated cost (4) Methods by which net energy use may be decreased or net energy or fuels to the county of program implementation: and . production may be increased. (2) Demonstrate the county's economic self-sufficiencyin managing.solid (e) The special waste component shall describe the existingwastehandling waste pursuant to the implementation of the approved plan.This includes and disposal practices for special wastes,including,but not limited to,asbestos,used - the identification of county funding sources that will be used to implement oil, petroleum-contaminated soil, lead acid batteries, municipal waste combustion the plan.and other viable sources of funding that have been identified or are ash, sewage sludge that is not hazardous waste, agricultural and farm-generated - , anticipated. JL"1991.c 324. pt of tit: am L 1993.c 190. 11 wastes, medical wastes, tires, white goods, and derelict vehicles.The component . shall identify current and proposed programs to ensure the proper handling',reuse. •- and long-term disposal of special wastes. - 1§342G-27] Contents of the facility capacity and siting element. (a)The (f): The household hazardous waste component shall: - existing capacity and future needs component shall identity existing and future (1) Assess the quantity and type of hazardous wastes generated by residences facilities needed by the county for solid waste management. in the county: - (b) The facility implementation component shall describe the specific tasks (2) Describe current collection,recycling,and exchange programs.as well as • that are necessary to provide for the development or.expansion of source reduction. current methods of disposing of household hazardous waste: and recycling. bioconversion. and disposal facility capacity. The planning. design. 0) 410 • 411 INN NM MN EN MN MI 11•11 11111 11111 MIN 1111111 IMO Elle MIN MINI Mill Mil MIN 1111111 MIMI NM MINI ION 11.111 MINI MIN MINI MINI =II MINI MIN MIN 342G-27 HEALTH INTEGRATED SOLln WASTE MANAGEMENT 342G-46 funding,staffing, siting,construction,and operation of each proposed solid waste [§342G-42] Agency responsibilities for recycled products procurement. facility shall be addressed. (a)The department of accounting and general services,with the assistance of the (c) The este rise zone comoffice, shall develop the recycled product procurement program.The office, in rp ponent shall describe the county's current and coordination with the department of accounting and general services,shall ensure planned actions to establish enterprise zones.[L 1991,c 324,pt of§2] o • that all state agencies and county agencies are provided with the information and � [§342G-281 Facility permitting. Permitting shall be performed pursuant to technical assistance necessary to establish recycling procurement programs.The o chapter 342H. IL 1991,c 324,pt of§2) department of accounting 'and general services shall periodically review its specifications to determine whether discrimination against procured goods with 'solid waste management recycled-content exists and shall revise these specifications to eliminate any 1§342G-291 Revisions to the state integrated plan. (a) The office shall be responsible for preparing revisions to the state discrimination. integrated solid waste management plan.The first revision shall be completed within (b) Pursuant to section 103-24.5,the comptroller shall establish rules pursu- six months of the date that all four initial county plans have been approved by the ant to chapter 91 governing procurement preference for recycled products. office.The office shall complete each additional state revised plan within six months (c) The department of accounting and general services and other state agen- of the date that all four county revised plans have been approved by the office. cies,where necessitated by technical expertise,shall review and establish purchase (b) For each state revised plan, the office shall convene a state integrated ' . specifications to aid in the procurement of recycled goods. Where appropriate, purchase specifications shall include,but not be limited to,paper,paper products, solid waste management task force.The office shall involve the task force in the plastics, sewage sludge, compost, tires, batteries, oil, paving materials and base, review of the county plans and the development of the state revised plan. (c) For each state revised plan, the office shall: subbase, and pervious backfill materials. Paving materials to be considered shall (1) Revise and update the material contained in the previous plan or revised , include,but are not limited to,asphalt,tires,crushed concrete for base,subbase and plan;and paving materials. The standards and specifications shall provide for the use of (2) With comment from the task force, address other issues of statewide recycled materials and shall not reduce the quality standards for highway and road concern regarding integrated solid waste management.[L 1991,c 324,pt construction. [L 1991,c 324, pt of§21 of§2] [§342G-43] Reporting. (a)Each state agency that conducts its own procure- [§342G-30] Records. Each operator of a municipal solid waste landfill or ment activities shall annually submit information and data to the office regarding: incineration facility shall keep records of all deliveries of solid waste to the facility, (1) The agency's progress in developing procurement programs; 'Q including,but not limited to,the source of the waste,the kind of waste received,and (2) The total amount ofPaper purchased duringthe year; and 0 the weight or volume,or both,of the waste.The records shall be made available to (3) The amount of recycled goods purchased during the year compared to 2 the department and the respective county for inspection,upon request.At the request - nonrecycled counterparts. a. of a county,the department may exempt a specific facility from this requirement,or • if an agency is unable to supply this information,the agency shall describe what N may modify this requirement for a specific facility,if the department determines that steps it is taking to obtain this information in the future. a the cost of compliance is likely to exceed the value of accurate and thorough data.If (b) At the request of the office,each county shall provide a similar repos.[L the department grants an exemption to a facility under this section,the public shall be 1991,c'324,pt of§21 notified through publication of a public notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the State. [L 1991,c 324,pt of§2) [§342G-44) -Double-sided copying. Double-sided copying shall be scan- ` •[§342G-31 Guidelines.] The process of county and state integrated solid dard operating practice for all state and county agencies,offices,and facilities,as waste management planning shall be expedited to the greatest degree possible.The available and appropriate.To increase double-sided copying,each agency in coordi- department,. within six months of July 1, 1991, shall issue guidelines for the nation with the department of accounting and general services, each appropriate development of county plans.The draft guidelines shall be circulated to the counties county entity,and the office.shall establish a schedule for the replacement of single- for review and comment not less than forty-five days before their issuance.IL 1991, sided copying machines with double-sided copying machines for all high volume c 324,pt of§2) and other targeted machines that may be identified through the conduct of waste evaluations. IL 1991,c 324,pt of§2] - Revision Note "July 1.1991"substituted for"the effective date of this chapter". 1§342G-451 Establishment of an office paper and other materials recov�- ery program. By January 1. 1992.the department shall initiate an office paper and PART IV.GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION other materials recovery program for all appropriate offices within the department. By June 30. 1993.all state and county agencies shall establish an office paper and [§342G-41] Goals for recycled product procurement. It shall be the other materials recovery program.IL 1991,c 324,pt of§2] policy of all state and county public agencies to give preference to the purchase of ' products made from recycled materials.that are themselves recyclable,and that are [§342G-46] Coordination of bioconversion programs. Bioconversion > designed for durability. IL 1991,c 324,pt of§2] programs shall include: 4 412 413 , 342G-46 HEALTH (I) A variety of program sizes ranging from backyard composting by resi- INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 342G-63 dents and commercial establishments to full-scale munici al.programs; this surcharge9 shall be included with the notice of assessment required by section and p P g 246-43.IL 1993,c 312, pt of§21 (2) A range of technical approaches that adequately demonstrate the types of techniques most appropriate for Hawaii's environment and waste stream. This May (solid waste Solid waste disposal surcharge. (a)There is established an y- y include evaluatingthe feasibility of using compost or other initial solid waste management surcharge of 25 cents bioconversion products.for landfill cover.(L 1991,c 324,pt of§2] J' per ton of solid waste disposed of within the State at permitted or npe pitted solid waste disposal facilities during [§342G-47) State agency responsibilities in the promotion of hi the first two years of the program.The sua shall be paid t'-rcharbythe person or entity doing the disposal.This surcharge shall be based on actual weight received.or on following: volumetric assumptions as determined by the department in collaboration with the version. The general responsibilities of state agencies under this chapter include he (I) Departments that procure compost or that can substitute compost for owner or operator of the facility prior to October I, 1993.The owner or operator of the facility shall transfer all moneys collected from the surcharge to the department other purchased products shall utilize locally produced compost when- throughquarterly p g payment schedule that is developed bythe ever possible; department a nd Lha re orcin and • ofdepartment and that is transmitted to the owner or operator of the facility by October • (2) The college e;tropical agriculture and human resources of the University 1, 1993.Estimates of quarterly solid waste disposal shall be submitted prior to the of Hawaii, in consultation with the department of agriculture and the first day of each quarter and the transfer of moneys collected shall occur within ,office, shall evaluate composting and bioconversion methods to deter thirty mine the methods appropriate to Hawaii's environment and needs.The days of the end of each quarter. If�1 The solid waste management surcharge shall become effective on January college shall provide educational outreach to homeowners and farmers on I, 1994. 'appropriate composting and bioconversion methods; (c) Following two years of program operation, the department and the (3) The department of business,economic devmetho m, and tourism shall respective counties shall evaluate the effectiveness of the solid waste management as,tthe extent possible,in the assessment of bioconversion,program efforts and the surcharge may be adjusted higher or lower based on that evaluation: alternatives: however.in no case shall it exceed$1.50 per ton.The department,in consultation (4) The department of health shall evaluate the public health consequences of with each of the counties, shall submit its findings and recommendations to • using compost for specific applications and bioconversion for the pro-cessing of municipal solid waste; the legislature not less than twenty days prior to the convening of the legislative session -immediately following the two-year period. Upon the receipt of the department's XI, (5) The department of land and natural resources shall consider the use of locally produced compost on state lands whenever possible;and findings and recommendations.the legislature shall evaluate the effectiveness of the program and make a,determination whether an adjustment of-the assessment is 6 46) The department of transportation shall use compost in place of, or to 2 supplement, other commercial fertilizers in the department's highway • warranted. landscape maintenance program. IL 1991,c 324,pt of g21 (d) The surcharge collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the environmental management special fund.All interestest earned or accrued on moneys 1§3426-48] Recycling market development. Databases on solid waste deposited in the fund shall become a pan of the fund. IL 1993,c 312,pt of§2) ):10management alternatives and businesses involved in re clip stall be developed and maintained as follows: g�rfd btoconversian ($342G-63] Establishment of the_environmental management special shall develop a database fund. (a) There is created in the state treasury an environmental management Cl) Within one year of its establishment,the office on the full range of solid.waste management alternatives.This database • special fund.The fund may receive-Legislative appropriations, grants and gifts. (b) All moneys collected pursuant to section 342G-62 shall be deposited into shall include,but not be limited to,information on technology descrip- tion,effectiveness, level of use elsewhere,available vendors, and cost. the environmental management special fund. All interest earned or accrued on This database shall be offered for the use of the public and private sectors: • moneys deposited into the fund shall become a part of the fund. and �- (c) The department shall expend moneys contained in the environmental (2) By January 1. 1993.the department of.business,economic development, management special fund to: - and tourism shall develop a database that identifies businesses involved in (I) Partially fund the operating costs Of the program including its regulator recycling and bioconversion.This database shall identify businesses that ,' functions and the development of waste reduction and diversion activities collect. transport, process. market, reuse, or purchase these goods. (L as mandated by chapter 342G: 1991,c 324, pt of,{t2] - (3) Fund statewide education.demonstration.and market development pro- prams. through direct contract with the counties and the department of business.economic development.and tourism.or under a grant program [PART V.]SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SURCHARGE that may be developed under rules pursuant to chapter 91: and 1§342G-611 Solid waste collection surchar(ee. Each county may asses, (3) Provide for annual training for municipal solid waste operators in compti- residential real property owners in their respective-county an annual solid waste native Rules Title II.Chapter 58 t Proposed Revision).IL 1993.c 312.pt, collection surcharge based on the partial costs of solid waste collection. Notice of once with 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 258 and Hawaii Adminis- D 414 of ?? a (b 41: Mill 11111111 MINI IIIIII MIN IMO NMMINI MIMI NMI MINI 111111 MINI 111111 MINI MINI IIIIII MINI IIIIIII all NE EN 111111 EN 11111 11111I 111111 11111 11111 MN MN 11111 NMI UN NMI 11111 MN IMO • 342G-64 HEALTH SOLID WASTE POLLUTION 34211-1 (§342G-64] Administration of the environmental management special 342H-19 EFFECT OF LAWS,ORDINANCES.AND RULES fund. (a)The department may adopt rules to administer the environmental manage- 342H-20 PRIORITY IN COURTS ment special fund. During the interim period until such rules are established,the 342H-21 UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL.OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS depanment may distribute funding to the counties or the department of business, PART o economic development,and tourism in the form of a contractual agreement pursuant 342H-30PROIIO SOLID WASTE CONTROL to section 103-22. IBIrION p 342H-31 Rums;SPECIFIC (b) The office shall not award any grant or contract under this section to any 34211-32 PLANS AND REPORTS county that has failed to comply with the conditions set forth in this part and any 342H-33 APPOINTMENT OF MASTERS rules adopted pursuant thereto. 342H-34 CONSULTATION AND ADVICE (c) Unexpended or unencumbered grant funds shall revert to the environrnen- 342H-35 RESEARCH,EDUCATIONAL.AND TRAINING PROGRAMS tat management special fund at the end of the fiscal year following the year in which 34-H-36 RECYCLING FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES;ENCOURAGED the funds were granted. [L 1993,c 312,pt of§21 PART III.PLASTIC CONTAINER CODING 34211-41 DEFINITIONS Note 34311-42 PROHIBITION Effective July 1,1994,section 103-22 referred to in text is repealed.For similar provision,see chapter PART IV.MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL CRITERIA • 103D. 342H-51 DEFINITIONS 34211-52 PROHIBITION • [PART VI.ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES] 342H-53 APPLICABILITY AND REQUIREMENTS 342H-54 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Revision Note 34211-55 RULES:SPECIFIC 34211-56 OTHER POWERS Part heading added by revisor. • 34211-57 INTERVENTION [§342G-71] Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this Cross References chapter or any rule adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be fined not more than Glassphah use,see$264-8.5. $10,000 for each separate offense. Each day of each violation shall constitute a Liner control,see chapter 339. Ix separate offense.Any action taken to impose or collect the penalty provided for in Special wastes recycling,see chapter 3421. 10 this section shall be considered a civil action. [L 1993,c 312, pt of§3] Law Journals and Reviews 2 [§342G-72] Enforcement. The department of health shall enforce this Liability Insurance Coverage for Pollution Claims. 12 UH L.Rev.83. O. chapter. IL 1993,c 312.pt of§31 Municipal Waste Combustion:A Wasted Investment'?12 UH L.Rev.215. X • CHAPTER 342H PART I.DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS SOLID WASTE POLLUTION §342H-1 Definitions. As used in this chapter,unless the context otherwise PART I.DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS requires: SECTION • "Complaint" means any written charge filed with or by the department that a • 342H-1 DEFINITIONS • person is violating any provision of this chapter or any rule or order adopted pursuant 342H-2 ADMINISTRATION to this chapter. 34211-3 Dunes;RULES;APPOINTMENT OF HEARINGS OFFICERS 342H-4 PERMITS:PROCEDURES FOR "Department" means the department of health. 34211-4.5 TRANSPORTING PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMIT "Director" means the director of health. 34211-5 VARIANCES "Disposal" means the discharge.deposit, injection,dumping,spilling,leak- 342H-6 INSPECTION OF PREMISES ing.or placing of any solid waste onto any land or water so that such solid waste,or 342H-7 ENFORCEMENT ' 34211-8 EMERGENCY POWERS;PROCEDURES • any constituent thereof. may enter the environment. be emitted into the air, or 34211-9 PENALTIES discharged into any water, including ground waters. 34211-10 ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES "incineration" means the treatment of solid waste by burning in a furnace 34211-10.3 DISPOSITION OF COLLECTED FINES AND PENALTIES designed for the purpose wherein solid waste is essentially reduced to ash,carbon 34211-11 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF dioxide,and water vapor. 34211-12 APPEAL 34211-I3 FEES "Open dump"means a disposal site that is operating in nonconformance with • applicable standards,relevant permit conditions.rules.or this chapter. 34211-14 PUBLIC RECORDS;CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION;'PENAL71E5 34211-I5 NONLIABILITY OF DEPARTMENT PERSONNEI. "Party"means each person or agency named as party or properly entitled to Ix 342H-16 OTHER ACTION NOT BARRED a party in any court or agency proceeding. 342H-17 ENFORCEMENT BY STATE AND COUNTY AUTHORITIES Permit" means written authorization from the director to construct.modify. D 34211-I8 OTHER POWERS OF DEPARTMENT NOT AFFECTED t CD 416 and operate any solid waste disposal system or any component of any solid waste 417 Supplement to Ghap er 342G ' of the Hawaii Revised Statutes Integrated Solid Waste Management ' 111 0710LA Appendix A A-10 NM OM MN NM MI EN all Mil NE NM 11111 MI 11111 EN 111111 NMI 11111 EN NM . 342F-9 HEALTH INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 342G-12.5 or vehicle that the officer or employee is authorized to enter and inspect shall be fined PART Il. NOISE CONTROL not more than $500. Any action taken in court to impose or collect the penalty [§342F-30.5] Noise control. By June 30, 1996,the department shall adopt provided for in this subsection shall be considered a civil action.[L 1989,c 212,pt of a state community noise code pursuant to chapter 91,which recognizes differences in §3;am L 1991, c 157, §14; am L 1995,c 180, §17] noise level standards in urban and non-urban areas of the State and noise level v standards of each county.In the event of any conflict between this-section and section o §342F-11 Administrative penalties. (a)In addition to any other adminis- 46-17, section 46-17 shall govern. [L 1995, c 200, §2] trative or judicial remedy provided by this chapter or by rules adopted under this chapter, the director is authorized to impose by order the penalties specified in [§342F-31] Rules; specific. section 342F-9(b)and (c). (b) Factors to be considered in imposing an administrative penalty include: Case Notes (1) The nature and history of the violation and of any prior violations; Neither this chapter nor rules promulgated under§342.42 for"vehicular noise" extend to sounds (2) The economic benefit, if any,resulting from the violation; reproduced by an automobile's stereo and regulated under Revised Ordinances of Honolulu section 41- 31.1.81 H. 156(App.),914 P.2d 549. (3) The opportunity,difficulty,and history of corrective action; (4) Good faith efforts to comply; and CHAPTER 342G (5) Any other matters that justice may require. INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (c) It is presumed that the violator's economic and financial conditions allow payment of the penalty, and the burden of proof to the contrary shall be on the PART II.ADMINISTRATION violator. EL 1989,c 212, pt of§3;am L 1995,c 180, §181 SEcnoN 342G-12 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT,ESTABLISHMENT §342F-12 Injunctive and other relief. The' director mayinstitute a civil 342 20-13 POWERS RECYCLING COORDINATOR 342G-13 POWERAND DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT action in any court of competent jurisdiction for injunctive and other relief to prevent any violation of this chapter, any rule adopted pursuant to this chapter, or any PART III.INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING condition of a permit or variance issued pursuant to this chapter, without the 3420-30 RECORDS 13 necessity of a prior revocation of the permit or variance,to impose and collect civil PART IV.GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ® penalties,to collect administrative penalties,or to obtain other relief.The court shall 342G-42 OFFICE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RECYCLED PRODUCTS PROCUREMENT 33 have power to grant relief in accordance with the Hawaii rules of civil procedure.IL 3420-49 REPEALED 1989,0, c 212,pt of§3; am L 1995,c 180, §19) PART V.SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SURCHARGE IX 342G-62 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SURCHARGE Rules of Court 3420-63 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SPECIAL FUND Injunctions,see HRCP rule 65. PART VII.GLASS CONTAINER RECOVERY 342G-81 OEFINmoNs 342G-82 ADVANCE DISPOSAL FEE §342F-14 Fees. The director may establish reasonable fees for the issuance • 342G-83 GLASS CONTAINER IMPORTERS;REGISTRATION,RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS of permits and variances to cover the cost of issuance thereof and for the implemen- 342G-84 DEPOSIT INTO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SPECIAL RIND;DISTRIBUTION TO COUNTIES tation and enforcement of the terms and conditions of permits and variances (not 3420-85 CONTAINER INVENTORY REPORT AND PAYMENT including court costs or other costs associated with any formal enforcement action). 342G-86 COUNTY GLASS RECOVERY PROGRAMS;REQUIREMENTS 3420-87 CONTRACT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES All fees collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the noise,radiation, 3420-88 PENALTIES and indoor air quality special fund established pursuant to section 342P-7.[L 1989,c 342G-89 ENFORCEMENT 212,pt of§3;am L 1994,c 169,§§5,9;am L 1996,c 164,§1;am L 1998,c 311, §§16, 191 Cross References Construction projects;recycled glass requirements,see§103D-407. [§342F-14.5] Fees for notification. The director may establish reasonable fees for notifications and to cover the cost of implementation,recordkeeping, and PART II.ADMINISTRATION any necessary inspections to ascertain compliance with the provisions of the state [§342G-12] Office of solid waste management, establishment. community noise rules. [L 1999,c 57,pt of§I] AMENDED. Effective July 1, 2002, "chapters 76 and 77" changed to "chapter D 76".L 2000, c 253, §150. s §342F-20 Effect of laws, ordinances,and rules. Any county may adopt ordinances and rules governing any matter relating to excessive noise control as [§342G-12.5) Recycling coordinator. There is established a position of provided in section 46-17, and any conflict between state and county law shall be assistant to the coordinator of the office of solid waste management to be known as resolved as provided in section 46-17.[L 1989,c 212,pt of§3;am L 1999,c 265,§3) the recycling coordinator.The position shall be appointed by the director without 212 213 , 342G-12.5 HEALTH INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 342C-81 regard to chapters 76 and 77 and shall be compensated at an annual salarylevel„l payment schedule. Estimates of quarterly solid waste disposal shall be submitted $42,538.The recycling coordinator shall be included in any benefit program gene' prior to the first day of each quarter and the transfer of moneys collected shall occur ally applicable to the officers and employees of the State. [L 1995, c 229, §21 within thirty days of the end of each quarter. 0 Note (b) The surcharge collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the environmental management special fund.All interest earned or accrued on moneys 0 i Effective July I.2002,"chapters 76 and 77"changed to"chapter 76".L 2000,c 253.§150. deposited in the fund shall become a part of the fund.[L 1993,c 312,pt of§2;am L 1997,c 268, §11 §342G-13 Powers and duties of the department. In the execution of thy • responsibilities provided under this chapter,the department shall: _ §342G-63 Establishment of the environmental management special (1) Establish and administer goals and guidelines as provided for in the, fund. *** ' chapter; (c) The department shall expend moneys contained in the environmental (2) Adopt rules pursuant to chapter 91 and administer the rules as provided „ management special fund to: for in this chapter; (1) Partially fund the operating costs of the,program including its regulatory (3) Fulfill the office of solid waste management's responsibilities pursuant t,, functions and the development of waste reduction and diversion activities this chapter until the establishment of the office; as mandated by chapter 342G; (4) Serve as the state solid waste management agency for compliance with (2) Fund statewide education, demonstration,and market development pro- the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976(42 United grams, through direct contract or direct transfer of funds to the counties States Code section 6901 et seq.) and any other federal law regarding• and the department of business,economic development;and tourism,or solid waste; and under a grant program that may be developed under rules pursuant to (5) Perform other duties as specified in this chapter.IL 1991,c 324,pt of§2 chapter 91; and am L 1995, c 229, §3] (3) Provide for annual training for municipal solid waste operators in compli- ance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 258 and chapter 11-58, PART III. INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING Hawaii Administrative Rules. [am L 1996,c 83, §31 310 §342G-30 Records. Each operator of a municipal solid waste landfill „t 13 incineration facility shall keep records of all deliveries of solid waste to the facilit%• Note Iincluding,but not limited to,the source of the waste,the kind of waste received,and Chapter 11-58,Hawaii Administrative Rules,referred to in text is repealed. 2 the weight or volume,or both,of the waste.The records shall be made available t,, Q. the department and the respective county for inspection,upon request:At the request Revision Note N of a county,the department may exempt a specific facility from this requirement,in a may modify this requirement for a specific facility,if the department determines that Only the subsection amended is compiled in this Supplement. the cost of compliance is likely to exceed the value of a_ecurateand_thoroug-h-data t the�Jc epartment grants an exemption to a facility under this section,the public shall b, [ 'RT VII.]GLASS CONTAINER RECOVERY notified through a statewide public notice.IL 1991,c 324,pt of§2;am L 1998,c 2. §342G-81 Definitions. As used in this part, unless the context requires §901 otherwise: V "Glass container importer”means any person who is engaged in the manufac- PART IV.GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION lure of glass containers within the State or who imports glass containers from outside §342G-42 Office responsibilities for recycled products procurement. the State for sale or use within the State. The term includes federal agencies and The office, in coordination with the state procurement office, shall ensure that all • military distributors, but does not include airlines and shipping companies that state and county purchasing agencies are provided with the information and technical merely transport glass containers. assistance necessary to promote the procurement of goods with recycled-content.[I "Glass incentive" means an incentive paid to licensed recyclers for recycling 1991,c 324, pt of§2; am L 1994,c 186, §51 glass containers.Such incentives may be structured to include the costs of collection and processing,and a "buy.back" incentive to increase participation by the public §342G-49 REPEALED. L Sp 1995,c 2, §5. and private haulers. "Glassphalt" means an asphaltic concrete mixture utilizing crushed glass, [PART V.]SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SURCHARGE under controlled gradation conditions,as a substitute for a percentage of the aggre- gate§342G-62 Solid waste disposal surcharge. (a)There is established a solid in the mix. D waste management surcharge. The solid waste management surcharge shall be 35 "Glassinrecovery but program"flimited means a program for glass recovery and reuse for .� cents per ton of solid waste disposed of within the State at permitted or unpermitted purposes including not to: � solid waste disposal facilities. The surcharge shall be paid by the person or entity (l) Glass container reuse or recycling whereby containers are refilled,pro- _ doing the disposal.The owner or operator of the.facility shall transfer all moneys anssed for shipment out of the State,or crushed into aggregate substitute;. collected from the surcharge to the department through a quarterly reporting and - � and (_) Use in roadway materials or concrete as provided in this part. 214 2t5 NM MINI MIN NM MN M S w RN M MN M NM . M Nr ■■t MI NMI U 342G-81 HEALTH INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 342G-86 "Import" means to buy,bring,or accept delivery of glass containers from an from the special account shall be used to fund county glass recovery programs address,supplier,or any entity outside of the State of Hawaii.[L 1994,c 201,pt of established in accordance with the requirements under section 342G-86; provided §2; am L 2000, c 128, §2] that no moneys shall be made available to a county unless the county has first submitted its formally adopted integrated solid waste management plan to the o [§342G-82] Advance disposal fee. (a)Every glass container importer shall department for review. In the event of any surplus in the special account, the pay to the department an advance disposal fee.The fee shall be imposed only once on department shall recommend a reduction in the fee as deemed necessary. o the same glass container and shall not be assessed on drinking glasses,cups,bowls, (b) The department shall distribute the moneys contained in the special plates,ashtrays,and similar tempered glass containers.For the period September 1, account to the counties in proportion to the amount of glass imported into each 1994, to September 1, 1996, the fee shall be one and one-half cents per glass county based on the county's de facto population.The distribution shall be in the container.Thereafter,the fee shall be set by the legislature at a rate the legislature form of direct contracts with the department as permitted under chapters 103 and determines will permit funding of county glass recovery programs as required to 103D or transfer of funds from the department. achieve the following glass recovery program goals: (c) No more than ten per cent, in the aggregate,of the revenue collected in (1) Twenty-five per cent by the end of 1996; any one year may be used by the department for administrative and educational (2) Fifty per cent by the end of 1998; and purposes and to promote glass recovery, recycling, and reuse in Hawaii through (3) By the end of 2000 and thereafter, the maximum amount practicable research and demonstration projects.IL 1994,c 201,pt of§2;am L 1998,c 253,§1] considering the economic and environmental benefits to be realized. (b) In January 1995,the department, with assistance from the county solid §342G-85 Container inventory report and payment. (a)Payment of the waste divisions,shall evaluate the amount of glass recovered during the first fifteen advance glass disposal fee shall be made quarterly based on inventory reports of the months of the program and recommend to the legislature any modification in the fee glass container importers,except for those importers subject to subsection(c)or(d). structure to meet county glass recovery program funding requirements.Thereafter, All glass container importers shall submit to the department documentation in prior to the convening of the legislative session in each subsequent even-numbered 1 year,the department of health,in coordination with the counties,shall report to the sufficient detail that identifies the number of glass containers manufactured or • legislature on the effectiveness of the program and make appropriate recommenda- imported to the State and sold or distributed,by,manufacturer or distributor,during tions for modification of the fee. the calendar year. Ito (c) The legislature shall have exclusive authority over all matters subject to (b) The amount due from glass container importers less glass containers "Cl this chapter. exported for the calendar year shall be the sum equal to the number of glass ® containers provided in subsection(a)multiplied by the advance disposal fee of 1.5 (d) No county shall impose or collect any assessment or fee on glass cents.Payment shall be made by check or money order payable to the"Department .._; containers for the same or similar purpose that is [the] subject of this chapter. IL of Health,State of Hawaii".All subsequent inventory reports and payments shall be X 1994,c 201, pt of§2] Xs • made not later than the fifteenth day of the month following the end of the previous §342G-83 Glass container importers; registration, recordkeeping re- calendar quarter,except for those importers subject to subsection(d). quirements. (a) By September 1, 1994, all glass container importers operating (c) A glass container importer who imports fewer than five thousand glass within the State shall register with the department,using forms prescribed by the containers within a one-year period shall be exempt from payment of the fee. department,and shall notify the department of any change in address.After Septem- Any empty,imported glass container designed to hold not more than two and tier 1, 1994; any person who desires to conduct business in this State as a glass one-half fluid ounces of a product meant for human consumption shall be exempt container importer shall register with the department no later than one month prior to • from the fee. the commencement of the business. (d) A glass container importer who imports five thousand or more glass (b) All glass container importers shall maintain records reflecting the mann- containers,but less than or equal to one hundred thousand glass containers,shall be permitted to provide a report and payment of the fee annually,rather than quarterly. facture of their glass containers as well as the importation and exportation of products packaged in glass.The records shall be made available,upon request,for • IL 1994,c 201, pt of§2; am L 1998,c 253, §2; am L 1999,c 108, §1] inspection by the department;provided that any proprietary information obtained by the department shall be kept confidential, and shall not be disclosed to any other [§342G-86] County glass recovery programs; requirements. (a) All person except: county glass recovery programs shall include: (1) As may be reasonably required in an administrative or judicial proceeding (I) Some form of glass incentive or"buy back"program providing a means to enforce any provision of this chapter or any rule adopted pursuant to of encouraging participation by the public or private collectors;and this chapter; or (2) The paving during each of the first two years of the equivalent of one mile D (2) Under an order issued by a court or administrative agency hearing officer. of two lane asphalt roadway as part of a research and demonstration (L 1994, c 201,pt of§2; am L 2000,c 128, §3) program utilizing glassphalt. 1 Co (b) In addition, county programs may include but shall not be limited to: §342G-84 Deposit into environmental management special fund;disiri- (1) Funding of the collection and processing of glass containers either button to counties. (a)Revenues generated from the advance disposal fee shall be through existing county agencies or through external contracts for ser- deposited into a special account in the environmental management fund. Moneys vices: 216 217 342(;-till HEALTH • SOL1I) WASTE POLLUTION 34211.1 (2) ketssidizing the transportation [of)processed material to off-island 111;11 "Complaint" means any written charge filed with or by the department tli.ti a person is violating any provision of this chapter or any rule or order adopted pursuant (3) The development of collection facilities or the provision of containers I... to this chapter. glass recycling,or the incremental portions of multi-material program,. "Department" means the department of health. o (4) Additional research and development programs, including grants to EH i "Director" means the director of health. vate sector entrepreneurs, especially those activities developing highs.' "Disposal" means the discharge, deposit, injection,dumping, spilling, leak- o value uses for the material; and (5) Public education and awareness programs focusing on glass recovery.in ing,or placing of any solid waste onto any land or water so that such solid waste,or the incremental portions of multi-material programs.IL 1994,c 201,pi �.t any constituent thereof, may enter the environment, be emitted into the air, or • §2] _ discharged into any water, including ground waters. "Incineration" means the treatment of solid waste by burning in a furnace designed for the purpose wherein solid waste is essentially reduced to ash,carbon (§342G-87] Contract for administrative services. The department. ma% dioxide, and water vapor. contract the services of a third party to administer the advance disposal fee progr:Hll "Inert fill material" means earth,soil,rocks,rock-like material such as cured under this part. (L 1994,c 201, pt of§2] asphalt, brick, and clean concrete less than eight inches in diameter, except as specified by a licensed soils engineer with no exposed steel reinforcing rod.The fill §342G-88 Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this part,.n material shall not contain vegetation or organic material,or other solid waste. any rule adopted thereunder,shall be fined not more than$10,000 for each separatr "Open dump" means a disposal site that is operating in nonconformance with offense. Each day of each violation shall constitute a separate offense. Any action applicable standards, relevant permit conditions, rules,or this chapter. taken to impose or collect the penalty provided for in this section shall be considered "Party"means each person or agency named as party or properly entitled to be an administrative action. [L 1994,c 201, pt of§2; am L 2000,.c 128, §4) a party in any court or agency proceeding. "Permit" means written authorization from the director to construct,modify, [§342G-89] Enforcement. The department of health shall enforce this pari. and operate any solid waste management system or any component of any solid [L 1994,c 201, pt of§2] waste management system.A permit authorizes the grantee to construct,modify,and a operate any solid waste management system in a manner or amount,not forbidden by ira CHAPTER 342H this chapter,or by rules adopted pursuant to this chapter but requiring review by the ® SOLID WASTE POLLUTION department. 2 - "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm,association,public or pri- Xa PART I.DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS vale corporation,federal agency,the State or any of its political subdivisions,trust, SECTION 342H-I DEFINITIONS estate,or any other legal entity. "Petroleum"means any petroleum,including crude oil or any fraction thereof, 34211-2.5 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH;DELEGATION OF ENFORCEMENT POWERS 342H-3 D_UTIES;_RULES;-APPOINTMENT-OF-HEARINGS-OFFICERS that is liquid-at-standard-temperature-and-pressure-(60-degrees-fahrenheit-and44.7 34211-5 VARIANCES pounds per square inch absolute). 342H-7 ENFORCEMENT "Petroleum-contaminated soil" means soil that has been contaminated by a 342H-8 EMERGENCY POWERS;PROCEDURES release of petroleum to a degree that exceeds levels determined to be acceptable by 342H-9 PENALTIES 342H-1O ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES the director. 34211-10.5 DISPOSITION OF COLLECTED FINES AND PENALTIES "Pollution" means solid waste pollution. 342H-11 INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF "Recycling" means the collection,separation, recovery,and sale or reuse of 342H-19 EFFECT OF LAWS.ORDINANCES,AND RULES secondary resources that would otherwise be disposed of as municipal solid waste, • PART II.SOLID WASTE CONTROL and is an integral part of a manufacturing process aimed at producing a marketable 3421-1-30 PROHIBITION product made of postconsumer material. 342H-31 RULFs;SPECIFIC "Sanitary landfill" means a land site on which engineering principles are 342H-32 PLANS AND.REPORTS utilized to bury deposits of solid waste'without creating a nuisance or hazard to 342H-35 RESEARCH,EDUCATIONAL,AND TRAINING PROGRAMS public health or safety. "Secondary resources"means postconsumer material collected and processed Cross References for feedstock in a manufacturing process. "Solid waste"means garbage,refuse,and other discarded materials,including Construction projects;recycled glass requirements,see§103D-407. D Glass container recovery,see§§3420-81 to 89. solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous materials resulting from industrial, commercial,mining.and agricultural operations,sludge from waste treatment plants PART I. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS and water supply treatment plants,and residues from air pollution control facilities and community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in §34211-1 Definitions. As used in' this chapter,unless the context otherwise domestic sewage or other substances in water sources such as silt, dissolved or requires: suspended solids in industrial waste water effluents,dissolved materials in irrigation 218 . 219 I NM NM NM 1111111 NM 11111 NM EN NM MN MI NM NM NMI N 11111 NE EN 1 ' APPENDIX B Sections 2.1 .5 and 2.1 .6 of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawaii 1 1 ' 0710LA Harding ESE 1. 2.1.4.6 Severe Weather Hurricanes, so destructive to property and crops in the continental United States, are relatively infrequent and mild on the Big Island. The years prior to 1950 contain no authenticated reports of hurricanes on the Big Island, but four have occurred since then and a number of others have approached the State although not closely enough to affect the weather appreciably. Table No. 2-2 gives a general overview of temperatures and precipitation for select areas on Hawaii. 2.1.5 Animal Resources (Fauna) The varied climatic regions located in the County of Hawaii support a diverse quantity of wildlife. The following is a brief inventory of the most common bird and mammal types encountered there. Endemic animals or plants are those native only to the Hawaiian islands; indigenous refers to those native to the Hawaiian islands and elsewhere; exotic, or introduced, refers to those brought to the Hawaiian islands by man. The following species of introduced birds can be found on the island: Cattle Egret, Rock Dove or feralPSpotted ig S tted or Lace-necked Dove, Barred Dove or Zebra Dove, Barn Owl, Japanese ' White-eye, Common Indian Myna, Warbling Silverbill, Nutmeg Mannikin or Ricebird, House Sparrow, Cardinal, and the House Finch. Indigenous birds include the Black-crowned Night Heron, which is uncommon in the County of i Hawau. The most conspicuous of the migratory species is the lesser golden plover, which prefers open areas such as mud flats, lawns, pastures, plowed fields, and roadsides. The plover can be found Iin these areas from sea level to elevations of nearly 10,000 feet during the winter season. 84040R92.03n67 2 - 12 0710LA Appendix B B-1 _- _ _ TABLE NO. 24 TE.tiATURES AND PRECIPITATION FOR SELECTED PLACES I Average Extreme temperature Average Ground Temperature (0 F.) of record (0 F.) annual elevationprecipitation Island and Station (feet) Coolest Warmest (inches) Month Month Lowest Highest HAWAII Hilo Airport 30 71.2 75.9 53 94 123 Hawaii Volcanoes Nat. 3,970 57.6 63.2 37 85 101 Park Hdq. Naalehu 675 70.2 75.2 55 90 47 Kailua 30 72.1 77.3 54 93 25 Puako 5 73.1 79.8 52 98 10 Waimea (kamuela) 2,670 61.3 66.8 34 90 31 Honokaa 1,070 67.6 75.5 (NA) (NA) 86 Mauna Kea summit 13,796 31.3 42.5 11 66 20 NA - Not available Endemic species include the Hawaiian Owl or Pueo, a subspecies of the North American short- I eared owl, which occurs from sea level to at least 8,000 feet on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. Another endemic species occurring on the island is the Hawaiian Hawk or 'lo, which has adapted its large home range to orchards and pastures. Little is knownpopulation is believed tobe about the Hawaiian bat. The entire z d pop a about 1 several hundred. Rabbits are believed to occur on the island, although no details about their numbers or habitat are known. Roof rats in Hawaii have adapted especially well to wooded gulches, sugar-cane f elds,and dry, I wet, or even extremely wet forests. It retains, however, a classical commensal relationship with man, and frequents ornamental vegetation, stone walls, buildings, and other structures. This I $4040R32.03/767 2 - 13 . 0710LA Appendix B B-2 species is more common at lower and middle elevations, but is found sparsely distributed at higher altitudes. The Norway rat is best adapted to city, village, and farm environments where foods from domestic or agricultural sources are plentiful. This rat is sometimes locally common in and about lowland sugar-cane fields. It also occupies middle elevation planted forests up to about 5,500 feet. The Polynesian rat_is characteristically a lowland rodent which does not often occupy human dwellings, but flourishes best on agricultural lands. This rat becomes most numerous in sugar- cane fields and abandoned pineapple fields, but does well in adjacent wooded or grassy gulch and waste areas. It is usually uncommon in native or exotic forests, and is often absent from them at elevations above 2,500 feet. The house mouse accompanies or meets man virtually everywhere he settles. Dense populations occur regularly in sugar-cane and pineapple fields and are found also in lower elevation wet forests. Extremely wet forests and upland swamps, however, may be shunned entirely. Populations of mice reaching plague proportions erupt sporadically during late summer and fall in the drier beach, grassland, shrub and forest areas. Packs of feral dogs can occur in the mountains, forests, or near cities island-wide except for the extreme elevations of upper Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. They feed not only on sheep and ' cattle, but also wild pigs, feral goats, and flightless geese. The mongoose has, since its introduction, spread to all regions of the island. Their range extends from sea level to the upper limit of vegetation near 10,000 feet and excludes only the ' barren summits of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. Feral cats are most common at the lower and middle elevations. Although they seem not to be present frequently on the very high slopes of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, they do range, 84o4oa92.03n67 2 - 14 0710LA Appendix B B-3 perhaps frequently, to at least 5,600 feetin the saddli between these peaks, and to 7,000 feet on the east flank of Mauna Kea near Kahinahina. 1 Feral donkeys, few in number, are believed to still e 'st on the island. The County of Hawaii has the largest and densest popul anon of feral pigs of any of the Hawaiian islands. Their numbers are distributed generally in th upland forests and pastures. There may be as many as 2,000 head of feral cattle ' the County at the present time. Small bands are thought to exist on remote ranches and po :ons of the adjacent forest reserves. Wild goats, adapted to rugged terrain, are common ' the vicinity of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. I Domestic and feral sheep (mouflon)are firmly establish on Hawaii, principally on Mauna Kea and Hiii1a1ai. Altitudinal distribution is mainly from . .out 2,000 feet to more than 12,000 feet among the bare cinder cones of the Mauna Kea summit region. -Although their.range is laiown to descend to sea level in the Kau District, their principal concentration has been in the forest of mamane at the middle and upper levels of Mauna K Il As stated earlier, the varied climatic regions located in, e County of Hawaii support a diverse quantityof wildlife. This listing is presented only as a bi 'ef inventory of the most common bird and mammal types and is by no means to be considered.complete. The effects of construction - I of any new landfill upon the animal resources of the isl d would require a more in-depth, site- specific investigation to be performed after the selectio of a specific location. I I I I $4O4OR92.00.V767 2 - 15 I 0710LA Appendix B ' B-4 1 2.1.6 Plant Resources (Flora) 2.1.6.1 Classification of Hawaiian Plant Communities The classification of Hawaiian plant communities presented here is based on elevation, moisture, and physiognomy. First, a community is placed into one of 5 elevational bands: Coastal (0-300 m elevation), Lowland (15-2,000 m), Montane (500-2,700 in), Subalpine (1,700-3,000 m), or Alpine (over 3,000 m). Within these zones, 3 moisture regimes are distinguished: Dry (less than 1,200 mm annual rainfall), Mesic (1,200-2,500 mm), and Wet (more than 2,500 mm). In general, prevailing rainfall is only an indicator of these moisture regimes, and other factors such as topography, seasonality, soil moisture regime, and fog drip can generate wetter or drier conditions within a given zone. Finally, 5 physiognomic classes are recognized: Herblands, Grasslands (or Sedgelands), Shrublands, Forests, and Mixed Communities. The physiognomic classes are based on percentage cover of the dominant plant life-form in the uppermost vegetation layer: Herblands have greater than 40 percent cover in herbaceous species; Grasslands/Sedgelands, greater than 40 percent cover in gasses or sedges; Shrublands, greater than 40 percent cover in shrubs; and Forests, greater than 25 percent cover in trees. Mixed Communities have greater than 40 percent cover in plant codominants of different physiognomic classes. • 2.1.6.2 Coastal Dry Zone 1 Coastal Dry Communities occur most extensively on the leeward side of the island. In this zone, Nama sandwicensis and Akulikuli Herblands occur. Aldaki and Kawelu are common grasslands. Ilima/Fingergrass Mixed Shrub and Grasslands occur. Ilima, Coastal Cliff Miixed, and Kao Haole Shrublands can also be found in this community. Other plant species are nehe, akoko, Schiedea globosa and anaunau. Extensive thickets of koa haole occur, especially on abandoned grazing lands. Most areas that were covered with pili grass 200 years ago are now dominated by alien species such as kiawe, lantana, klu, Christmas berry, or koa haole. Pili is still dominant only on some very steep slopes and cliff ledges. There is an abrupt transition from,the shrubland and grassland types mentioned earlier to forests dominated by kiawe at 10-75 $40 401L 92.03n67 2 - 16 0710LA Appendix B B-5 i m elevation. Akiaki is often the lone coastal species extending inland beneath the kiawe. The understory is now dominated by introduced drou ht-resistant grasses and herbs, particularly buffelgrass and fingergrass. 2.1.6.3 Coastal Mesic Communities Coastal Mesic Forests generally occur on the w' dward side of the island where sufficient orographic rainfall is intercepted to maintain a forested condition. Coastal volcanic substrates are dominated by hala. The understory may be composed of nehe or ohia. Other types of trees occurring in this area include Loulu, Common Ironwood, Guava, Strawberry Guava, Black Bamboo, Kamani and Kukui. 2.1.6.4 Coastal Wet Communities Akaakai, kaluha and makaloa can be found borde ' g small ponds in arid areas near the coast. Water hyssop is prominent in very shallow water ori the edges of these ponds. Away from the marshy area immediately adjacent to the ponds, th vegetation is usually dominated by kiawe. Shrubs occurring adjacent to coastal streams, marsh and ponds include hau and false kamani. 2.1.6.5 Lovland Dry Communities I Lowland Dry Communities occur on the leeward sid of the island in the Puna and Kau districts. Grassland in this communityis generally composed of pill, fountain grass, beardgrass, natal redtop, thatching and grass. Shrubs consist of aa1i akia, kookoolau, and ohia. Forests are composed of lama, wiliwili, and ohia. 2.1.6.6 Lowland Mesic Communities Grasslands in the Lowland Mesic Communities are c.mposed of molasses grass and beardgrass. Lowland Mesic Grasslands usually grade abruptly into Lowland Mesic Shrublands, where ohia is frequently a dominant species. PukiawelAalii and mei Shrublands are also found here. Ohia 54O4OR92.03r767 2 - 17 0710LA Append x B B-6 Lowland Mesic Forests usually contain ohia as the dominant species with a diverse understory of native trees. The shrub layer is comparatively poorly developed and the ground cover is dominated by alien species such as basketgrass and scaly swordfern. A second subtype, with kopiko ula as a codominant, occurs in the South Kona District. Shrubs consist of pukiawe, aalii, ohelo and maile. Native ferns, grasses, and sedges are prominent components of the ground cover, although alien species such as thimbleberry and basketgrass are common. The Puna and Kau districts, subjected to recent fire, have been invaded by bamboo orchid. Olopua, Lama/Ohia, Papala Kepau/Papala, Guava and Silk Oak Lowland Mesic Forests are also found in this community. 2.1.6.7 Lowland Wet Communities Yellow and white ginger, established in streambeds, ditches, wet drainages, and along roadsides, are the common herbs associated with the Lowland Wet Communities. Common grasses consist of uki as can be found in Waimanu Valley. California grass may form dense wet grasslands on flat or gently sloping windward areas, often on abandoned pasturelands. Lowland Wet Grasslands grade above into wet shrublands, or forests, and below into wet or mesic grasslands, shrublands, or forests. Shrubs consist of mamaki. Ohia/Uluhe Fern Forests occur on the relatively young lava flows in Puna. Ohia, Koa/Ohia, Ohia/Olapa and Ohia/Lama Lowland Forests also occur. Ohia/Hale Lowland Forests can be seen in the Kohala and Puna districts. Alien wet forests composed of trees such as mango, common guava, java plum, rose apple, bamboo, or mixtures of these also occur. 2.1.6.8 Montane Pry Communities Montane Communities occur on the leeward slopes of Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Hualalai, and the saddle region between these mountains. A Lovegrass/Mountain Pili Grassland, with a considerable cover of mountain pili, occurs on the western slopes of Mauna Kea and in the adjacent saddle area at 1,700-2,300 m elevation. Shrublands typically composed of aalii occur at this same location. Naenae, naio, and kookoolau are codominants in the upper portions but are less common at lower altitudes. Open shrublands dominated by ohia and aalii occur on the 84040R92.03/767 2 - 18 0710LA Appendix B B-7 1 southeastern slopes of Mauna Loa, slopes of Hualalai, and leeward saddle region. Other common native shrubs, herbs and ferns include asplenium adiantum-nigrum L., carer wahuensis, coprosma ernodeoides, dianella sandwicensis, dubautia spp., gahnia gahniiformis, and gnaphalium sandwicensium, among others. Forests occurring at 500-2,100 m elevation on the leeward slopes of Mauna Loa, the northern slopes of Hualalai, and in the saddle region are dominated by ohia. Koa/Mamane and Akoko Forests also occur in this community. 2.1.6.9 Montane Mesic Communities These communities occur at 900-2,000 m elevation on the slopes of the Kohala Mountains, Mauna Loa, and Mauna Kea. Forests are dominated by ohia, and the ground cover is composed of native sedges and ferns, and epiphytic ferns are common. KoalOhia Forests and Koa/Ohia/Ae Forests occur within Kipukapuaulu and Kipukaki and immediate vicinities in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Olopua forests occur less often. 2.1.6.10 Montane Wet Communities Carex Sedgeland occurs as treeless openings in Mon e Wet Forests. A subtype dominated by Carex alligata occurs in waterlogged sites with a substrate of soft, loose, poorly consolidated dark brown humus in the Kohala Mountains and in the kamakua region. Typical Hawaiian open bogs occur in this region. The Ohia Montane Wet Mixed Community occurs at 1,130-1,700 m elevation. The Ohia/Sphagnum Mixed Bog occurs in the summit region of the Kohala Mountains, at elevation 1,130 m. The ground layer is dominated by Sphagnum spp. and other species include Dichanthelium spp. and the sedges kuolohia and uki; the shrubs include ohia, pukiawe and ohelo. A mixed community of ferns and shrubs occurs on steep, wet slopes. Arrau ferns are often dominant and clumps of loulu occur. A dense growth of akala occurs at some locations. An Ohia/Hapuu Tree Fern Forest occurs on the windward aspect of the island and is largely dominated by hapuu pulu tree ferns. A KoalOhia Forest community occurs on windward Hawaii. Ohia forests occur on the windward side of the island directly above the Ohia/Hapuu Tree Fern and Koa/Ohia Montane Wet Forests. 84040R92.03n67 2 - 19 0710LA Appendix 13 B-8 2.1.6.11 Subalpine Dry Communities Subalpine communities occur at 1,700-3,000 m elevation on Hualalai, Mauna Kea, and Mauna Loa and are dominated by plants adapted to the dry, exposed conditions prevailing there. Most common shrubs are pukiawe, ohelo and aalii. Nohoanu, aweoweo and aalii shrubs are also seen. Ohia occurs on the upper slopes of Mauna Loa and Hualalai, along with dominant Aalii/Ohelo/Pukiawe Shrublands. Mamane occurs principally on Mauna Kea, and to a lesser extent in the saddle area and on the slopes of Mauna Loa and Hualalai. 2.1.6.12 Subalpine Mesic Communities This community occurs on the upper windward slope of Mauna Loa. Grassland dominated by the bunchgrass Deschampsia nubigena is prominent. Kilau or bracken fern is also present. Shrublands primarily are composed of Amau/Ohelo. 2.1.6.13 Alpine Dry Communities Alpine Communities occur above 3,000 m elevation on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa mainly in the form of Ahinahina/Naenae Shrublands. A characteristic of this community is the comparatively large proportion of plant species with American affinities: ahinahina or silversword, naenae, kupaoa, catchfly and Tetramolopium humile. The community within the Mauna Kea Ice Age Natural Area Reserve is currently receiving protective management. 2.1.7 Volcanic Activity 1 During the past 132 years, Mauna Loa has averaged one outbreak in the caldera every four years, and has produced a lava flow every seven years. Kilauea has produced over 30 lava flows outside of its caldera since 1800. The only recorded eruption of Hualalai was in 1800- 1801. Mauna Kea and Kohala have not erupted in historic time. See Table 2-3 for a list of volcanic eruptions from 1969 to 1990. 34040102.03n67 2 - 20 0710LA Appendix B B-9 111 APPENDIX C Waste Composition Study ' South Hilo Landfill, County of Hawaii 1 1 0710LA Harding ESE 1 WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY SOUTH HILO LANDFILL COUNTY OF HAWAII August 2001. ' PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: Harding ESE Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 98-1247 Kaahumanu Street 811 First Avenue, Suite 480 Suite 305 Seattle, WA 98104 Aiea, HI 96701 Telephone (206) 343-9759 Sky Valley Associates P.O. Box 753 Monroe, WA 98272 (360) 794-1853 APPENDIX C 1 Table of Contents 1 1 OVERVIEW 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Sources of Disposed Waste 1 1.3 Methodology 2 . 1.3.1 Sampling Procedures 2 1.3.2 Calculations 3 2 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING RESULTS 5 2.1 Overall Composition 5 2.2 Composition by Substream 8 2.2.1 Transfer Station Substream 8 2.2.2 Commercial Substream 11 2.2.3 Self Haul Substream 14 2.3 Explosive and Hard-to-Process Items 17 Appendix A: Waste Components Appendix B: Sampling Methodology Appendix C: Waste Composition Calculations Appendix D: Field Forms I Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report I Tables Table 1-1 Samples per Day, by Substream . 2 Table 1-2 Number of Samples, Total and Average Sample Weight 3 Table 2-1 Top Ten Components: Overall 6 Table 2-2 Composition Estimates by Weight: Overall 7 Table 2-3 Top Ten Components: Transfer Station 9 Table 2-4 Composition Estimates by Weight: Transfer Station 10 Table 2-5 Top Ten Components: Commercial 12 Table 2-6 Composition Estimates by Weight: Commercial 13 Table 2-7 Top Ten Components: Self-Haul 15 Table 2-8 Composition Estimates by Weight: Self-Haul 16 Table 2-9 Occurrences of Hard-to-Process Items, by Substream 17 Table 2-10 Hard-to-Process Items, by Substream 17 • Figures' Figure 1-1 Overview of Composition Calculation Process 4 Figure 2-1 Overview of Composition Estimates: Overall 5 Figure 2-2 Overview of Composition Estimates: Transfer Station 8 Figure 2-3 Overview of Composition Estimates: Commercial 11 Figure 2-4 Overview of Composition Estimates: Self-Haul 14 1 I Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report I 1 Overview 1.1 Introduction The County of Hawaii is revising its Integrated Solid Wase Management Plan. The plan will examine waste management options in the County folio ing the closure of the South Hilo Landfill. To aid in the evaluation of these options, Cascadia Consulting Group conducted a waste composition study to provide statistically valid data on the types and quantities of waste disposed at the landfill. Cascadia Consulting Group conducted this study, and Sky Valley Associates performed the fieldwork. This report presents the results of the waste composition study, which include compositionI estimates, both for the overall waste stream and for the t ansfer station, commercial, and self- haul wastes disposed at the landfill. The results are bas d on samples taken during April and May of 2001. I There are two major segments of this report. Section 1 briefly summarizes the project, including a description of the sources of disposed waste and the p oject methodology. Section 2 provides an overview of the sampling results for the overall waste tream and the transfer station, commercial, and self-haul wastes. This section also highlights explosive and hard-to-process items observed during sampling. Detailed appendices c vering the study's waste components, methodology, calculations, and field forms, follow the ma n body of the report. 1.2 Sources of Disposed Waste For analysis and planning purposes, the waste stream fr m a particular geographic area can be divided into substreams. A waste substream is defined ccording to its source of generation, its means of collection and transport to the disposal facili y, or both.' For the purposes of this study, the waste disposed at the South Hilo Landfill was divided into the following three substream categories: 1. Transfer Station — This is waste hauled from on of nine transfer stations on the east side of the Island. It is transported to the South Hilo Landfill in transfer station compactor boxes. Transfer station loads are composed primarily of residential waste. I 2. Commercial—This is waste hauled by commerci I hauling companies. Commercial haulers use a variety of vehicles to transport this waste to the South Hilo Landfill, including packer trucks (garbage trucks), roll-offs (primarily open boxes), and other I vehicles (e.g. flatbeds, pickups, etc.). This waste is collected both from residences and businesses. 3. Self-Haul—This is waste that residents, contractors, businesses, and public entities haul directly to the South Hilo Landfill. These loads are transported either in small vehicles (e.g. autos, pick-ups, etc.) or large vehices (e.g. dump trucks, flatbeds, etc). As with waste in the commercial substream, self-haul waste comes from both residences and businesses. Waste from public agencies (such as the County of Hawaii Parks Department) is also included in this category. I It should be noted that this study estimates the composition of waste disposed, not waste generated. Waste generation is equal to the sum of both the disposed anc recycled amounts. I Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 1 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report 1 I • Each of these three substreams contributed a portion of the approximately 67,000 total tons of waste disposed at the South Hilo Landfill in 2000. About 49% (or about 32,700 tons) of this I waste was hauled from transfer stations. Commercial hauling companies disposed nearly 37% (24,700 tons), and the remaining 9,700 tons (approximately 14%) were transported to the landfill by self-haulers. 1.3 Methodology This section presents a summary of the sampling and calculation procedures used in this study. IThe complete sampling methodology can be found in Appendix B. Appendix C describes the calculations in detail. 1.3.1 Sampling Procedures A sampling plan was developed to produce statistically valid composition data for the three substreams described above. A total of 100 samples were captured and sorted at the South I Hilo Landfill from April 25 to May 1, 2001.2 Table 1-1 presents the number of samples taken per day. Table 1-1 - Samples per Day, by Substream I (Number of Samples) Date Transfer Station Commercial Self-Haul Total 4/25/01 11 12 6 29 I4/26/01 11 9 7 27 4/27/01 5 6 7 18 4/30/01 8 6 2 16 I5/1/01 5 3 2 10 Total 40 36 24 100 I The allocation of these samples among the three substreams was determined according to each substream's contribution to the total waste stream. Adjustments were made so that a sufficient number of samples were taken from each substream to assure a representative Icomposition. All loads were systematically selected for sampling.3 Commercial and self-haul loads were stratified by vehicle type and generator type, respectively. Accordingly, commercial samples were apportioned between packer trucks, and roll-offs and other vehicles, while self-haul samples were apportioned between residential and commercial loads. I I 2 Because all sampling occurred during April and May of 2001, these results do not account for any seasonal variation. 3 Systematic sampling is outlined in more detail in Appendix B. In short, this procedure assures that the I correct number of samples is taken randomly and throughout the day by selecting every"nth,/ vehicle from each substream (i.e. every 4th commercial packer truck). Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 2 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: I APPENDIX C Final Report From each selected load, a 200-to 300-pound represent tive sample was hand-sorted into the 58 prescribed component categories, which were then weighed and recorded. A list of the material categories is included in Appendix A. Any evidence of explosive or hard-to-process items was also noted for each load (see Section 2.3). Ta le 1-2 summarizes the number of samples and their total and average weight. Table 1-2 - Number of Samples, Total and Average Sample Weight (All W fights in pounds) Sample Total Average Count Sam ,le Sample Transfer Station 40 9,553.09 238.8 Commercial 36 8,163.11 226.8 Self-Haul 24 5,701116 237.5 Overall 100 23,417.36 234.2 1.3.2 Calculations Figure 1-1 presents a flow chart that summarizes the cal ulation process for the South Hilo Landfill waste composition estimates. Composition estim tes were calculated for the sample groups, the three substreams, and the overall waste stre m using the linked procedure shown. For the transfer station substream, composition percentages were calculated for each of the nine transfer stations. Sample loads that came from each of the nine stations determined these composition percentages. The percentages were weighted according to the tons disposed by each station during the year 2000, and then pooled to prdduce an overall transfer station composition.4 For the commercial haulers, separate composition percentages were calculated for three vehicle types: packer, roll-off, and other vehicles. These ercentages were weighted according to the estimated tons disposed by each vehicle type during 2000. They were then combined to give composition percentages for the commercial substream. For the self-haul substream, only mixed waste loads wer selected for sampling. Review of the landfill's Annual Tonnage Report for 2000 showed that m xed waste loads accounted for 66% of total incoming self-haul loads. The composition of mixed waste samples was combined and weighted with pure load tonnages to yield the resulting s If-haul composition.5 4 The South Hilo Landfill provided all tonnages used to "weight' each sample group for this study. The weighting process is described in Appendix C. 5 There were 14 different types of pure loads disposing nearly ,300 tons of waste at the landfill in 2000. Each of these pure loads is equivalent to a sampling group and contains a single waste component(e.g. confidential documents or tires). Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 3 Bounty of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report Finally, the overall waste stream composition was calculated as an aggregate of the sample group compositions, which were weighted according to their tonnage contribution to the overall waste stream. All waste composition results were derived using a 90% confidence level, meaning that there is a 90% certainty that the actual composition is within the calculated range. In tables and charts throughout this report, the values graphed represent the mean component percentage, not the range. Figure 1-1 - Overview of Composition Calculation Process Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Sample Groups Substream Overall Composition Waste Stream Composition Transfer Station Boxes • Hilo Keaau Pahoa Transfer Station Kalapana Composition Glenwood Volcano Pahala Papaikou Overall Honomu Waste Stream Composition Commercially Hauled Loads Packer Trucks Commercial Roll-Offs Composition Other Vehicle Types Self Hauled Loads Mixed Waste loads Self-haul Composition Pure Loads Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 4 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report 2 Summary of Sampling Results Composition results for the overall waste stream and the three substreams are given in Sections 2.1 and Section 2.2. The results are presented as follows: First, a pie chart depicts the composition by nine broad waste categories: paper, glass, metal, plastic, organics, construction and demolition, household hazardous, special, and mixed. Then, a table lists the ten largest components, by weight, and finally, a more comprehensive table details the full composition results for the 58 component categories.6 2.1 Overall Composition Figure 2-1 summarizes the overall composition results of waste disposed at the South HiloI Landfill. When combined, organics and paper comprise more than half of the waste stream. Construction and demolition waste accounts for another 1 8% by weight. The construction and demolition category includes such components as clean lumber and gypsum scrap. The organics broad waste category contains such components as food, textiles, and prunings. Figure 2-1 - Overview of Composition Estimates: Overall I Household Special Mixed Hazardous 6.2% 1.3% 0.3% Paper 23.5% I Construction is ,,,,., , ,,, i and . � •`? Glass I _,,,,,,„,„,i44:401. 3x:Y>''c; yyi''e: Demolition .. . :.. . - 3.0% 18.1% , I Metal 8.8% Organics 30.4% Plastic 8.5% I I 6 Please see Appendix A for a full listing of the component cat-gories, how they are organized by broad waste category, and corresponding definitions. I Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 5 bounty of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report I I Of the 58 component categories, the ten components with the largest composition percentages, by weight, are shown in Table 2-1. Food, clean lumber, and cardboard make up over a third of the waste stream, or nearly 22,000 tons in 2000. Table 2-2 lists the composition percentages, by weight, of the 58 component categories in the overall waste stream. Table 2-1 -Top Ten Components: Overall ' 111 Component Mean Cum. % Tons 111 Food 15.5% 15.5% 10,402 Clean Lumber 8.9% 24.4% 5,956 Cardboard 8.3% 32.7% 5,556 I R/C Organic 7.3% 40.0% 4,872 R/C Paper 5.6% 45.6% 3,768 Ferrous 4.0% 49.6% 2,702 IPrunings 3.7% 53.4% 2,502 Treated Lumber 3.2% 56.6% 2,153 I Miscellaneous Paper 3.1% 59.6% 2,060 Plastic Film 2.7% 62.4% 1,842 Total 62.4% 41,812 I I 111 I I I 'The abbreviation "R/C"stands for Remainder/Composite. The R/C components include waste that is made mostly of one component but contains significant amounts of other components, or waste that is part of a broad waste category but cannot be put into any of its' component categories. Examples of R/C organic waste includes carpet and disposable diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated Imilk cartons belong to R/C paper. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 6 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report I Table 2-2 - Composition Estimates by Weight: Overall Calculated at a 90%confidence interval Tons Mean Low High Tons Mean Low High Paper 15,724 23.5% Construction and Demolition 12,143 18.1% Cardboard 5,556 8.3% 6.7% 9.9% Treated Lumber 2,153 3.2% 1.5% 4.9% Bags 313 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% Concrete 710 1.1% 0.2% 1.9% Newspaper 1,673 2.5% 1.9% 3.1% Asphalt Paling 944 1.4% 0.0% 3.1% 111 White Ledger 687 1.0% 0.7% 1.4% Asphalt Roofing 182 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% Colored Ledger 76 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Clean Lumtler 5,956 8.9% 6.2% 11.6% Computer 27 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Gypsum Board 291 0.4% 0.0% 0.9% Office 653 1.0% 0.7% 1.3% Rocks and Soil 138 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% Magazines 852 1.3% 0.9% 1.7% R/C Demo 1,769 2.6% 0.9% 4.3% Directories 61 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Household Hazardous 221 0.3% Miscellaneous 2,060 3.1% 2.6% 3.5% Paint 38 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% R/C Paper 3,768 5.6% 4.6% 6.7% Vehicle Fluids 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Glass 1,985 3.0% Oil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Clear Containers 747 1.1% 0.8% 1.4% Batteries • 77 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Green Containers 570 0.9% 0.6% 1.1% R/C Hazardous 84 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Brown Containers 522 0.8% 0.5% 1.0% Special 4,176 6.2% Other Containers 12 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ash 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Flat Glass 52 0:1% 0.0% 0.2% Sewage SlLdge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% R/C Glass 82 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Industrial SlIudge 1,414 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% Metal 5,888 8.8% Treated Medical 137 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% Tin Cans 613 0.9% 0.7% 1.1% Bulky Items 1,713 2.6% 1.1% 4.0% White Goods 611 0.9% 0.0% 2.3% Tires 809 1.2% 0.7% 1.7% Ferrous 2,702 4.0% 2.3% 5.8% R/C Specia 88 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Aluminum Cans 286 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% Mixed 860 1.3% Nonferrous 216 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% Mixed Resioue 860 1.3% 0.8% 1.8% R/C Metal 1,459 2.2% 1.1% 3.2% Plastic 5,677 8.5% #2 Containers 337 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% #1 Containers 411 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% Other Containers 215 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% Film 1,842 2.7% 2.3% 3.2% Durable 1,161 1.7% 0.8% 2.7% R/C Plastic 1,712 2.6% 1.9% 3.2% Organics 20,351 30.4% Food 10,402 15.5% 13.1% 17.9% I Leaves and Grass 1,119 1.7% 0.9% 2.5% Prunings 2,502 3.7% 2.0% 5.4% Stumps 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Textiles 1,456 2.2% 1.4% 3.0% R/C Organic 4,872 7.3% 5.1% 9.5% I Total Tons 67,025 Sample Count 100 I 1 Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 7 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report I 2.2 Composition by Substream 2.2.1 Transfer Station Substream A total of 40 transfer station loads were sampled. Figure 2-2 depicts the composition results on a broad waste category level. Similar to the overall waste stream, organics and paper account for over 50% of this substream by weight. Another 12.4% is construction and demolition waste. Construction and demolition waste includes materials such as concrete, clean lumber, and gypsum board. Figure 2-2 -Overview of Composition Estimates: Transfer Station Special Mixed Household ° Hazardous 4.9% 1.8% 0.5% Paper 22.6% Construction .`. L\ ' and Demolition 12.4% -F Glass 3.8% Metal Organics 10.5% 34.3% Plastic 9.2% 1 The top ten components of the transfer station substream are shown in Table 2-3. When summed together, they make up nearly 60% of the substream, by weight. Alone, food waste accounts for approximately 14.2% of this substream's total tonnage. The top five components Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 8 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report I belong to the organic and paper broad waste categories, nd account for over 40% (13,506 tons). Table 2-4 presents the transfer station composition percentages in more detail. 1 P P 9 Table 2-3 -Top Ten Components: Transfer Station Component Mean Cum. % TonsI Food 14.2% 14.2% 4,657 R/C Organic 7.6% 21.8% 2,472 Prunings 6.9% 28.6% 2,244 Cardboard 6.8% 35.5% 2,229 R/C Paper 5.8% 41.3% 1,904 Ferrous 4.2% 45.5% 1,375 Bulky Items 4.1% 49.6% 1,357 Miscellaneous Paper- 3.8% 53.4% 1,241 R/C Plastic 3.3% 56.7% 1,067 Treated Lumber 3.2% 59.9% 1,055 Total 59.9% 19,600 I I I I I I I I I I Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 9 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report I I ITable 2-4- Composition Estimates by Weight: Transfer Station Calculated at a 90%confidence interval Tons Mean Low High Tons Mean Low High I Paper 7,398 22.6% Construction and Demolition 4,055 12.4% Cardboard 2,229 6.8% 5.5% 8.2% Treated Lumber 1,055 3.2% 1.4% 5.0% Bags 153 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% Concrete 421 1.3% 0.3% 2.3% Newspaper 916 2.8% 2.0% 3.6% Asphalt Paving 664 2.0% 0.0% 5.2% White Ledger 255 0.8% 0.5% 1.0% Asphalt Roofing 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Colored Ledger 31 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Clean Lumber 793 2.4% 1.4% 3.5% Computer 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ' Gypsum Board 70 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% Office 243 0.7% 0.1% 1.3% Rocks and Soil 98 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% Magazines 416 1.3% 0.8% 1.7% R/C Demo 954 2.9% 0.3% 5.6% Directories 9 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Household Hazardous 175 0.5% Miscellaneous 1,241 3.8% 3.0% 4.6% Paint 38 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% R/C Paper 1,904 5.8% 4.5% 7.1% Vehicle Fluids 13 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Glass 1,231 3.8% Oil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Clear Containers 430 1.3% 0.9% 1.7% Batteries 57 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% Green Containers 356 1.1% 0.8% 1.4% R/C Hazardous ' 66 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% Brown Containers 358 1.1% 0.7% 1.5% Special 1,590 4.9% Other Containers 11 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Ash 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Flat Glass 24 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% R/C Glass 52 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 i Metal 3,449 10.5% Treated Medical 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Tin Cans 432 1.3% 1.0% 1.7% Bulky Items 1,357 4.1% 1.5% 6.8% 0 0.0% 4.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0 White Goods 611 1.9/0 Tires 183 1.1/o Ferrous 1,375 4.2% 2.2% 6.2% ' R/C Special 50 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% I Aluminum Cans 167 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% Mixed 605 1.8% Nonferrous 143 0.4% 0.3% 0.6% Mixed Residue 605 1.8% 0.9% 2.8% R/C Metal 721 2.2% 0.8% 3.6% I Plastic 2,995 9.2% #2 Containers 207 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% #1 Containers 255 0.8% 0.5% 1.0% Other Containers 125 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% Film 886 2.7% 2.2% 3.2% Durable 455 1.4% 0.9% 1.9% R/C Plastic 1,067 3.3% 2.4% 4.2% Organics 11,219 34.3% Food 4,657 14.2% 11.2% 17.3% Leaves and Grass 924 2.8% 1.2% 4.4% Prunings 2,244. 6.9% 3.4% 10.3% Stumps 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% I Crop Residue Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Textiles 921 2.8% 1.9% 3.8% R/C Organic 2,472 7.6% 4.3% 10.8% I I Total Tons 32,719 Sample Count 40 I I Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 10 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: IAPPENDIX C Final Report I 2.2.2 Commercial SubstreamI There were a total of 36 commercial loads sampled, incl11 u ing 19 packers, 8 roll-offs, and 9 loads from other--vehicles. Figure 2-3 provides an overvi w of the commercially hauled waste. As depicted, organics, paper, and construction and demo ition waste each account for about one fourth of the total tons disposed by the commercial s bstream in 2000. The organics category includes such components as food, textiles, and prunings. Examples of construction and demolition waste are concrete and clean lumber. Figure 2-3 - Overview of Composition stimates: CommercialI Household Special Mixed Hazardous 1.6% 0.9% 0.1% Paper Construction 27.5% and , .; I Demolition 23.5% >>.w ry Glass 3.0% I Organics Metal 26.2% 7.2% Plas is 10.0% I I I I As shown in Table 2-5, food, clean lumber, and cardboard account for almost one half of the tons disposed by the commercial substream by.weight. When combined, they make up nearly I Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 11 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report I 11,500 of the approximately 25,000 commercially hauled tons that were disposed in 2000. The full commercial composition results are detailed in Table 2-6. Table 2-5 -Top Ten Components: Commercial Component Mean Cum. % Tons I Food 18.8% 18.8% 4,638 Clean Lumber 17.2% 36.0% 4,244 Cardboard 10.5% 46.6% 2,595 I R/C Paper 6.5% 53.1% 1,599 Ferrous 4.1% 57.2% 1,022 R/C Organic 3.8% 61.0% 946 I Plastic Film 3.7% 64.7% 907 Treated Lumber 3.4% 68.1% 826 Miscellaneous Paper 3.0% 71.1% 744 Durable Plastic 2.8% 73.9% 690 Total 73.9% 18,210 I I I I I 1 I I I I Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 12 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: IAPPENDIX C Final Report I I Table 2-6 - Composition Estimates by Weight: Commercial I Calculated at a 90%confidence interval Tons Mean Low High Tons Mean Low High Paper 6,790 27.5% Construction and Demolition 5,793 23.5% Cardboard 2,595 10.5% 7.4% 13.7% Treated L�tuber 826 3.4% 0.0% 7.1% Bags 147 0.6% 0.4% 0.8% Concrete 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Newspaper 621 2.5% 1.5% 3.5% Asphalt P ving 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% White Ledger 427 1.7% 0.9% 2.6% Asphalt R offing 183 0.7% 0.0% 2.0% Colored Ledger 44 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Clean Lu ber 4,244 17.2% 10.4% 24.1% Computer 24 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Gypsum oard 41 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% Office 106 0.4% 0.3% 0.6% Rocks an Soil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Magazines 431 1.7% 0.8% 2.7% R/C Dem 497 2.0% 0.0% 4.6% Directories 53 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% Househo d Hazardous 34 0.1% Miscellaneous 744 3.0% 2.4% 3.7% Paint 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% R/C Paper 1,599 6.5% 4.5% 8.5% Vehicle FI ids 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Glass 729 3.0% Oil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Clear Containers 307 1.2% 0.8% 1.7% Batteries 16 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Green Containers 212 0.9% 0.4% 1.3% R/C Haza dous 17 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Brown Containers 160 0.6% 0.3% 1.0% Special 394 1.6% Other Containers 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ash 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Flat Glass 28 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Sewage ludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% R/C Glass 22 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Industrial ludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Metal 1,775 7.2% Treated edical 77 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% Tin Cans 171 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% Bulky Items 47 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% White Goods 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Tires 231 0.9% 0.0% 2.1% Ferrous 1,022 4.1% 0.3% 8.0% R/C Special 38 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% Aluminum Cans 115 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% Mixed 222 0.9% Nonferrous 67 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% Mixed Re idue 222 0.9% 0.5% 1.3% R/C Metal 401 1.6% 0.4% 2.9% Plastic 2,455 10.0% #2 Containers 124 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% #1 Containers 150 0.6% 0.3% 0.9% Other Containers 84 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% Film 907 3.7% 2.8% 4.5% Durable 690 2.8% 0.3%. 5.2% R/C Plastic 500 2.0% 1.0% 3.0% Organics 6,456 26.2% Food 4,638 18.8% 13.7% 24.0% Leaves and Grass 149 0.6% 0.2% 1.1% Prunings 206 0.8% 0.3% 1.4% Stumps 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Textiles 517 2.1% 0.4% 3.8% R/C Organic 946 3.8% 1.5% 6.1% I Total Tons 24,648 Sample Count 36 I I Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 13 bounty of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report 1 2.2.3 Self-Haul Substream A total of 24 loads of self-haul waste were sampled. As discussed above, the mixed waste loads accounted for 66% of the total tons brought to the South Hilo Landfill by self-haulers in 2000. The remaining waste was delivered in pure loads, or loads containing only one waste component (i.e. confidential documents or tires).8 Figure 2-4 depicts the self-haul composition results by broad waste category. When combined, organics and construction and demolition waste comprise just over half of the self-haul tons disposed in 2000. Examples of organic waste components include food and textiles, while concrete and clean lumber are categorized as construction and demolition waste. Special wastes make up approximately 22.7% of the total self-haul tonnage. This waste is predominantly industrial sludge, which alone accounts for 15% of the self-haul waste stream, and is disposed solely in pure loads. Figure 2-4 - Overview of Composition Estimates: Self-Haul Mixed Paper Special 0.3% 15.9% 22.7% Glass 0.3% Metal Household 6 9% Hazardous war 0.1 — .,.. Plastic 2.4% • Construction and Organics Demolition 27.7% 23.8% 8 All self-haul composition estimates were calculated by performing a weighted average based on the tons disposed by mixed loads and each of the pure load sample groups. For more information about these calculations, please refer to Appendix C. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 14 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report I Table 2-7 lists the ten components with the largest comp sition percentages, by weight, for the self-haul substream. Remainder/composite organics account for approximately 15% of all self- haul tons disposed in 2000. Carpet and carpet padding i omprise a large portion of the R/C organic waste in the self-haul substream. Industrial slud e, which is received entirely in pure loads, accounts for approximately 15%, by weight. Tabl6 2-8 lists the composition percentages of each of the 58 component categories. By weight, pure loads account for about 34% of self- haul waste disposed at the landfill in 2000. Table 2-7 -Top Ten Compone ts: Self-Haul 111 Component Mean Cum. % Tons R/C Organic 15.0% 15.0% 1,453 Industrial Sludge 14.6% 29.7% 1,414 Food 11.4% 41.1% 1,103 aean Lumber 9.5% 50.6% 921 Cardboard 7.6% 58.2% 732 Tires 4.1% 62.3% 394 R/C Metal 3.5% 65.8% 337 R/CDemo 3.3% 69.1% 318 Bulky Items 3.2% 72.3% 310 Ferrous 3.2% 75.5% 307 Total 75.5% 7,289 I I I I I I I I I Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 15 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report I Table 2-8- Composition Estimates by Weight: Self-Haul Calculated at a 90%confidence interval I Tons Mean Low High Tons Mean Low High Paper 1,533 15.9% Construction and Demolition 2,297 23.8% Cardboard 732 7.6% 1.0% 14.2% Treated Lumber 273 2.8% 0.0% 5.8% Bags 13 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Concrete 287 3.0% 0.0% 7.7% Newspaper 136 1.4% 0.0% 3.5% Asphalt Paving 279 2.9% 0.0% 7.6% White Ledger 5 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Asphalt Roofing 0 0.0%' 0.0% 0.0% Colored Ledger 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Clean Lumber 921 9.5% 3.2% 15.8% Computer 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Gypsum Board 179 1.9% 0.0% 4.9% Office 302 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% Rocks and Soil 40 0.4% 0.2% 0:6% Magazines 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% R/C Demo 318, 3.3% 0.0% 7.1% Directories 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Household Hazardous 14 0.1% Miscellaneous ' 75 0.8% 0.0% 1.6% Paint 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% R/C Paper 265 2.7% 0.0% 5.6% Vehicle Fluids 9 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Glass 25 0.3% oil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Clear Containers 10 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Batteries 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Green Containers 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% R/C Hazardous 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Brown Containers 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Special 2,193 22.7% Other Containers 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ash 15 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Flat Glass 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% R/C Glass 8 ' 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Industrial Sludge 1,414 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% Metal 664 6.9% Treated Medical 59 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Tin Cans 10 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Bulky Items 310 '3.2% 0.0% 6.9% White Goods 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Tires 394 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% Ferrous 307 3.2% 0.1% 6.2% R/C Special 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Aluminum Cans 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Mixed 32 0.3% Nonferrous 6 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Mixed Residue 32 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% R/C Metal 337 3.5% 0.0% 8.2% Plastic 228 2.4% #2 Containers 6 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% #1 Containers 5 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Other Containers 5 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Film 49 0.5% 0,1% 0.9% Durable 17 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% R/C Plastic 145 1.5% 0.0% 3.0% Organics 2,673 27.7% Food 1,103 11.4% 10.5% 12.3% Leaves and Grass 46 0.5% 0.0% 1.2% Prunings 51 0.5% 0.0% 1.3% Stumps 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Crop Residue 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% I Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Textiles 18 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% R/C Organic 1,453 15.0% 6.5% 23.6% I Total Tons 9,658 ISample Count 24 I I Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 16 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report I 1 2.3 Explosive and Hard-to-Process Items In addition to capturing and sorting samples, the Field S pervisor noted loads that contained explosive or hard-to-process items. Hard-to-process ite s include anything that would be difficult or impossible to manually sort, automatically pro ess, or transfer by conveyor belt due to weight or size constraints. Examples of these items are ppliances, mattresses, and carpet. Of the 100 loads sampled, 28 contained hard-to-process items. Table 2-9 lists the percent of sampled loads containing hard-to-process items, by sub tream. Table 2-10 outlines the types of hard-to-process items identified in each substream. Other large metal objects, appliances, and pallets were the most frequently encountered items. The Field Supervisor observed no explosive items during the five days of sampling at the South Hilo Transfer Station. Table 2-9 - Occurrences of Hard-to-Proc ss Items, by Substream Number of Samples Containing Percent ofI Substream Samples Hard-to-Process Items Total Transfer Station 401 ? 30% Commercial 36 22% Self-Haul 24 8 33% Overall 100 28 28% Table 2-10 - Hard-to-Process Ite s, by Substream Hard-to-Process Item Transfer Station Commercial Self-Haul Total Appliances 4 - - 4 Asphalt - - 1 1 Bulky Items 3 - - 3 Cabinets - - 2 2 I Carpet 1 - 1 2 Concrete - - 1 1 Furniture - 1 - 1 Large Glass - 1 - 1 Large Lumber 1 1 1 3 Large Metal 4 2 1 7 Large Roofing 1 1 - 2 Pallets - 4 - 4 I I I I i Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 17 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Final Report Appendix A: Waste Components The list and definitions of the Standard Material Categories were drawn from the California Integrated Waste Management Board's Uniform Waste Disposal Characterization Method. The component category "treated lumber" was added during the design of this study. List of Component Categories The list below shows a hierarchy of broad waste categories and corresponding components. As part of the County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study, samples were sorted into the 58 specific components shown in bold type, and composition percentages were calculated for those components. Broad Material Category Component Category Paper 1 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 2 Paper Bags 3 Newspaper 4 White Ledger 5 Colored Ledger 6 Computer Paper 7 Other Office Paper 8 Magazines and Catalogs 9 Phone Books and Directories 10 Other Miscellaneous Paper 11 Remainder/Composite Paper Glass 12 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 13 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 14 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 15 Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers 16 Flat Glass ' 17 Remainder/Composite Glass Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. A-1 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices Metal 18 Tin/Steel Cans 19 Major Appliances 20 Other Ferrous 21 Aluminum Cans 22 Other Non-Ferrous 23 Remainder/Composite Metal • Plastic 24 HDPE Containers 25 PETE Containers 26 Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 27 Film Plastic 28 Durable Plastic Items 29 Remainder/Composite Plastic Organic 30 Food • 31 Leaves and Grass 32 Prunings and Trimmings 33 Branches and Stumps 34 Agricultural Crop Residues 35 Manures 36 Textiles 37 Remainder/Composite Organic Construction and Demolition 38 Concrete 39 Asphalt Paving 40 Asphalt Roofing 41 Clean Lumber 42 Treated Lumber 43 Gypsum Board 44 Rock, Soil and Fines 45 Remainder/Composite Constructi.n and Demolition ' Household Hazardous Waste 46 Paint 47 Vehicle and Equipment Fluids 48 Used Oil 49 Batteries 50. Remainder/Composite Household azardous Special Waste 51 Ash 52 Sewage Solids 53 Industrial Sludge 54 Treated Medical Waste 55 Bulky Items 56 Tires 57 Remainder/Composite Special Waste Mixed Residue 58 Mixed Residue i Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. A-2 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices Definitions of Component Categories Paper (1) Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard usually has three layers. The center wavy layer is sandwiched between the two outer layers. It does not have any wax coating on the inside or outside. Examples: This component includes entire cardboard containers, such as shipping and moving boxes, computer packaging cartons, and sheets and pieces of boxes and cartons. This component does not include chipboard. (2) Paper Bags means bags and sheets made from kraft paper. Examples: This component includes paper grocery bags, fast food bags, department store bags, and heavyweight sheets of kraft packing paper. (3) Newspaper means paper used in newspapers. Examples: This component includes newspaper and glossy inserts, and all items made from newsprint, such as free advertising guides, election guides, and tax instruction booklets. (4) White Ledger means uncolored bond, rag, or stationary grade paper. It may have colored ink on it. When the paper is torn, the fibers are white. Examples: This component includes white photocopy, white laser print, and letter paper. (5) Colored Ledger means colored bond, rag, or stationery grade paper. When the paper is torn, the fibers are colored throughout. Examples: This component includes colored photocopy and letter paper. This component does not include fluorescent dyed paper or deep-tone dyed paper such as goldenrod colored paper. (6) Computer Paper means paper used for computer printouts. This component usually ' has a strip of form feed holes along two edges. If there are no holes, then the edges show tear marks. This component can be white or striped. Examples: This component includes computer paper and printouts from continuous feed printers. This componentdoes not include "white ledger" used in laser or impact printers, nor computer paper containing groundwood. 7 Other Office Paper means other kinds of paper used in offices. ( ) p p p Examples: This component includes manila folders, manila envelopes, index cards, white envelopes, white window envelopes, notebook paper, and carbonless forms. This component does not include "white ledger," "colored ledger," or"computer paper". Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. A-3 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices (8) Magazines and Catalogs means items made of lossy coated paper. This paper is usually slick, smooth to the touch, and reflects lig t: Examples: This component includes glossy mag zines, catalogs, brochures and • pamphlets: (9) Phone Books and Directories means thin pape between coated covers. These items are bound along the spine with glue. Examples: This component includes whole or da aged telephone books, "yellow pages," real estate listings, and some non-glossy mail order catalogs. (10) Other Miscellaneous Paper means items made mostly of paper that do not fit into any of the above components. Paper may be combin d with minor amounts of other materials such as wax or glues. This component ncludes items made of chipboard, groundwood paper, and deep-toned or fluoresce t dyed paper. Examples: This component includes cereal and c acker boxes, unused paper plates and cups, goldenrod colored paper, and hardcover a d softcover books. (11) Remainder/Composite Paper means items ma e mostly of paper but combined with large amounts of other materials such as wax, pI stic, glues, foil, food, and moisture. Examples: This component includes waxed corru ated cardboard, asepticpackages, wax coated milk cartons, waxed paper, tissue, paper towels, blueprints, sepia, onionskin, fast food wrappers, carbon paper, self-adhesive otes, and photographs. Glass (12) Clear Glass Bottles and Containers means cle r glass beverage and food containers with or without a CRV label. Examples: This component includes whole or bro en clear soda and beer bottles, fruit juice bottles, peanut butter jars, and mayonnaise Fars. (13) Green Glass Bottles and Containers means gr-en-colored glass containers with or, without a CRV label. Examples: This component includes whole or bro en green soda and beer bottles, and whole or broken green wine bottles. (14) Brown Glass Bottles and Containers means brawn-colored glass containers with or without a CRV label. Examples: This component includes whole or bro en brown soda and beer bottles, and whole or broken brown wine bottles. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. A-4 ounty of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices (15) Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers means colored glass containers and bottles other thang reen or brown with or without a CRV label. Examples: This component includes whole or broken blue or other colored bottles and ' containers. (16) Flat Glass means clear or tinted glass that is flat. Examples: This component includes glass windowpanes, doors, and tabletops, flat automotive window glass (side windows), safety glass, and architectural glass. This component does not include windshields, laminated glass, or any curved glass. (17) Remainder/Composite Glass means glass that cannot be put in any other component category. It includes items made mostly of glass but combined with other materials. Examples: This component includes Pyrex, Corningware, crystal and other glass tableware, mirrors, and auto windshields. Metal (18) Tin/Steel Cans means rigid containers made mainly of steel. These items will stick to a magnet and may be tin-coated. This component is used to store food, beverages, paint, and a variety of other household and consumer products. Examples: This component includes canned food and beverage containers, empty metal paint cans, empty spray paint and other aerosol containers, and bimetal containers with steel sides and aluminum ends. (19) Major Appliances means discarded major appliances of any color. These items are often enamel-coated. Examples: This component includes washing machines, clothes dryers, hot water heaters, stoves, and refrigerators. This component does not include electronics, such as televisionsand stereos. (20) Other Ferrous means any iron or steel that is magnetic or any stainless steel item. This component does not include "tin/steel cans". Examples: This component includes structural steel beams, metal clothes hangers, metal pipes, stainless steel cookware, security bars, and scrap ferrous items. (21) Aluminum Cans means any food or beverage container made mainly of aluminum. Examples: This component includes aluminum soda or beer cans, and some pet food cans. This component does not include bimetal containers with steel sides and aluminum ends. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. A-5 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices (22) Other Non-Ferrous means any metal item, other than aluminum cans, that is not stainless steel and that is not magnetic. These it ms may be made of aluminum, copper, brass, bronze, lead,zinc, or other metals. Examples: This component includes aluminum w ndow frames, aluminum siding, copper wire, shell casings, brass pipe, and aluminum foil. (23) Remainder/Composite Metal means metal that annot be put in any other component category. This component includes items made ostly of metal but combined with other materials and items made of both ferrous metals =nd non-ferrous metal combined. Examples: This component includes brown good (electronics and other small appliances), computers, televisions; radios, and -lectronic parts. Plastic (24) .HDPEContainers means natural and colored HIP PE containers. This plastic is usually • either cloudy white, allowing light to pass through it (natural) or a solid color,'preventing_ light from passing through it (colored). When mar ed for identification, it bears the number"2" in the triangular recycling symbol. Examples:.This component includes milk jugs, w-ter jugs, detergent bottles, some hair- care bottles, empty motor oil, empty antifreeze, a d other empty vehicle and equipment fluid containers. (25) PETE Containers means clear or colored PETE ontainers. When marked for identification, it bears the number"1-" in the cente of the triangular recycling symbol and may also bear the letters "PETE" or"PET". The calor is usually transparent green or clear. A PETE container usually has a small dot I-ft from the manufacturing process, not a seam. It does not turn white when bent. Examples: This component includes soft drink an. water bottles, some liquor bottles, cooking oil containers, and aspirin bottles. (26) Miscellaneous Plastic Containers means plasti containers made of types of plastic other than HDPE-or PETE. Items maybe made o PVC, PP, or PS. When marked for identification, these items may bear the number" ," "4," "5," "6,".or "7" in the triangular recycling symbol. Examples: This component includes food contain rs such as bottles for salad dressings ' and vegetable oils, flexible and brittle yogurt cups and lids, syrup bottles, margarine tubs, microwave food trays, and clamshell-shape fast food containers. This component also includes some shampoo containers and vitamin bottles. _ 111 Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. A-6 cbounty of Hawaii;Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices (27) Film Plastic means flexible plastic sheeting. It is made from a variety of plastic resins including HDPE and LDPE. It can be easily contoured around an object by hand pressure. Examples: This component includes plastic garbage bags, food bags, dry cleaning bags, grocery store bags, packaging wrap, and food wrap. This component does not include rigid bubble packaging. (28) Durable Plastic Items means plastic objects other than containers and film plastic. This component also includes plastic objects other than containers or film that bear the numbers "1" through "7" in the triangular recycling symbol. These items are usually made to last for more than one use. Examples: This component includes plastic outdoor furniture, plastic toys and sporting goods, and plastic housewares, such as mop buckets, dishes, cups, and cutlery. This component also includes building materials such as house siding, window sashes and frames, housings for electronics such as computers, televisions and stereos, and plastic pipes and fittings. (29) Remainder and Composite Plastic means plastic that cannot be put in any other component category. This component includes items made mostly of plastic but combined with other materials. Examples: This component includes auto parts made of plastic attached to metal, plastic bubble packaging, drinking straws, foam drinking cups, produce trays, egg cartons, foam packing blocks, packing peanuts, and cookie and muffin trays. Other Organic (30) Food means food material resulting from the processing, storage, preparation, cooking, handling or consumption of food. This component includes material from industrial, commercial or residential sources. Examples: This component includes discarded meat scraps, dairy products, eggshells, fruit or vegetable peels, and other food items from homes, stores, and restaurants. This component includes grape pomace and other processed residues or material from S canneries, wineries, or other industrial sources. (31) Leaves and Grass means plant material, except woody material, from any public or private landscapes. Examples: This component includes leaves, grass clippings, and plants. This component does not include woody material or material from agricultural sources. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. A-7 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices (32) Prunings and Trimmings means woody plant aterial up to 4 inches in diameter from any public or private landscape. Examples: This component includes prunings, shrubs, and small branches with branch diameters that do not exceed 4 inches. This corn onent does not include stumps, tree trunks, or branches exceeding 4 inches in diameter. This component does not include material from agricultural sources. (33) Branches and Stumps means woody plant mat rial, branches and stumps that exceed 4 inches in diameter from any public or private landscape. (34) Agricultural Crop Residues means plant materi I from agricultural.sources. Examples:This component includes orchard and vineyard prunings, vegetable by-products from farming, residual fruits, vegetab es, and other crop remains after usable crop is harvested. This component does not include processed residues from canneries, wineries, orotherindustrial sources. (35) Manures means manure and soiled bedding mat rials from domestic, farm, or ranch animals.. Examples: This component includes manure and soiled bedding from animal production operations, racetracks, riding stables, animal hossitals, and other sources. (36) Textiles means items made of thread, yarn, fabri , or cloth. Examples: This component includes clothes, fabr c trimmings, draperies, and all natural and synthetic cloth fibers. This component does of include cloth-covered furniture, mattresses, leather shoes, leather bags, or leath-r belts. (37) Remainder/Composite Organic means organic aterial that cannot be put in any other component category. This component includes it-ms made mostly of organic materials but combined with other materials. Examples: This component includes leather item-, carpets, disposable diapers, cork,. hemp rope, garden hoses, rubber items, hair, an. carpet padding: Construction And Demolition (38) Concrete means a hard material made from sans, gravel, aggregate, cement mix and water. Examples: This component includes pieces of building foundations, concrete paving, and cinder blocks': (39) Asphalt Paving means a black or brown, tar-like material mixed with aggregate used as a paving material. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. A-8 ounty of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices (40) Asphalt Roofing means composite shingles and other roofing material made with asphalt. Examples: This component includes asphalt shingles and attached roofing tar and tarpaper. (41) Clean Lumber means processed wood for building, manufacturing, landscaping, packaging, and processed wood from demolition. Examples: This component includes dimensional lumber, lumber cutoffs, engineered wood such as plywood and particleboard, wood scraps, pallets, wood fencing, wood shake roofing, and wood siding. (42) Treated Lumber means new and used lumber that has been treated with any chemical preservative. Examples: This component includes railroad ties, marine timbers and pilings, some landscape timbers, and telephone poles. (43) Gypsum Board means interior wall covering made of a sheet of gypsum sandwiched between paper layers. Examples: This component includes used or unused, broken or whole sheets of sheetrock, drywall, gypsum board, plasterboard, gypboard, gyproc, and wallboard. (44) Rock, Soil and Fines means rock pieces of any size and soil, dirt, and other matter. Examples: This component includes rock, stones, and sand, clay, soil and other fines. This component also includes non-hazardous contaminated soil. (45) Remainder/Composite Construction and Demolition means construction and demolition material that cannot be put in any other component category. This component may include items from different components combined, which would be very hard to separate. Examples: This component includes brick, ceramics, tiles, toilets, sinks, and fiberglass insulation. This component may also include demolition debris that is a mixture of items such as plate glass, wood, tiles, gypsum board, and aluminum scrap. Household Hazardous Waste (46) Paint means containers with paint in them. Examples: This component includes latex paint, oil-based paint, and tubes of pigment or fine art paint. This component does not include dried paint, empty paint cans, or empty aerosol containers. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. A-9 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices 47) Vehicle and Equipment Fluids means containers with fluids used in vehicles or engines, except used oil. Examples: This component includes used antifre ze and brake fluid. This component does not include empty vehicle and equipment fl id containers. (48) Used Oil means the same as defined in Health a d Safety Code section 25250.1(a). Examples: This component includes spent lubric ting oil such as crankcase and transmission oil, gear oil, and hydraulic oil. (49) Batteries means any type of battery including bo h dry cell and lead acid. Examples: This component includes car, flashlight, small appliance, watch and hearing aid batteries. (50) Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous means household hazardous material that cannot be put in the "Paint", "Automotive Fluids", "Used Oil", or"Batteries" component categories. This component also includes household hazardous material that is mixed. Examples: This component includes household h zardous waste which if improperly put in the solid waste stream may present handling problems or other hazards. Special Waste (51) Ash means a residue from the combustion of any solid or liquid material. Examples: This component includes ash from fireplaces, incinerators, biomass facilities, waste-to-energy facilities, and barbecues. This component also includes ash and burned debris from structure fires. (52) Sewage Solids means residual solids and semi-solids from the treatment of domestic wastewater or sewage. Examples: This component includes biosolids, sludge, grit, screenings, and septage. This component does not include sewage or waste water discharged from the sewage treatment process. I (53) Industrial Sludge means sludge from factories, manufacturing facilities, and refineries. Examples: This component includes paper pulp sludge, and water treatment filter cake sludge. (54) Treated Medical Waste has the same meaning .s treated medical waste in Section 25023.5 of the Health and Safety Code. i Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. A-10 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices (55) Bulky Items means large, hard-to-handle items that are not defined separately, including furniture, mattresses, and other large items. Examples: This component includes all sizes and types of furniture, mattresses, box springs, and base components. (56) Tires means vehicle tires. Examples: This component includes tires from trucks, automobiles, motorcycles, heavy equipments, and bicycles. (57) Remainder/Composite Special Waste means special waste that cannot be put in any other component category. Examples: This component includes asbestos-containing materials, such as certain types of pipe insulation and floor tiles, auto fluff, auto-bodies, trucks, trailers, truck cabs, and artificial fireplace logs. Mixed Residue • (58) Mixed Residue means material that cannot be put in any other component categories. This component includes mixed residue that cannot be further sorted. Examples: This component includes residual material from a materials recovery facility or other sorting process that cannot be put in any of the previous remainder/composite component categories. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. A-11 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices J Appendix B: Sampling Methodology Objective This study was intended to produce statistically valid data on the types and quantities of waste disposed at the South Hilo Landfill during the year 2000. Substream Definition The waste hauled to the South Hilo Landfill can be divided into the following three categories (called substreams): 1. Transfer Station —is composed of waste hauled from nine transfer stations on the east side of the Island. It is transported to the South ilo Landfill in transfer station compactor boxes. Transfer station loads are made up primarily of residential waste. 2. Commercial — is composed of waste hauled by commercial hauling companies. Commercial haulers use a variety of vehicles to transport this waste to the South Hilo Landfill, including: packer trucks (garbage trucks)! roll-offs (primarily open boxes), and other vehicles (e.g. flatbeds, pickups, etc.). This waste is collected from both residences and businesses. 3. Self-Haul— is composed of waste that residents, contractors, businesses, and public entities haul directly to the South Hilo Landfill. These loads are transported either in small vehicles (e.g. autos, pick-ups, etc.) or large vehicles (e.g. dump trucks, flatbeds, etc). As with waste in the commercial substream, self-haul waste comes from both residences and businesses.9 Sample Allocation The total number of samples allocated to each substream is listed in Table B-1. Table B-1 -Total Number of Samples, by Substream Number of Substream Samples Transfer Station 410 I Commercial 3116 Self-Haul Overall 100 9 Approximately 34% of the self-haul tons are received as pur loads, that is, loads of a single waste component. These loads were excluded from sampling since heir composition and disposed tonnages are recorded by the South Hilo Landfill scalehouse. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. B-1 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices 1 The project budget allowed for a total of 100 total loads to be sampled. The allocation of these samples between the three substreams was determined according to each substream's contribution to the total waste stream. Adjustments were made so that a sufficient number of samples were taken from each to assure a representative composition. Thus, the commercial and self-haul substreams were slightly over sampled, and the transfer station boxes were slightly under sampled. The commercially hauled loads arrive at the South Hilo Landfill in one of three different types of vehicles: packers (front or rear loaders), roll-offs (loose dropboxes or compactors), or other vehicles (e.g. smaller flatbeds, dump trucks or pickups). Self-haul loads can be divided into two generator types: commercial and residential. Similar to the overall sample allocation, the number of commercial and self-haul samples were apportioned between vehicle and generator types, respectively. These numbers were adjusted to assure sufficient sampling of each vehicle and generator type, respectively. Sampling dates for this study spanned from Wednesday, April 25th to Tuesday, May 1st, 2001. Table B-2 outlines the number of samples taken per day on April 25th and 26th (a total of 25 samples per day), while Table B-3 outlines the number of samples taken per day on April 27th and 30th and May 1st (a total of 17 samples per day). (The number of staff available for sorting affected the number of samples allocated to each day.) Table B-2 - Number of Samples per Day, by Substream (Wednesday 4/25—Thursday 4/26) Samples Substream per Day Transfer Station 10 Commercial 9 Packer 4 Roll-off/ Other 5 Self-Haul 6 Commercial 4 Residential 2 Total 25 1 Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 8-2 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices I Table B-3 - Number of Samples per ay, by Substream (Friday 4/27, Monday 4/30, and Tuesday 5/1) I 7 I amples Substream er Day Transfer Station 7 Commercial 61• Packer 3 Roll-off/Other 3 Self-Haul 4 Commercial 3 Residential 1 I Total • 17 Vehicle Selection . Sampling intervals for each substream (and corresponding vehicle or generator types) were determined by dividing the day's expected number of arriving loads by the number of samples needed on that day. For example, if 20 commercial pack+r trucks were expected to arrive at the South Hilo Landfill on a sampling day, and a total of 4 samples were needed, every 5th commercial packer truck would be selected for sampling. Prior to each sampling day, the Field Supervisor was given a sheet outlining specific sampling intervals per substream and vehicle type. Appendix D contains a copy of the vehicle selection sheet used in this study. 111 Field Procedures On each sampling day, the Field Supervisor identified sample loads as they arrived at the SouthI Hilo Landfill. The Supervisor assigned each selected loa a unique sample identification number. Then, the Supervisor surveyed the driver of ea h vehicle to obtain "header information" which was recorded on that sample's waste ort sheet. The following information I was collected for each sample load: 1. Load type a. Commercially hauled loads only-the hauler name b. Transfer station loads only - name of tran haulier station the load came from 2. Generator type a. Commercially hauled loads only i. Loads that were 80% or more resi ential waste were recorded as "residential" ii. Loads that were 80% or more commercial waste were recorded as "commercial" iii. Otherwise, the generator type was recorded as "mixed" b. Transfer station loads'only- always marked as "mixed" c. Self-haul loads only- recorded as "residential," "commercial," "mixed," or"public" (from a public agency such as Roads or Parks and Recreation), according to the rules outlined for commercially hauled loa d s. I Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. B-3 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices I • 3. Vehicle type 1 a. Commercially hauled loads only- recorded as "packer," "roll-off," or"other vehicle" (e.g. flatbeds, dump trucks, pickups). b. Transfer station loads only-were always recorded as "transfer station box." c. Self-haul loads only- recorded as either"small" or"large." "Small" included pickups and other household sized vehicles, and "large" included flatbeds, dump trucks, and other large trucks. As the load was emptied at the South Hilo Landfill, the Field Supervisor observed the load for evidence of explosive or hard-to-process items. This too was noted on the sample's waste sort sheet. Hard-to-process items included anything that would be difficult or impossible to manually sort, automatically process, or transfer by conveyor belt due to weight or size, such as: appliances, mattresses, cabinets, carpet, asphalt or concrete, and large pieces of scrap metal or lumber. Next, the selected load was visually divided into an imaginary 16-cell grid. The Supervisor then identified the randomly selected cell and approximately 200 to 300 pounds of waste was removed from that cell with a loader and placed on a tarpaulin. Samples were then tagged with a sample identifier labeled with their unique sample number and the date. Once the total weight of a sample was verified, it was sorted by hand into the 58 prescribed components. (See Appendix A for the list and definitions of the components.) Components were placed in plastic laundry baskets and then weighed and recorded. Each sample was sorted by hand to the greatest reasonable level of detail, until no more than a small amount of homogeneous fines (less than 1 square inch)remained. The goal was to sort each sample completely into component categories. However, if fines did remain after sorting, they were weighed and the Supervisor classified them as "mixed residue." As the final step in collecting field data, the Supervisor reviewed, completed and organized the forms from each day's sampling activity. The Supervisor also prepared data summary sheets and sampling checklists at the end of each day. Completed data forms were then transmitted to the Project Manager at Cascadia for review and quality control prior to data entry. ' As mentioned previously, self-haul loads of a single waste type ("pure" loads) were not sorted. However, all pure load wastes were assigned to a component category, and pure load tonnages were accounted for in the composition calculations. Table B-4 is a listing of the commodities received at the landfill as pure loads and their corresponding component category from the list used in this study. 1 Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. 8-4 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices Table B-4 - Pure Load Components Commodity Corresponding Component Bar Screen Mixed Residu- Bioler Ash Ash , Confidential Documents Office Paper Contaminated Soil Rocks and S•il 111 Cut Tires Tires Dead Animal R/C Organic Fish Carcass Food Flourscent Lights R/C Glass Legal Bury Agricultural C op Residue Medical Waste Treated Medi al Offal/Waste Food Old/Off Specs Food Paint Paint . Sludge Industrial Slu•ge 111 Casca dia.Consulting Group, Inc. 8-5 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices Appendix C: Waste Composition Calculations Composition Calculations The composition estimates represent the ratio of the components' weight to the total waste for each noted substream. They are derived by summing each component's weight across all of the selected records and dividing by the sum of the total weight of waste as shown in the following equation: L cu ri = 114;. a where: c = weight of particular component w = sum of all component weights for i 1 to n where n = number of selected samples for j 1 to m where m = number of components The confidence interval for this estimate is derived in two steps. First, the variance around the estimate is calculated, accounting for the fact that the ratio includes two random variables (the component and total sample weights). The variance of the ratio estimator equation follows: (x-, \2 � 1-fl 1Li. i T'' = • w2 n-1 \ l where: Wt I W n Second, precision levels at the 90% confidence interval are calculated for a component's mean as follows: 1 ri ±I(t V,r ) where: ` t = the value of the t-statistic (1.645) corresponding to a.90% confidence level For more detail, please refer to Chapter 6 "Ratio, Regression and Difference Estimation" of Elementary Survey Sampling by R.L. Scheaffer, W. Mendenhall and L. Ott (PWS Publishers, 1986). Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. C-1 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices I Weighted Averages The overall waste composition estimates were calculate by performing a weighted average across the relevant sampling groups. For the transfer station substream, the estimates were calculated by performing a weighted average based on tip' e tonnage disposed by each transfer station. For the commercial substream, the estimates were calculated by performing a weighted average based on the tonnage hauled by each vehicle type. For the self-haul substream, the estimates were calculated by performing a weighted average based on the tonnage disposed in the mixed loads and that in each of the 14 pure loads. The weighting percentages that were used to perform the composition calculations are listed below. Table C-1 pertains to the overall waste stream, v‘hile Table C-2 through Table C-4 correspond to the three substreams. Table C-1 -Weighting Percentages: OverallI Substream T ns Percent Sample Groups Disi osed of Total Transfer Station Glenwood 2,2 4.2 3.35% Hilo 11,757.4 17.54% Honomu 1,55.2 2.34% Kalapana 767.2 1.14% Keaau 6,371.3 9.51% Pahoa 4,51 5 .5 6.74% Papaikou 2,992.0 4.33% Volcano 1,351.2 2.02% Other 1,2 5.5 1.86% Commercial Packers 16,272.8 24.28% Roll-Offs 5,720.2 8.53% Other Commercial Vehicles 2,654.7 3.96% Self-Haul Bar Screen 24.7 0.04% Bioler Ash 5.5 0.02% Confidential Documents 2 9.8 0.45% Contaminated Soil 26.8 0.04% II Cut Tires 3?4.3 0.59% Dead Animal 66.3 0.10% Fish Carcass 293.6 0.44% Flourscent Lights 0.1 0.00% I Legal Bury 1.0 0.00% Medical Waste 58.9 0.09% Offal/Waste 621.4 0.93% Old/Off Specs 80.7 0.12% Paint 2.0 0.00% Sludge 1,414.1 2.11% Mixed Self-Haul Loads 6,358.4 9.49% Overall 67,0?4.7 100% 1 Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc.. C-2 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices I I Table C-2 -Weighting Percentages: Transfer Station10 I ons -er en o Transfer Station Disposed Total IGlenwood 2,244.2 6.86% Hilo 11,757.4 , 35.93% I Honomu 1,565.2 4.78% Kalapana 767.2 2.34% Keaau 6,371.3 19.47% I Pahoa 4,515.5 13.80% Papaikou 2,902.0 8.87% Volcano 1,351.2 4.13% Other 1,245.5 3.81% Total 32,719.5 100% I I Table C-3 -Weighting Percentages: Commercial Ions 'ercen Vehicle Type Disposed of Total ., Packer 16,272.8 66.02% I Roll-Off 5,720.2 23.21 Other 2,654.7 10.77% ITotal 24,647.7 100% I I I I 10 The transfer station sample group named "other" represents waste that comes from stations other than the ones listed in Table C-2. Two samples were taken from Pauillo- one of the "other"transfer stations. For this study's analysis, Pauillo composition estimates were applied to the "other"tons reported in the 2000 South Hilo Landfill report. Also, no samples were taken from the Pahala station (listed on the 11 landfill's report). The tons disposed by Pahala were added to the "other" sample group's tonnage. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. C-3 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices Table C-4 -Weighting Percentages: Self-Haul Tons Percent of Load Type Disposed Total Bar Screen 24.7 0.26% Bioler Ash 15.5 0.16% Confidential Documents 299.8 3.10% Contaminated Soil 26.8 0.28% Cut Tires 394.3 4.08% Dead Animal 66.3 0.69% Fish Carcass 293.6 3.04% Flourscent Lights 0.1 0.00% Legal Bury 1.0 0.01% Medical Waste 58.9 0.61% Offal/Waste 621.4 6.43% Old/Off Specs 80.7 0.84% Paint 2.0 0.02% Sludge 1,414.1 14.64% Mixed 6,358.4 65.84% Total 9,657.5 100% The South Hilo Landfill provided the estimate of tonnage disposed by each of the sample groups during the Year 2000. The composition estimate for both the overall waste stream and each substream were applied to the relevant tonnages t estimate the amount of waste disposed for each component category. The weightedaverage for an overall composition estimate is performed as follows: Of =(pt *11)± p2 *Jj2)+(.3 *r13)+... where: p = the proportion of tonnage contributed by the oted sample group r= ratio.of component weight to total waste weig tin the noted sample group for j = 1 tom where m = number of components The variance of the weighted average is calculated: VarO; =(pi2 *Poi)+0p22 *Vz) 0932 *V,j3)+... Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. C-4 I ounty of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices 1 Appendix D: Field Forms The field forms are included in the following order: • Vehicle Selection Sheet • Waste Sort Sheet 1 1 Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. D-1 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices County of Hawaii Waste Characterization Study Vehicle Selection Form Site: South Hilo Landfill Date: April,25,2001 Cross off one number for each type of vehicle entering the landfill. Continue for each block,beginning at#1,on the next line until the required numbel-of vehicles is sampled. TRANSFER STATION BOXES: NEED 10 TOTAL- SAMPLE EVERY VEHICLE 1 " COMMERCIAL PACKERS: NEED 5 TO AL- SAMPLE EVERY 2nd VEHICLE 1 (10 1 60 1 410 1 © 1 t COMMERCIAL ROLL-OFFS AND OTHER: NEED 4 TOTAL- SAMPLE EVERY 2nd VEHICLE 1 1 1 1 COMMERCIAL SELF-HAUL VEHICLES: NEED 4 TOTAL- SAMPLE EVERY 5th VEHICLE t 1 2 3 4 (10 1 2 3 4 ao 1 2 3 4 GO 1 2 3 4 hJ RESIDENTIAL SELF-HAUL VEHICLES: NEED 2 TOTAL- SAMPLE EVERY VEHICLE 1 1 1 Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. D-2 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices South Hilo Landfill Sampling For Sample ID: Load Type: LI 1=I CI (Commercial Loads Only) TS Com Self Hauler: Date: _ Box Haul Route: Generator: ❑ ❑ ❑ El (TS Boxes Only) IRes Corn Public Mixed Site/Origin: Vehicle Type: El El ❑ ❑ El Packer Roll Sm Lg TS Off SH SH Box Cardboard Food Bags 0 Textiles p Newspaper G Leaves&Grass A White LedgerA Prunings I P Colored Ledger N Stumps E Computer I Crop Residue R Office C Manure, Magazines R/C Organic Directories Miscellaneous P #1 Containers R/C Paper IA • Other Containers#2 Containers G Clear Containers T Film L Green Containers I Durable A Brown Containers C R/C Plastic S Other Containers S Flat Glass, Concrete I R/C Glass Asphalt Paving C Asphalt Roofing M Aluminum Cans & Clean Lumber E Tin Cans D Treated Lumber T Ferrous Gypsum Board A Nonferrous Rocks&Soil L White Goods R/C Demo I R/C Metal H Paint S AshH Vehicle Fluids P Sewage Sludge W Oil I E Industrial Sludge Batteries C Treated Medical R/C Hazardous I Bulky Items • A Tires _ Evidence of Explosive/Hard-to-Process Items in Load: L R/C Special Yes ❑ No ❑ Mixed Residue I Explosives: (e.g.propane tanks) Hard-to-Process Items: Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. D-3 County of Hawaii Waste Composition Study: APPENDIX C Appendices 1 APPENDIX D Waste Flow Alternatives 1 0710LA Harding ESE I EAST HAWAII WEST HAWAII I 1 . Current Conditions Recycle Recycle I I 20 tpd 15 tpd ISingle Transfer Transfer Single I Family Self–Haul Station —..- 90 � f— Self–Haul Family. I Residential 90 tpd 95 tpd Residential I Waste I South p I Waste Self–Haul 29 tpd Hilo Pu'uanahulu Self–Haul 8 tpd L __ J Landfill Landfill L _ _ J I Commercial Haul 68 tpd 187 tpd248 tpd Commercial Haul 145 tpd I I IBusiness I I Business I and Recycle Recycle and Multi–Family I 12 tpd 22 tpd IMulti–Family I Residential p p Residential I Waste I I Waste L _ _J L_ _ J I 2. Long Haul to Pu'uanahulu IRecycle Recycle I I 20 tpd 15 tpd I I Single I Transfer Transfer I Single I I Family Self–Haul Station Self–Haul Family I Residential 119 tpd 95 tpd Residential I Waste I p p - I Waste I L _ J Self–Haul Pu'uanahulu Self–Haul 8 tpd _ L __ J I Landfill Commercial Haul 68 tpd 435 tpd Commercial Haul 145 tpd 1 1 I Business I I Business I I nd Multia Family I _ Recycle Recycle I Multiand Family I Residential 12 tpd 22 tpd Residential I I Waste I I Waste I 3. New Landfill at East Hawaii, Existing Landfill at Pu' T uanahulu Recycle Recycle I 1 20 tpd 15 tpd I Transfer Transfer I Single I Family ley Station ,F_ Self–Haul Family I Residential 90 tpd 95 t tonResidential I d I I Waste I p New. p I Waste I I _ _J L Self–Haul 29 tpd East Pu'uanahulu u Self–Haul 8 tpd Hawaii Landfill L _ _J Landfill 1- - - ir Commercial Haul 68 tpd 187 tpd 248 tpd Commercial Haul 145 tpd I -1 I Business I _ I Business MultFamil Recycle Recycle and Y I 12 tpd 22 tpd I Multi–Family I I Wa Residentialste I I WastResidenetial I L _ _J L _ _ J Waste Flow Alternatives FIGURE I "7Harding °, ESE Waste Management Plan 1 o f 4 ,„,,,41 AMMACTEC ComrApri DRAWN APPROVED FILE DATE nkp RLS 20050727. 10: 34 6/01 EAST HAWAII WEST HAWAII 4. Transfer Station at East Hawaii, Long Haul to Pu'uanahulu r- 1 _ Recycle Recycle " 20 tpd 15 tpd 7 I Single I Transfer Transfer. I Single I ' 1 Family Self-Haul Station - Station Self-Haul Family Residential 90 t d 95 tpd Residential I I Waste I p Transfer p I Waste I L _ — Self-Haul 29 tpd - Station 187 tpd Pu'uanahulu Landfill Self-Haul 8 tpd -- Pack - F 1 Commercial Haul 68 tpd 187 tpd 435 tpd Commercial Haul 145 tpd T 7 IBusiness I I Business I MultFamil Recycle Recycle and y I 12 tpd - 22 tpd I Multi-Family"I " Residential - Residential I Waste I I Waste L _ _ JL _ _ J 5.- Increased Recycling, Transfer Station at East Hawaii, Long Haul to Pu'uanahulu I Recycle Recycle _ - - 35 tpd 22 tpd I SingleI Transfer Transfer I SingleI I Family Self-Haul Station �_ Self-Haul Family 1 Residential - 79 tpd Station ttonResidential pd Waste I Transfer- I Waste I L - -_J Self-Haul 25 tpd Station 158 tpd Pu'uan hulu Self-,Haul 7 tpd Land ill L- - J r Pack - - r I Commercial Haul 54 tpd 158 tpd 390 tpd Commercial Haul 136 tpd I 7 IBusiness I - I - Business I' Multi-Family _ Recycle - Recycle and I- nd 1 26 tpd - 31 tpd I Multi-Family I Residential - Residential I Waste I - - I Waste I L•- - J - - . - L_ _J I 6..- Material Recovery Facility at East Hawaii, Long Haul to Pu' uanahulu I- Recycle Recycle Recycle 35 tpd 24 tpd - - 22 tpd — - I Single I Transfer Transfer I Single I 1 Family. Self-Haul Self-Haul gamily 1 Residential Station Station Residential 79' tpd 89 tpd I Waste I Material I Waste I Self-Haul. 25 tpd Recovery Pu'uanahulu -Self-Haul 7 tpd L — _ Facility 134 tpd Landfill L _ — J I I. Commercial Haul 54 tpd 158 tpd 366 tpd Commercial Haul 136 tpd I H - I - Business I - - - - I Business I and Recycle - - Recycle and I Multi-Family I 26 tpd - - 31 tpd I Multi-Family I Residential , p "p Residential 1 Waste I - I Waste L:= - J: L - -.J I -- - Waste Flow Alternatives - - FIGURE • 4,;,,,,q ,,,---5;'1 - . - Hawaii Integrated -Soild . _ HardingESE Waste Management Plan � 2 O f4 • `"".-h . - A MACTEC ,P- �/ DRAWN APPROVED FILE DATE n kp RLS - 53158001 I 20010727.10:34 - 6/01 EAST HAWAII WEST HAWAII I 7. Central Processing & Bio—Conversion Facilities 'at East Hawaii, ILong Haul to Pu'uanahulu Recycle Recycle Recycle 7 35 tpd 24 tpd 22 tpd I— 7 I I Single ISelfHaul Station1-..--Transfer Transfer I Self–Haul I Single Famil I Family P Station y Residential 79 tpd 89 tpd Residential I Waste I Central I Waste I I Self–Haul 25 tpd Processing Pu'uanahulu Self–Haul 7 tpd L — — J Facility 89 tpd Landfill L — —J I Business I Commercial Haul 54 tpd 158 tpd Bio– tpd 344 tpd Commercial Haul 136 tpd I 1 �Conversion� I Business I and 45 tpd and Recycle Recycle – y _ Y Multi–Family I Multi Family I 31 t d I Residential 26 tpd P I Residential I I I Waste I Recylcle I Waste L - - J 22 tpd L - - J I 8. Central Processing and Waste to Energy Facilities at East Hawaii, Long Haul to Pu'uanahulu —I Recycle Recycle Recycle I 35 tpd 24 tpd 22 tpd 7 I Single I Transfer Transfer I Single I I Family Self–Haul Station Station Self–Haul Family i Residential 79 tpd 89 t d Residential II Waste I P Central P I Waste I Self–Haul 25 tpd Processing Pu'uanahulu Self–Haul 7 tpd L _ _ J Facility 16 tpd Landfill L— — J I I Commercial Haul 54 tpd 158 tpd Waste to tpd 260 tpd Commercial Haul 136 tpd I 1 I Business I Energy I Business I 118 tpd and Recycle P Recycle and II I Multi–Family I 26 tpd — 31 tpd I Multi–Family I Residential P P Residential I Waste I Electricity I Waste L __ J 0.65 MW L_ _ J 9. Mass Burn (Incinerator) at East Hawaii, Long Haul to Pu'uanahulu I T— — 7 35 tpd 22 tpd - - 7 SingleFaily I Transfer Transfer I Single I I mSelf–Haul P Recycle P Station Station Recycle Self–Haul Family Residential 79 t d 89 tpd ResidentiI al I Waste I Mass - I Waste I I Self–Haul 25 tpd Bum Pu'uanahulu Self–Haul 7 tpd L —— J (Incinerator) 53 tpd Landfill L — — J Commercial Haul 54 tpd 158 tpd285 tpd Commercial Haul 136 tpd I I I I Business I I Business I and Recycle , Recycle and I Multi Family I 26 t d 31 t d I Multi Family I P tpd Residential I Waste I I Waste I I L _ _ J L _ _ J Waste Flow Alternatives FIGURE I )41.13,-, Harding ESE Hawaii Integrated Soild 4-''': Waste Management Plan 3 O f 4 1f::: ,,,z 1 A MACTEC COMPANY DRAWN APPROVED FILE DATE I nkp RLS 2ooi oi2�.10:34 6/01 I EAST HAWAII WEST HAWAII 10. Transfer Station at East Hawaii, Central Processing and Waste to Energy Facilities for County, Long Haul to Pu'uanahulu I Recycle 24 tpd Recycle 22 tpd Recycle I 1 35 tpd Transfer Self—Haul I Famil Station y 89 tpd Residential I I Single Transfer Transfer Central Waste Family. Self—Haul I I I Residential Station - Station Processing Self—Haul 7 79 tpd 158 tpd FacilitytpdL __ __ J IWaste I Pack r L_ _ J Self-Haul 25 tpd 158 tpd 390 tpd Commercial Haul 136 tpd I I Business I r Recycle and Commercial Haul 54 tpd Pu'uanahulu 31 tpd Multi—Family I Landfill Residential I I Business I I Waste and Recycle 26 L _ _ J I Multi—Family I 26 t d Electricity Waste to tpd Residential p 1.4 MW Energy 137 tpd I Waste I 255 tpd L_— J I 11 . Maximum Recycling, Transfer Station at East Hawaii, Long Haul to Pu'uanahulu Recycle Recycle 96 tpd 70 tpd r— — — i Single I Transfer Transfer I Single I I Family I p p Self—Haul Station ' Station Self—Haul I Family Residential 33 t d 44 tpd Residential I Waste I Transfer I Waste, I Self—Haul 10 tpd Station Pu'uanahulu Self—Haul 4 tpd L __ J 68 tpd Landfill — L_ _ J Pack r r I Commercial Haul 25 tpd 68 tpd 300 tpd + Commercial Haul 68 tpd I 1 I Business I I Business I I Multi—Family a d I _ Recycle Recycle _ I Multi—Family Residential 55 tpd 99 tpd Residential I IWaste I I Waste L __ J L _ -J I I I Waste low Alternatives FIGURE "�. y .. Hawaii In egrated Soild 7t:' �= .x ;� Waste Ma agement Plan 4 O f 4 . . Harding ESE si, , , A M oMPPN DRAWN APPROVED FILE DATE n kp RLs 200107217.10:34 6/01 1 ' APPENDIX E. ' Evaluation Matrices 1 ' 0710LA Harding ESE EVALUATION MATRICES ON DRAFT WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES FOR DISCUSSION MANAGEMENT Capital Costs Operating Costs (Annual) Cost Per Ton Siting, Design,Permitting and Construction Ownership/Operation Responsibilities ALTERNATIVE Requirements Expanded $500,000 $500,000 Varies Permit requirements may include: Options include: Drop-Off for all existing stations. for existing transfer stations. I • Modifications to existing solid waste facility • County owned and private contract Centers permits for the transfer stations operated / $24,000 to $40,000 for minimal Approximately $25,000 per • Solid waste facility permits for drop-off r • State owned(schools) and private contract improvements at individual drop-off center at locations centers at other facilities operated (unmanned) transfer stations or other than transfer stations. • Local building and construction permits • County owned and operated. other locations. • Land use permit and/or conditional use permit for extensive improvements including p • Fire, health and business permits and licenses fences and facilities for attendants • Intergovernmental agreements. could add$500,000 per station. MANAGEMENT Environmental & Social Im acts Im lementation Roles and Considerations Risks Effectiveness of Reduction of East ALTERNATIVE p p Hawaii Waste Stream Expanded Drop-off centers at transfer stations should not Separated green waste could be managed by the' The cooperation of residents in source ' ' ' 5 to 30% ' ' Drop-Off significantly change the environmental impacts ' county by chipping separated green waste at , separation is required to obtain a clean material The potential diversion rate for drop-off except to benefit the environment by diverting transfer stations as is now done at Hilo Transfer stream. Many markets will not accept materials Centers centers varies widely,due��to differences of wastes from disposal facilities. Station and Kailua Transfer Station. such as paper that is contaminated: Or market materials targeted for recovery(see White prices may be low due to lower quality. and markets. Drop-off centers at schools would involve small Recyclable product marketing is a critical Without secure and well-paying markets the Paper on DirtyMRFs) 'increases in traffic and possibly litter, although consideration. See cell regarding Risks. , proper maintenance should include litter control. economics of the facilities could be Implementation of drop-off centers should compromised. Drop-off centers may promote increased be accompanied by enhanced public , I public participation in recycling programs education. and encourage citizens to share responsibility for waste management. Drop off centers at schools can be operated to provide modest revenue from material sales for the schools and providing a ' community incentive to recycle. County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan I SWA,C Meeting—November 28,2001 Harding ESE&Rifer Environmental p. 1 APPENDIX E I I , EVALUATION MATRICES ON DRAFT WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES FOR DISCUSSION MANAGEMENT Capital Costs Operating Costs (Annual) Cost Per Ton Siting, Design, Permitting and Ownership/Operation Responsibilities ALTERNATIVE Construction Requirements Recycling / $3M to $SM $2M Varies A comprehensive siting study to identify I Options include: Reuse Centers Facilities vary Operating costs are generally I preferred locations could be conducted by : Countyiowned and private contract considerably in size and proprietary, vary widely depending on either County or vendor. operated generally the larger the materials processed, and are difficult to Permit requirements may include: • Private owned and operated throughput the smaller is obtain. • Solid waste facility permit • County owned and operated. the capital cost per annual • Local building and construction permits ton processed, which As an indicator of the variability of • Land use permit and/or conditional use operating costs, the number of full time ranges from$20-170. For employees per 1000 tpy throughput permit a facility to recover varies from 0.1 to nearly 2. • Regional air quality permits i recyclables, at east • Fire, health and business permits and Hawaii scale, $40-60 A typical operating cost has been licenses ' would be typical. quoted at$2M annually, assuming about 40 employees, or$25 per ton processed,plus cost of residue disposal. The amount of residue depends on how , well residents source-separate,but is generally just a few percent. , ,', MANAGEMENT Environmental & Social Im acts 1 Implementation Roles and Considerations Risks Effectiveness of Reduction of East Hawaii ALTERNATIVE , p p Waste Stream Recycling / Waste processing is a net energy A recycling facility can be a nuisance to The marketability'of recovered materials is a major, 5'to 60% Reuse Centers consumer, since it utilizes process energy, nearby residents due to noise and traffic and consideration because recycling markets are weak however recycling materials saves energy so should be located accordingly. and fluctuate considerably. Without secure and well- The diversion rates vary widely due to and natural resources. Hazardous paying markets the economics of the facility could differences of materials targeted for recovery Recyclable product marketing is a critical , (see White Paper on DirtyMRFs the materials in the waste must be managed. consideration. See cell regarding Risks. be compromised. p )�' g g effectiveness of motivating residents to Potential environmental impacts include: Some MSW processing facilities have been shut ' source-separate, and markets. • Water and air quality and odors Facilities should be developed in cooperation down due to neighborhood complaints regarding p ' with existing recycling operations, so as to not ' • Biological and cultural resources ' odor. ' compete with or undermine existing • Noiseoperations. , Kauai County built a recycling /reuse center • Traffic several years ago, but it is not yet operational: , • Public safety , I , County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan I SWAC Meeting—November 28,2001 Harding ESE &Rifer Environmental p.2 APPENDIX E , ' . I, ,. EVALUATION MATRICES ON DRAFT WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES FOR DISCUSSION MANAGEMENT Capital Costs Operating Costs (Annual) Cost Per Ton Siting, Design, Permitting and Construction ' . ALTERNATIVE p p gRequirements Ownership/Operation Responsibilities C&D Waste Builders could recycle Not available. Varies A comprehensive siting study to identify a Options include: Recovery some wastes within I preferred location could be conducted by either • County owned/and private contract operated projects sites and could • County or vendor. • Private owned/and operated separate and transport Permit requirements may include: • County owned and operated. other recyclable materials to a processing facility • Solid waste facility permit with no significant capital • Local building and construction permits costs to the county. • Land use permit and/or conditional use permit • Regional air quality permits ' The cost of a central processing facility for • Fire, health and business permits and licenses C&D waste is not available. , MANAGEMENT Environmental & Social Impacts Implementation Roles and Considerations Risks Effectiveness of Reduction of East Hawaii ALTERNATIVE I I Waste Stream C&D Waste Dust and noise can be problems. Waste A C&D processing facility can be a nuisance to The'marketability of recovered materials is a 12% Recovery processing is a net energy consumer, nearby residents due to dust, noise and traffic major consideration especially with limited since it utilizes process energy; however and so should be located accordingly. potential uses in the county. Without secure and Approximately 18% of the waste stream recycling materials saves energy and well-paying markets the economics of the entering South Hilo Landfill is classified as 'natural resources. Hazardous materials in facility could be compromised. C&D waste. Treated lumber is not recoverable • the waste must be managed. and is about 3% of the waste stream. Therefore at an 80%recovery rate, there is potential for Potential environmental impacts include: reduction of approximately 12% of the waste • Water and air quality and dust stream. • • Biological and cultural resources , , Some innovative uses have been proposed for • Noise , treated lumber, and if they are effective, the • Traffic recovery rate may rise to r14%, • Public safety , , , , I6 i , ' 1 , I , , , III ' , I County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan ,' SWAG Meeting—November 28,2001 Harding ESE & Rifer Environmental P.3 APPENDIX E i • it EVALUATION MATRICES ON DRAFT TECHNOLOGIES FOR REDUCTION OF THE EAST HAWAII WASTE STREAM FOR DISCUSSION MANAGEMENT Capital Costs Net Operating Costs (Annual) Cost Per Ton Siting,Design,Permitting and Ownership/Operation Responsibilities ALTERNATIVE Construction Requirements Mixed Waste $6M $4M $73 A comprehensive siting study to identify a Options include: preferred location could be conducted by Processing or$90 per annual ton of or$60 per ton. • County owned and private contract operated capacity. either County or vendor. • private owned and operated Facility - p ty. Operating costs are generally proprietary, varyP "Dirty MRF" Facilities vary considerably widely depending on materials processed, and Permit requirements may include: • County owned and operated. in size and capital cost per are difficult to obtain. •• Solid waste facility permit • Local buildingand construction permits annual ton processed, which As an indicator of the variability of operating ranges from$20-170. Land use permit and/or conditional use costs, the number of full time employees per permit 1000 tpy throughput varies from 0.1 to nearly • Regional air quality permits 2. • Fire, health and business permits and A typical operating cost has been quoted at licenses $2M annually, assuming about 40 employees, or$25 per ton processed, plus cost of residue disposal, which can be 50-60% of waste received. EWMCE $160 per annual ton of $50 per ton capacity , , MANAGEMENT ' Effectiveness of Reduction of East Hawaii ALTERNATIVE Environmental & Social Impacts Implementation Roles and Considerations Risks Waste Stream Mixed Waste Odor can be a problem. Waste processing An MSW processing facility such as a dirty The marketability of materials recovered from 40% is a net energy consumer, since it utilizes MRF can be a nuisance to nearby residents due' mixed waste is a major consideration. Many Processing Estimated amount of residual wastes: 110 tons Facility - process energy, however recycling to odors, noise and traffic and so should be markets will not accept materials such as paper materials saves energy and natural located accordingly. that is contaminated with food and other i per day. "Dirty MRF" resources. Hazardous materials in the residues. Or marketprices maybe,low low due to ' Recyclable product marketing is.a critical ' The diversion rate from dirty MRFs varies waste must be managed. lower quality. Without secure and well-paying widely due to,differences of materials targeted consideration. See cell regarding Risks. arkets the economics of the facilitycould be 1 Potential environmental impacts include: for recovery(see White Paper on Dirty MRFs) compromised. • Water and air quality and odors p and markets. They vary from as low as,5% to as • Biological and cultural resources ,' Some MSW processing facilities have been shut high as 60% for facilities that target special • Noise down due to neighborhood complaints regarding waste'substreams such as C&D.or commercial- only waste. , • Traffic t odor. , • Public safety County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan I SWAC Meeting—'November 28,2001 Harding ESE&Rifer Environmental p,4 ' APPENDIX E I i II EVALUATION MATRICES ON DRAFT TECHNOLOGIES FOR REDUCTION OF THE EAST HAWAII WASTE STREAM FOR DISCUSSION MANAGEMENT Capital Costs Operating Costs (Annual) Cost Per Ton Siting, Design, Permitting and Construction Ownership/Operation Responsibilities ALTERNATIVE Requirements Combustion $25M $2M $63 A comprehensive siting study to identify a Options include: Facility or$375 per annual ton of or$30 per ton. I preferred location could be conducted by either • County owned and private contract operated ty ca aci County or vendor. • Private owned and operated P Permit requirements include: • County owned and operated. This assumes 4 modular q units with capacities of 35 • Solid waste facility permit tons per day. • Local building and construction permits • Land use permit and/or conditional use permit • Regional air quality permits t • Fire, health and business permits and licenses MANAGEMENT Environmental & Social Impacts Implementation Roles and Considerations Risks Effectiveness of Reduction of East Hawaii ALTERNATIVE Waste Stream ' I , Combustion Combustion of MSW generally produces An MSW combustion facility can be a nuisance A high-capital costs facility would entail 68 to 86% i Facility less greenhouse gas emissions than to nearby residents due to odors, noise and financial uncertainties and risks for the vendors I landfilling and open composting, but traffic and so should be located accordingly. and, depending on the financing arrangements, Estimated amount of residual wastes: 27 to 68 more than thermal gasification. Controls possibly for the County. tons per day. Some environmentally sensitive sectors of the toxic and NOX emissions. It is estimated that 70%to 95% of total waste U.S. population have an aversion to combustion Permitting and environmental reviews could Produces energy that can replace technology because of fear of airborne emissions delay implementation significantly. stream could be processed depending on other imported fossil fuel. and degraded air quality. I i diversion and recycling efforts. Changes in government regulations could I Potential environmental impacts include: � impose more stringent operating requirements. Reduction of the processed(combustible) portion of the waste stream could be as high as • Water and air quality and odors 85%. • Biological andcultural resources , • Noise ' • Traffic ' • Public safety , I I L. I County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan SWAC Meeting—November 28,2001 Harding ESE&Rifer Environmental P.5 APPENDIX E ' , • EVALUATION MATRICES ON DRAFT TECHNOLOGIES FOR REDUCTION OF THE EAST HAWAII WASTE STREAM FOR DISCUSSION MANAGEMENT Capital Costs Operating Costs (Annual) Cost Per Ton Siting, Design, Permitting and Construction Ownership/Operation ALTERNATIVE Requirements Responsibilities MSW $11M $4M 573 A comprehensive siting study to identify a preferred Options include: Composting or$165 per annual of capacity. or$60 per ton. location could be conducted by either County or ' • County owned and private vendor. contract operated In vessel systems to process the In vessel systems have • Private owned and operated east Hawaii waste stream could been estimated at$40-45 Permit requirements may include: • County owned and operated. cost as high as $25M. Windrow per ton; windrow systems • Solid waste facility permit systems are far less expensive. at $35-45. • Local building and construction permits Wright County, $1.30M or$26 per annual ton $1.65M or$33 per ton • Land use permit and/or conditional use permit of •ca aci for 49 400 • Regional air quality permits MN (windrow) p tY tpY• • Fire, health and business permits and licenses Sevierville, TN $1.35M or$24 per annual ton $0.90M or$16 per ton (windrow) of capacity for 57,200 tpy Mixed organic processing, including food waste, require high level environmental and odor controls. EWMCE $180 per annual ton of capacity 61 acres of land for 900-tons-per-day system. I Real Earth $30M or$137 per annual ton of $55 to $75 per ton 20 acres of land for 500-tons-per-day system., U.S.Enterprises capacity for 175,000 P tYY , I I I I I MANAGEMENT Environmental & Social Im acts Implementation Roles and Risks Effectiveness of Reduction of East Hawai ALTERNATIVE p Considerations Waste Stream • MSW Odor can be a problem. Composting is a net energy A composting facility can be a Some composting facilities on the mainland have 52% ' I Composting consumer, since it utilizes process energy and generates no nuisance due to odors and so been shut down due to public complaints I I I , I usable energy itself. Hazardous materials in the feedstock should be located accordingly. regarding odor and technical management Estimated amount of residual wastes: 88 are not degraded. problems. I i � tons per day. • Due to the lack of universal I I I Produces a beneficial soil amendment. control on exclusion of hazardous Hazardous substances could end up in the I The entire east Hawaii waste stream, with and other inappropriate materials compost product unless incoming waste is the exception of bulky and C&D waste, • Composting generates somewhat less global warming gases from the waste disposed at carefullymonitored. I could be processed, however,'the inorganic than landfilling and approximately the same as incineration. transfer station, an MSW components would be removed for disposal. Potential environmental impacts include: composting system would need to Marketing of compost product could be difficult Consequently approximately 54 percent of carefullymonitor incomingwaste due to potential contaminants, such as plastic,', the waste stream could'be diverted in an • Water and air quality and odors for rejection of inappropriate which can discourage use in landscaping, and due ideal configuration, though some of that I • Biological and cultural resourcesg • Noise materials. to limited agricultural markets on the island.' material such as recyclable paper, may be • Traffic diverted to recycling. • Public safety • County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan SWAC Meeting—November 28,2001 Harding ESE &Rifer Environmental p.6 APPENDIX E ir • EVALUATION MATRICES ON DRAFT TECHNOLOGIES FOR REDUCTION OF THE EAST HAWAII WASTE STREAM FOR DISCUSSION MANAGEMENT Capital Costs Operating Costs Cost Per Ton Siting, Design, Permitting and Ownership/Operation Responsibilities ALTERNATIVE (Annual) Construction Requirements Thermal $22M $3M $75 A comprehensive siting study to identify a Options include: Gasification or$330 per annual ton of capacity. preferred location could be conducted by '• County owned and private contract P ty. or$45 per ton. Tipping fees are very project either County or vendor. operated Case Example: $237M for 525,000 tpy facility. $86/ton specific, including consideration of • Private owned and operated scale, land costs, labor rates, Permit requirements may include: Thermoselect facility $451 per annual-ton capacity specific feedstock received, • Solid waste facility permit Since these are proprietary and only- in Italy financing methods, etc. • Local building and construction permits recently implemented technologies (for Case Example: $92M for 340,000 tpy facility. $40/ton • Land use permit and/or conditional use MSW), County operation does not seem ThermoChem $270 per annual-ton capacity. permit feasible. demonstration and • Regional air quality permits pilot facilities2 • Fire, health and business permits and ' licenses Brightstar Not divulged Not divulged Not divulged At least 7 acres. , , Private owned and operated Environmental At least 150,000 ton of MSW per year. I I , I I I MANAGEMENT I Implementation Roles and Environmental & Social Impacts Risks Effectiveness of Reduction of East Hawaii'Waste Stream ALTERNATIVE Considerations ,, Thermal Reduces greenhouse gas emissions over A critical factor is the developing Since the technology is not well established 58%, Gasification landfilling, open composting, or maturity of the technology for MSW. at a commercial scale for processing of 'incineration. Controls toxic and NOX MSW in the United States, there is a risk Estimated ampurit of residual wastes: 78 tons per day if output is A potential policy approach would be not suitable to use as aggregate. emissions in comparison to landfilling or that the technology could have difficulties, open composting. Product can be to identify the County's intention to causinginterruption of service, or even pgasprocure a technology when it has pDifferent vendor thermal gasification technologies process used as an energy source. demonstrated a reasonable track general failure. 1 somewhat,different waste streams, but generally they process Potential environmental impacts include: record, as defined by X years of A high-capital costs facility would entail the organic fraction as does mass burn and will have similar • Water and air quality and odors commercial-scale implementation in financial uncertainties and risks for the reduction effectiveness. • Biological and cultural resources North America. vendors and, depending on the financing Some technologies claim to produce an inert;residue that is • Noise arrangements,possibly for the County. vitrified and safe for use as aggregate. , , • Traffic East Hawaii's waste stream may be tooThermal gasification facilities can exceed the reduction • Public safety _ small to interest vendors —some vendors effectivenes's of non-thermal organic processing due to the , , have a minimum plant size. processing of plastics;wood, and other materials that may be unacceptable in composting. 1 County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan I ,' SWAC Meeting—November 28,2001 Harding ESE&Rifer Environmental P.7 APPENDIX E s , • i EVALUATION MATRICES ON TECHNOLOGIES FOR REDUCTION OF THE EAST HAWAII WASTE STREAM DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION MANAGEMENT Operating Costs ALTERNATIVE Capital Costs Cost Per Ton Siting, Design, Permitting and Ownership/Operation (Annual) Construction Requirements Res onsibilities Anaerobic Digestion $9M p $3M $59 A comprehensive siting study to Options include: or$135 per annual ton of capacity. or$45 per ton, identify a preferred location could ibe p Capital costs are 1.2— 1.5 higher than conducted by either County or • County owned and for aerobic composting. However, net vendor. private contract operated cost per ton is comparable to aerobic Permit requirements may include: • Private owned and composting due to energy revenue. Local• Solid waste facility permit operated • building and construction p One source cites $260 - $280 per one- Since these are ton per year capacity, but said to be permits rapidly dropping. • Land use permit and/or conditional proprietary and only- use permit recently implemented Case Example: CCI $18 - $20M for 150,000 tpy facility $16 - $20/ton $37 • Re ion technologies (for MSW), organic waste processing g al air quality permits County operation does not $133 per annaul-ton of capacity • Fire, health and business permits facility Newmarket, and licensesseem feasible. Ontario Case Example: Pinnacle $8 - $9M for 73,000 tpy facility Not available Not available Biotechii nology, based on $110 - $125 per annual-ton of Stanton, CA pilot facility capacity. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE Environmental & Social Impacts Implementation Roles and Considerations Risks Effectiveness of Reduction of East Hawaii Waste Stream Anaerobic Reduces greenhouse gas emissions over May also incorporate sewage sludge and/or Since the technology is not well 52% Digestion landfilling, composting, or incineration. agricultural residue. established at a commercial scale for ' Controls toxic and NOX emissions. processing of MSW in the United Estimated amount of residual wastes: 88 tonsper da Methane can be used as an energy source. A critical factor is the developing maturity,of ' Y• the technology for MSW. States, there is a risk that the The organic portion of the east Hawaii waste stream could be Potential environmental impacts include: technology could have difficulties, processed, consequently ap roximatel �54 ercent of Apotential policyapproach would be to causinginterruption of service, or p Y P the waste • Water and air quality and odors pp p identify the County's intention to procure a even general failure. stream could be diverted ins ideal configuration, though • Biological and cultural resources some of that material such as recyclable''paper, be'diverted • Public safety technology when it has demonstrated amay • Noise reasonable track record, as defined by X , An anaerobic digestion facility on to recycling. Oahu was shut down due to neighbor years of commercial-scale implementation in g Much of the inorganic material must be removed from the ' • Traffic North America complaints and land use permit incomingstream'either problems. through a dirty MRF or through an organics-only collection system. The latera roach does es not appear feasible in Hawaii due to the transfer station system. County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Harding ESE&Rifer Environmental SWAC Meeting—November 28,2001 APPENDIX E , p.8 s , 1 EVALUATION MATRICES ON DRAFT TECHNOLOGIES FOR REDUCTION OF THE EAST HAWAII WASTE STREAM FOR DISCUSSION MANAGEMENT Siting,Design, Permitting and ALTERNATIVE Capital Costs Operating Costs (Annual) Cost Per Ton Construction Requirements Ownership/Operation Responsibilities Biorefining Not available Not available All tipping fees are very project A comprehensive siting study to identify Options include: specific, including consideration a preferred location could be conducted • County owned and private contract operated of scale, land costs, labor rates, by either County or vendor. • Private owned and operated specific feedstock received, Permit requirements may include: Since these arero rieta and only-recently financing methods, etc. p p �' Y Y • Solid waste facility permit implemented technologies (for MSW), County operation Case Example: $150M for 230,000 tpy Unknown-- $65 per ton tip fee will be paid • Local building and construction does not seem feasible. 1 Masada Resource capacity. However,plant will employ by participating municipalities to permits Groupintegrated 200 workers • Land use review g the City of Middleton. I biorefining and $650 per annual-ton • Regional air qualitypermits ii recycling facility in capacity. I g • Fire, health and business permits and Middletown, NY.3 licenses Case Example:p $76M for 260,000 tpy $11.7M for 260,000 tpy $30/ton tip fee. 4 Arkenol, Inc. , capacity (Assumes selling price of$1.62 $45 per ton per gallon for ethanol) ' i, $292 per annual-ton 1 I I capacity. I , II I 1 i ' ' 1 I MANAGEMENT Environmental & Social Impacts Implementation Roles and Considerations Risks Effectiveness of Reduction of East'Hawaii Waste ALTERNATIVE p p Stream 1 Biorefining Reduces greenhouse gas emissions over May also incorporate sewage sludge and/or Since the technology is not well 52% I ' landfilling, open composting, or agriculture residue. established at a commercial'scale for incineration. Controls toxic and NOX processing of MSW in the United States, Estimated amount of residual wastes: 88 tons per day. A critical factor is the developing maturity of the emissions in comparison to landfilling or technologyfor MSW. A potentialpolicy there is a risk that the,technology could The organic portion of the east Hawaii'waste stream open composting. Ethanol can be used as have difficulties, causinginterruption of p P g• p could beprocessed; consequently approximately 54 approach would be to identify the County's q Y Pp Y a fuel or as an anti-knock additive to service,for even general failure. �percent of the waste stream could be(diverted in an ideal to replace lead and MTBE. intention to procure a technology when it has gasolinep demonstrated a reasonable track record, as To be feasible the facility would need to configuration, though some of that material, such as defined b X of commercial-scale find sources of re uired chemicals in I recyclable paper, may, be diverted to recycling. Potential environmental impacts include: Y Y ears q implementation in North America,. Hawaii and markets forproducts. i • Water and air quality and odors pMuch of the inorganic material must be,removed from � - I I � I • Biological and cultural resources � the incoming stream either through a dirty MRF or , I Noise i. • I i ' through an organics-only collection system:,The later I • Traffic approach does not appear feasible in HI due to the • Public safety II transfer station system. I County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan I SWAC Meeting—November 28,2001 Harding ESE &Rifer Environmental ' P. 9 I APPENDIX E 1 I . I I I EVALUATION MATRICES ON DRAFT LANDFILL DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES FOR DISCUSSION MANAGEMENT Capital Costs Operating Costs (Annual) Cost Per Ton Siting, Design,Permitting and Construction Ownership/Operation Responsibilities ALTERNATIVE Requirements East Hawaii $2M $4M $73 Probably could use existing Hilo Transfer 1 Options include: Transfer or$30per annual ton of Station with minor improvements and • County owned and private contract operated or$63 per ton including alterations. • Private owned and operated Station and capacity for minimal tipping fees at Pu'uanahulu p pp g • County owned and operated. Long-Haul to modifications of Hilo Landfill. Permit •requirements include: Transfer Station and • Amendment of Solid waste facility permit County ownership and operation would be Pu'uanahulu purchase of longhaul Local building and construction permits consistent with current county operations. equipment. f - I MANAGEMENT Environmental & Social Impacts Implementation Roles and Considerations Risks Impacts on Residents,and Local Businesses ALTERNATIVE East Hawaii Increased cross-island traffic with Implementation will require major public Public opposition may interfere with Much longer hauling distance for commercial , Transfer associated increase in vehicle emissions. relations initiatives to mobilize public support or implementation or operation. haulers and self-haulers. When the Saddle Road is improved, else risk public rejection. Station and transfer of wastes may be more Increased resentment of West Hawaii residents Long-Haul to � to disposal of east Hawaii waste in West g economical and more acceptable to the Hawaii. Pu'uanahulu public. , Increased resentment of West Hawaii - residents to disposal of east Hawaii waste 'in West Hawaii. . State government and EPA prefer source ' reduction, recycling, and bioconversion to I landfilling. Produces greenhouse gas emissions, � ' I including methane and NOX. Other potential environmental impacts , ' I I include: 6 ' • Water and air quality and odors • Biological and cultural resources ,i • Noise • Public safety ' County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan I SWAC Meeting—November 28,2001 Harding ESE &Rifer Environmental p. 10 ' APPENDIX E I' EVALUATION MATRICES ON DRAFT LANDFILL DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES FOR DISCUSSION MANAGEMENT Capital Costs Operating Costs (Annual) Cost Per Ton Siting, Design, Permitting and Construction Ownership/Operation Responsibilities ALTERNATIVE Requirements New East $32M $6M $128 A comprehensive siting study to identify a Options include: Hawaii I preferred location could be conducted by either • County owned and private contract operated or$480 per annual ton of or $88 per ton. County or vendor. • Private owned and operated Landfill capacity, including • County owned and operated. closure and post-closure At least 50 acres would be required. costs. Permit requirements include: Both options 1 and 3 above would be consistent • Solid waste facility permit with current county operations. • Local building and construction permits f ' • Land use permit and/or conditional use permit • Regional air quality permits • Fire, health and business permits and licenses Implementation would take at least 5 years, and with strong public opposition, it could take considerably longer. ' ' ' I I I I MANAGEMENT Environmental & Social Impacts Implementation Roles and Considerations Risks Impacts on Residents and Local Businesses ALTERNATIVE New East State government and EPA prefer source Implementation will require major public Public opposition could derail implementation Neighbors of a proposed landfill site can be Hawaii reduction, recycling, and bioconversion to relations initiatives to mobilize public support or of a new landfill or interrupt operation. expected to strenuously oppose such a project. Landfill landfilling. else risk public rejection. Landfills have an inherent risk of releases of • Produces greenhouse gas emissions, leachate, which if detected in the underlying including methane and NOX. , groundwater could trigger,a requirement for . corrective action. ' Potential environmental impacts include: • Water and air quality and odors • Biological and cultural resources I • Public safety • Noise , , I i • Traffic - i County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan - I ,' SWAC Meeting—November 28,2001 Harding ESE &Rifer Environmental p. 11 APPENDIX E ' ,I - - EVALUATION MATRICES ON DRAFT LANDFILL DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES FOR DISCUSSION MANAGEMENT Capital Costs Operating Costs (Annual) Cost Per Ton Siting, Design,Permitting and Construction Ownership/Operation Responsibilities ALTERNATIVE Requirements Bioreactor $25M $5M $110 A comprehensive siting study to identify a Options include: Landfill I preferred location could be conducted by either • County owned/and private contract operated or$375 per annual ton of or$75 per ton. County or vendor. • Private owned and operated capacity, including • County owned and operated. closure and post-closure At least 50 acres would be required. costs. Permit requirements may include: • Solid waste facility permit • Local building and construction permits r • Land use permit and/or conditional use permit • Regional air quality permits • Fire, health and business permits and licenses Mixed organic processing, including food waste, require high level environmental and odor controls. , MANAGEMENT1 ALTERNATIVE Environmental & Social Impacts Implementation Roles and Considerations Risks Impacts on Residents and Local Businesses Bioreactor State government and EPA prefer source The Hawaii Department of Health would Since the technology is not well established at a , Neighbors of a proposed landfill site can be Landfill reduction, recycling, and bioconversion to have to agree to special relaxation of landfill commercial scale for processing of MSW, there e'xpected,to,strenuously oppose such a,project. landfilling. , regulations to allow construction and is a risk that the,technology may not perform as , Produces greenhouse gas emissions, operation of a bioreactor landfill. expected, causing interruption of service, or even general failure. including methane and NOX. However, , methane is usually captured and can used Gas collection and sale may not be practical • as fuel. because,of poor economies of scale and lack'of ' ,. user infrastructure. ' Potential environmental impacts include: , • Water and air quality and odors , , • Biological and cultural resources • Public safety ,� ' • Noise 1 • Traffic County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan ,' SWAC Meeting—November 28,2001 Harding ESE &Rifer Environmental p. 12 APPENDIX E ' 1 1 APPENDIX F ' Vendors of Waste Reduction Technologies 1 1 ' 0710LA Harding ESE I IAPPENDIX F VENDORS OF WASTE REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ANAEROBIC DIGESTION I la. Canada Composting Inc. (CCI-US Corporation) Mailing Address: Phone: 408-298-0332 2 North First Street, 4th Floor Fax: San Jose, California 95113-1212 I Website: www.canadacomposting.com Contact: Bill Fowler, Business Development Manager E-mail: bill_fowler@cci.sjsbc.org I1 b. Canada Composting Inc. (Ontario, Canada) Mailing Address: Phone: 905-830-1160 390 Davis Drive, Suite 301 I Fax: 905-830-0416 Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 7T8 Website: www.canadacomposting.com Contact: Kevin Matthews, President IE-mail: ccikevin@attglobal.net 2. EcoCorp Mailing Address: I Phone: 626-405-1463 3360 E. Foothill Boulevard, Suite 111 Fax: 626-405-0550 Pasadena, California 91107 Website: www.ecocorp.com I Contact: Dr. John G. Ingersoll, President E-mail: jgingersoll@ecocorp.com I 3. MCX Environmental Energy Corporation Mailing Address: Phone: 404-504-7027 3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750 Fax: 404-504-7028 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 I Website: www.mxceec.com E-mail: info@mcxeec.com 4. McElvaney Associates Corporation Mailing Address: IPhone: 310-576-1341 528 Arizona Avenue, Suite 209 Fax: 310-576-0968 Santa Monica, California 90401 Website: www.bioconverter.com IE-mail: mac@bioconverter.com 5. Waste Recovery Systems Mailing Address: I Phone: 949-488-3477 33655 Marlinspike Drive - Fax: 949-388-8834 Monarch Beach, California 92629-4428 Website: www.wasterecoverysystems.com I Contact: Steven Morris; Phone: 949-672-8834 E-mail: samwrsi@aol.com I I 0710LA Harding ESE F-1 I APPENDIX F VENDORS OF WASTE REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES 1 (Continued) THERMAL GASIFICATION 6. Brightstar Environmental (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 W. Hucks, Senior VP, Bus. Dev. E-mail: gapa@brightenv.com 7. Future Energy Resources Corporation ! Mailing Address: Phone: 770-662-7800 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 440 Fax: 770-662-7807 Norcross, Georgia 30092 Website: www.future-energy.com E-mail: ferco@future-energy.com 8. IET Energy Limited (United Kingdom & Ireland) , Mailing Address: I Phone: 01626-834766 Teignbridge Business Centre Fax: 01626-835834 Cavalier Road, Heathfield Website: www.ietenergy.com New Abbot, DevonI E-mail: enquiries@ietenergy.com 9. US Plasma Inc. Mailing Address: Phone: 613-831-0590 976 Houston Northcutt Boulevard Fax: 613-831-3876 Suite 3 Website: www.usplasma.com Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 E-mail: info@usplasma.com 10. Precision Energy Services, Inc. Mailing Address: Phone: 208-772-4457 Corporate Headquarters I Fax: 208-762-1113 P.O. Box 1004 Website: www.pes-world.com Hayden Lake, Indiana 83835 Contact: Mike Oswald, President I E-mail: oswaldmw@pes-world.com WASTE-TO-ENERGY INCINERATION 11. Barlow Projects, Inc. . Mailing Address: Phone: 970-226-8557 2000 Vermont Drive Fax: 970-226-8559 Ft. Collins, Colorado 80525 Website: www.barlowprojects.com E-mail: jody@mail.com or info@barlowprojects.com 12. Consutech Systems LLC Mailing Address: Phone: 804-746-4120 P.O. Box 15119 Fax: 804-730-9056 Richmond, Virginia 23227 Website: www.consutech.com E-mail: mail@consutech.comI 0710LA Harding ESE F-2 1 APPENDIX F ' VENDORS OF WASTE REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES (Continued) 13. Enerwaste International Corporation Mailing Address: Phone: 360-738-1254 P.O.'Box 1194 Fax: 360-738-1376 Bellingham, Washington 98227 Website: www.enerwaste.com E-mail: enerwaste@aol.com 14. Hi 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 E-mail: hitemp@blast.net 15. 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 83835 Contact: Mike Oswald, President E-mail: oswaldmw@pes-world.com 16. Therm-tec Inc. Mailing 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 1 1 1 0710LA Harding ESE F-3 APPENDIX G ' Comments Received from the Public about the ' Draft Addendum to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawaii 1 1 0710LA Harding ESE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND RESPONSES Public Meeting for Discussion of a Draft Addendum to Hawai'i County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Kahakai Elementary School Cafeteria, Kailua-Kona 8/19/02 7:00 to 9:00 PM 1. Barbara Bell of Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management I just wanted to point out that, with regard to the line in one of the charts in the presentation that shows the estimated decline in the capacity of Pu'uanahulu Landfill if all the waste from the island is taken there for disposal, none of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, none of the consultants, nobody wants that to happen. "That is not anybody's preferred approach. No one is looking at that as a solution." Response: Comment noted. 2. Marni Herkes of Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce "This addendum to the ISWMP seems to be a reaction to the imminent closure of South Hilo Landfill, rather than a solid waste management plan." "All areas of the island should have generation, recycling, sort, and transfer facilities." Response: The addendum addressed the most critical solid waste issues, of which the most urgent is management of the east Hawaii waste stream after closure of South Hilo Landfill. Drop-off centers for recyclable materials are planned for all parts of the island. At this time, a sort station for recovering recyclable materials from the general waste stream is planned for east Hawaii only because sorting and recovery can be incorporated into a facility for consolidating loads of waste. Future planning could recommend a similarfacility for west Hawaii. 3. Unidentified . "The fact is, it sounds like we're trucking garbage over to Hilo (for sorting at a master station) and then we're trucking stuff back over here again." "You're saying that half of the island is going to have some type of solution to the solid waste problem and the other half of the island is going to be ignored. Let me guess which side will be ignored." Response: After South Hilo Landfill closes, the waste stream from east Hawaii will be trucked to a sort station (regional transfer station), recyclable materials will be recovered and the remainder will be transported to Pu'uanahulu Landfill until a waste reduction/conversion facility is constructed in east Hawaii. This interim solution is required because a waste reduction/conversion facility will not be completed prior to the closure of South Hilo Landfill. 0710LA Appendix GG-1 Other recycling facilities will beprovided island-wide. In the near future, west Hawaii has adequate landfill capacity and does not require a solution to the problem that exists in east Hawaii. 4. Barbara Bell of Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management The recycling, reduction, reuse components of this plan are island-wide for all the transfer stations, even though it.focuses on the Hilo landfill closing. . I Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment: 5. Unidentified "I still do not understand what we're going to do as far as solid waste reduction on this side of the island. Our landfill is filling up, and nothing seems to be going on here. We've got traffic problems all over. We're gridlocked on this side of the island. We've got these big trucks traveling around. Has the traffic situation been taken into consideration with all this hauling back and forth." Response:. Waste reduction, reuse and recycling components of the plan will be applied island- wide. These include expanded public education and publicity, expanded outreach to businesses, encouragement of backyard composting, establishment of drop-off centers for recyclable materials, and others. - Traffic was a criterion for evaluation of waste management alternatives, but transport of the county waste stream is unavoidable. Long-haul transport of raw waste from east Hawaii to Pu`uanahulu Landfill is planned only as an interim measure until a waste reduction/conversion facility can be constructed in east Hawaii. 6. George How for Harding ESE One of the reasons we're trying to get long-haul trailers'is to minimize the amount of traffic: Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment. 7. Josephine Keliipio "Have you taken into consideration the County's policy on allowing "big-box" outlets to move in? They are the ones that give me rubbish.- I have'a big pile of boxes on the side of my yard ever since Costco moved in. Did you take into consideration the developers who are moving here and making these highly manicured developments that actually make rubbish because you've got to trim the trees andcut the grass and dump in the dump?" Response: The plan does.not consider county policies about commercial and residential . developments. This would likely be in the purview of the County Council. 0710LA Appendix G G-2 1 8. Marni Herkes of Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce ' "Has there been any planning considerations give to building a road into the back of the landfill from Mamalahoa Highway? Response: This plan has not considered planning new roads. 9. Dominic Yagonq, Member of the County Council Representing the Hamakua District and Chairman of the Environmental Committee of the County Council This plan is going to come in front of the County Council in just a few weeks for a public hearing. This County Council is going to determine what the technology for waste reduction is going to be. What the council would like to hear from the public is which of the three technologies we should be going after. We will be scheduling public hearings with potential vendors who will provide information about their various methods. We'll make the decision before the end of the year. Response: Comment noted. 10. Josephine Keliipio "All this is about is trying to figure out how we're going to incinerate, da-da, da-da, da-da, but we're not going to tap into what the real problem is—the source." Response: The plan includes waste reduction, reuse and recycling components. Measures to restrict the import of wasteful packaging and the practices of commercial and residential developers are better addressed at higher levels of government. 11. Charles Flaherty of Citizens for Equitable and Responsible Government I ask that incineration not be considered at all because of proven detriments to health. I have not studied anaerobic digestion and thermal gasification processes enough to opine about them. I would like the RFP to be written in such a way that a waste reduction/conversion facility for both sides of the island would be a possibility, if such is economically feasible. I would hope that the RFP to be written in such as way as to reduce any environmental hazards, which pose - that moneycan not be compared to. a long-term cost, p Response: Opposition to incineration is noted. At this time, only a waste reduction/conversion facility in east Hawai'i is planned. Future planning could consider another facility in west Hawaii. The plan does not exclude the consideration of another facility in west Hawai'l. However, the design and construction of two facilities will require more resources in financing and project management and will take a longer time to complete. Potential environmental emissions can be a criterion, among others, for selection of a waste reduction/conversion technology. All proposed facilities will have to be designed and operated to meet the emission standards prescribed in federal environmental regulations. 0710LA Appendix G G-3 12. Jeff Turner I'm running for County Council in South Kona, and I've been a life-long recycler of 34 years. Wheredid the name `convenience center" come from? It will be an inconvenience center if you can't even recycle until sometime in the future. What's the matter with reconfiguring them now or yesterday? "Transfer station" is what people know them by. You might call them "resource center" if you want to really educate people and start letting them think about these things as resources not waste. If it's open 24 hours a day and it takes everything and sorts it on the spot then it will be a convenience center. Banning yard waste from convenience centers would make them inconvenience centers. If you want people to separate green waste, then you need a green waste bin at every transfer station. Then we'll instantly have about 30% diversion, and we don't have to do anything but line up more trailers and we can get that one done. I strongly support a full-time recycling coordinator. This county was on that path in 1990 and 1991, and the election of 1992 spoiled that and destroyed everything that we had done to begin building a recycling program. There are still people that think that what's recycled just goes in a landfill, and sometimes that still may be true. The county is responsible for that misconception, and it's time to fix that. I agree that it will be more efficient to have private operators to perform recycling activities. But privateoperators never see a whole year of funding, which is basically sabotaging entrepreneurs who are really trying hard to do this and help the county do what is really their responsibility. It is ludicrous to end a diversion credit that saves money over the tipping fee. More important than the cost of various waste management processes, which waste reduction technology will be cleanest. Which will put dioxin in the air and which won't. It may be worthy of a year's study to determine which is best. Response: The term "convenience center', is defined in Section 1.03 in Chapter 1 of the Administrative Rules for Solid Waste Refuse Control and Disposal Fees by the County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division. The hours of operation of the transfer stations is an operational matter that the Division of Solid Waste will manage. Support for a full-time recycling coordinator and private recycling operators is noted. The plans for an expanded/enhanced recycling program are aggressive and include more funding for the diversion grant program. Potential environmental emissions can be a criterion, among others, for selection of a waste reductionlconversion technology. 0710LA Appendix G G-4 13. Steve Powell of Real Earth United States Enterprises, Ltd. (REUSE) I would suggest that aerobic composting is missing from the waste reduction technologies that are being considered by the county. Response: Aerobic composting was included in the group of waste reduction technologies that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee considered. It was excluded from list of • technologies to be pursued with a Request for Proposal (RFP) because of concerns about odors from such a facility and because it would process only the organic portion of the waste stream. 14. Brenda Ford of PTP I am averse to incineration because it produces too many noxious/toxic fumes. For the anaerobic digestion process the inorganic waste must be.removed from the incoming waste stream through a dirty MRF or an organics-only collection system that doesn't seem to be feasible because there is a lot of plastic coming into this island that'shitting our landfills and should be used for something besides burial. It appears that thermal gasification is more expensive, however it takes care of producing electricity through processing plastics and other materials that might be unacceptable in composting." "I keep hearing through the "coconut wireless" there are vendors from out of country, that are operating in Australia and possible in Europe and been using these technologies for more than 30 years. Facilities can be built at no cost to the county, but they will own the electricity that they generate for the plant. It seems that since we are rather strapped for cash, that may be an effective way to go forward and get this done quickly." Response: Opposition to incineration and preference for thermal gasification are noted. There are vendors of waste reductionlconversion technologies that may offer to finance a facility for the county and then recover their capital and operating costs through collection of tipping fees, sale of power, etc. The county procurement process can pursue that option with willing vendors. When drop-off centers are established at all the transfer stations, separated recyclable materials can be deposited separately from other refuse. 15. Marjorie Erway "I don't hear recycling programs being encouraged enough. It is absolutely imperative that we recycle and reuse. The amount of packaging from the stores is absurd, and we need to figure out ways of reducing that. We should reduce waste and recycle what we can't reduce. I have accepted and paid for recycling pickup for several years, and it was canceled because the funding from the county dried up. If small companies who do recycling can't depend on funding, why would they stay in business. Obviously, they don't stay in business, and that is unfair of the county to pull funding when they set an amount and when it is used up -that's too bad. That's not good for the county." Hauling of trash should only be at night, in the middle of the night. Tourism is looking to be our number one economic benefit here, and you can't have huge trucks traveling the same roads that tourists are going to be traveling. 0710LA Appendix G G-5 I prefer a waste reduction facility other than incineration. I prefer the cleanest facility that. is possible. Response: The plans for an expandedlenhanced recycling program are aggressive and include more funding for the diversion grant program. The scheduling of trash hauling is an operational issue that should be left to the Solid Waste Division management. 1 Opposition to incineration and preference for the cleanest facility are noted. 16. Larry Ford "I feel that incineration is the dirtiest way to handle the problem, and therefore should not be considered because of the health of the people downwind." "I think we need to recycle, recycle, recycle. We really need to depend heavily on this. I came from California where there are strict recycling laws, and we followed them and took a lot of that right out of the waste stream." "We need to sort and manage the waste entirely on the island, and not just east Hawai'i, but west Hawaii too. Our population is growing rapidly here; and if we don't resolve this problem on an island-wide basis, we'll be doing the same thing again because we didn't plan but only reacted." I am a certified purchasing manager, and know that an RFP can be written insuch a way to get vendors to provide creative solutions to problems. I know that we've been working on this problem a long time, and we're way behind the gun —a lot further behind the gun than we should be. Response: Opposition to incineration and support for recycling are noted. The plans for an expandedlenhanced recycling program are aggressive and will be applied island-wide. 17. Josephine Keliipio I am disappointed and frustrated because all I hear is discussion of the processing of • waste rather than the sources of the waste. The County Council should be more responsible and look at the larger picture, reconsidering policies that allow big-box retailers that actually generate a lot of our wastes. Large real estate developments such as Kahakai subdivision have covenants that ban backyard composting. Our county council is allowing such projects, and should screen the developers that are coming in and increasing the green waste stream. The County Council should have polices to restrict retailers, developers, and construction companies who create all these wastes, and we should change our way of life. Otherwise, this is fruitless. 0710LA Appendix G G-6 I Response: The plan does not consider county policies about commercial and residential developments. This would likely be in the purview of the County Council. 111 18. Harold Murata I am concerned with the long-term quality of the air here. I believe that thermal gasification and incineration will produce tons of air pollutants that will migrate with the prevailing winds from east to west. I hope the EIS will address the air quality conditions in the future. Response: Concern about air pollution is noted. Emissions can be a criterion for selection of a waste reductionlconversion technology by an RFP process. An Environmental Impact Statement will be required for a waste reductionlconversion facility, and air pollution will likely be at issue. 1 19. Barbara Bell The county is moving as quickly as it can to hire a full-time recycling coordinator. Response: Comment noted. 20. Marni Herkes of Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce About recycling from a west Hawai'i perspective: I run an office that has been graded by Recycle Hawai'i as one of the most recyclable offices around. The fact is we can not recycle, except for tin cans. The county program is in disarray. The population on this island doesn't need to be retrained for the most part. When HELCO gave out energy-efficient light bulbs, they had to order 5 or 6 times more than they thought they would need. The markets for recyclable materials seem to disappear. Our programs collapse when the markets disappear. I think the community in west Hawai'i will support those recycling programs even when the markets collapse so long as we understand that the best effort is being made, and we haven't really felt, especially in west Hawai'i, that the best effort is being made. We have to haul our newspapers to Hilo to get them recycled, and that's not an efficient program. Response: The plans for an expandedlenhanced recycling program are aggressive and will be applied island-wide. 21. Jeff Turner Because we've got this couple-of-thousand-mile moat around us, recycling is a little different economic activity than it is in a mainland metropolitan market. What we need is small local industry that uses those materials, and those small local businesses need a steady supply of those materials. The solution is for the county to be the buffer and facilitator, and get a pile of glass, and a pile of newsprint fiber, and a pile of plastic; and if we have raw material, they will come. The solution is to find something we can do locally so we are not at the mercy of world markets. Recyclable materials should be source-separated, and the county should create the system for it. We don't need any pilot studies in all of this. We just need to do it. 0710LA Appendix G G-7 - , We have the problem of South Hilo Landfill filling up because of prior inaction. Instead of thinking Pu'uanahulu Landfill will last for 20 years or 50 years, we ought to bemaking it last 100 years. The county should budget to do the same thing on the west side of the island as is being planned for Hilo. Response: Comments noted. - • 22. Unidentified We took a whole load of recyclable materials to-Atlas Recycling. They took cardboard, newspaper, not white paper. They took glass. No plastic. We can still do it over here. They used to take white paper, and now they're not. So you never know. Response: Comment noted. 23. Josephine Keliipio I thought I heard someone at one hearing,,that one-way to pay for all this would be just to tax the general public--just initiate a waste tax and tax everybody. "We all are responsible." Response:- Comment noted. 24. Dominic Yagong, Member of the County Council Representing the Hamakua District and Chairman of the Environmental Committee of the County Council We have to look at this holistically. When we look at the (waste reduction) technologies for east Hawai'i, we need it on both sides of the island. We should look for vendors who will pay to build facilities, and we need themon both sides of the island. Response: At this time, only a waste reductionlconversion facility in east Hawai'i is planned. Future planning could consider another facility in west Hawaii. 1 1 0710LA Appendix G ' G-8 COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND RESPONSES t Public Meeting for Discussion of an Draft Addendum to Hawaii County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan County Council Meeting Room, Hilo 8/20/02 9:00 to 11:00 AM 1. Jon Olson It would be helpful to include a copy of HRS 342 G in the ISWMP document. The plan should include a mass balance for the island --we don't know what is coming on the island. I would like the recycling goal set at 100%. The only way we will be able to address the problem of per capita increase in waste is by having some kind of fee on consumption, moving it away from the property tax base. There is now no incentive to reduce the amount of waste an individual puts in the waste stream -- in fact, there is incentive to waste more. Response: A copy of HRS 342G will be included in an appendix of the Addendum. The data for a mass balance for the island is not available. Preference for a recycling goal of 100% is noted, however, the existing goal is a matter of state policy. Comment regarding fees is noted. 2. Steve Powell of Real Earth United States Enterprises, Ltd. (REUSE) We have a composting process that converts ordinary garbage into compost, a soil-like material, in six days. I happen to be on-island this week to investigate the feasibility of building a compost plant here. I suggest that the countyconsider aerobic composting as a technologythat would be 99 p 9 viable for managing waste. Thus there would be four technologies to choose from rather than three. Response: Aerobic composting was included in the group of waste reduction technologies that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee considered. It was excluded from list of technologies to be pursued with a Request for Proposal(RFP) because of concerns about odors from such a facility and because it would process only the organic portion of the waste stream. 0710LA Appendix G G-9 1 3. Bob Jacobson "I appreciate the time and efforts that went into the studies, but I realize there is no easy solution." "I know about incineration to some degree. I found it interesting to see a picture of the Minneapolis facility because I know quite a bit about the waste that comes out into the air from that facility because they don't have a very good monitoring system there. There's not a very regular system of monitoring. Actually there has been some fraud involved because they take some loads from hospitals, which is some of the worst waste of all to deal with. It has high levels of dioxin, mercury, and other very questionable substances. No matter what your vendors and your designers might say, if you don't take that kind of stuff out of the waste stream, you're going to be drinking, eating, and breathing mercury and cadmium and you-name- it every other kind of heavy metals. The contractors will paint a very pretty picture, and when it comes right down the road, their monitoring devices that supposedly sit in functioning scrubbers are often times broken, turned off, not monitored and the,scrubbers themselves are frequently not working very well. They are expensive, they're not cheap to run. The cost of not running them is far higher because then you're poisoning all your people. Being a nurse myself, I worry about the long-term effects of these types of affairs. Early on, you need to remove some of these things from the waste stream, whether it's right up front— you don't allow certain substances into the state or you just monitor the tonnage so you know what's coming in. If you don't know what's coming in, you don't know what'sgoing to be dumped up in Hawaiian Acres or dumped in you-name-it along the side of the road." "I am very concerned about gasification. We need a whole lot more data about functioning plants. We just can't take people at their word. There're some very nice people that we should trust their word after we can verify it." "Regarding incineration, there is a lot of wet waste here, and we're going to spend a whole lot of energy money just burning it." "I am really opposed to locking the landfills at night, because I know what is going to ' happen —they're going to dump three truck loads of garbage in front of the gate. County workers will then spend half a day cleaning up garbage in front of the gate." "The county shouldn't charge for disposal, because otherwise they'll just drive up to Hawaiian Acres and dump it right in my road, like they always do. And that's without the landfills being locked at night." "If we are really worried about what's going into those solid waste transfer centers, cameras are cheap. They're 120 bucks, and just put a motion detector in there. And it's not like you're trying to photograph everyone on the public street where you run into some constitutional problems. People are using a service, they're there, and when they dump garbage improperly, it costs us a stack of cash. I don't want to turn this into a police state, but when people are there and they're violating, that's a real problem. You need to take care of that. Even now, when I call about cars being dumped along the side of the road, I can tell people where that car came from, but we're not keeping track of it at all. We're not trying to hunt down the people who are dumping these cars illegally. That information is going nowhere." 0710LA Appendix G G-10 "We all have to accept that if we are going to clean up this trash there are going to be more workers needed. They're not doing it properly now. Some people are going to have to I work and have to do the job. It will cost more money because we're not dealing with it very well right now." I "Commercial generators who haul in lots of things and generate vast amounts of trash need to be held accountable for the trash they make. Their customers might have to pay a little bit more, because I don't want to have to pay more for someone who is generating a bunch of I trash that I'm not using. If he generates trash, he's responsible for it. He just has to accept that they're going to have to pay more." "We should limit the importation of dangerous waste. Some of those things are really Iclear. Some places in the world don't even allow them to come into their country. Some of the things, maybe we have to take a very close look at, whether they be mercury batteries or some clearly dangerous substances. If you buy it, you've got to take it back. If you buy solvents, I you've got to be accountable for those solvents. You can't just dump them any old place. If you're buying oil for your fryers, people have to be accountable for that oil. They can't just dump it out or pass it off to some of those haulers that we have had in the past who just dump it out in I Ocean View. Some of the restaurateurs are very interested in creating a bio diesel program. We could use some of the energy that we are wasting. It would be nice to capture that. In fact, I have used it in my generator. Untreated cooking oil, once it's cleaned, runs in my diesel just Ifine." , , "Simple systems work quite well. If you keep it simple, people tend to comply." I "I am in favor of using recycled materials for construction. The Mayor and County Council may have to consider changing some of the building codes to allow the use of recycled materials." I Response: Opposition to incineration and concerns about incinerator emissions are noted. Little data for thermal gasification facilities are available because the technologies are Iproprietary and the existing facilities have operated for only a short time. Opposition to locking the transfer stations at night and preference for surveillance cameras are noted. Commercial generators of waste are required to pay tipping fees for disposal or pay Icommercial haulers who in turn pay tipping fees. The county may not have the authority to restrict importation of dangerous materials. IComments about illegal dumping and bio-diesel fuel are noted. Comments about the use of recycled building materials are noted, but changes in the building codes are beyond the scope of the ISWMP. I 4. Roy Skogstrom of(C.A.T:C.H.) Citizens Against Trash Coming Hamakua I "I have attended several meetings of community associations in Hamakua, the Pepeekeo Community Association, the Rural South Hilo Association. One of the topics of the. meetings has been the waste-to-energy plant that Brewer Environmental Industries wants to I 0710LA Appendix G G-11 build in Pepeekeo. Basically, they would be burning roughly 250 tons of garbage a day. The vast majority of the citizens of Hamakua are opposedto this plant." "There is a community petition that has been going around,,and it has about 400 signatories to date. I'll read it to you: "We, the undersigned residents of east Hawaii, oppose the proposed construction of a waste- to-energy plant (trash incinerator) in Pepeekeo by Brewer Environmental Industries. We believe that, whatever alternative is chosen by the County Council to replace the existing landfill, it should be located where most of the trash is located, which is the Hilo/Puna area. That's where most of the people are, that's where most of the trash is. The unnecessary trucking of 250 tons of trash per day along the Hilo Bayfront and the Hamakua Highway would create a useless nuisance of noise, odor and exhaust pollution for the Hilo and Hamakua communities, and a waste of tax dollars. Residents have additional environmental and economic concerns regarding the technology." "If.a combustion facility is built, it will result in roughly 10 to 20 round trips for trucks going up and down the Hamakua Coast every day. That trucking will cost the county roughly 20 million dollars over the next 20 years,.and it seems unnecessary to truck the trash away from where it is produced. 'The plant would also produce about 50 tons of ash per day, and that ash . is considered hazardous waste by the EPA and therefore it has to be landfilled separately from other wastes unless the county wishes to purchase an additional vitrification system that would turn that 50 tons of ash into something that is not considered hazardous waste." "Another issue is that a waste-to-energy plant would create jobs, which is'a benefit-. However, those jobs will be created regardless of where the plant is located, whether it is built near the trash or away from the trash. Also, those jobs will be created regardless of what type- of facility the council chooses. Response:- Opposition to a solid waste facility in Pepeekeo is noted. The siting of solid waste facilities is beyond the scope of the ISWMP project. Ash from municipal solid waste incinerators is regulated by the Hawaii Department of Health as special waste, not hazardous waste. 5. Wayne P. Hagar "I agree with Marni Herkes, as reported in today'spaper,-that the addendum seems to . not be a plan but a reaction. If it's a reaction to the closing of South Hilo Landfill, fine; but then let's rename the document. If this document is in fact an integrated solid waste management plan; then it's, at best, shortsighted. It only considers one side's situation. Everything we hear is how much it's going to cost. Nothing is discussed anywhere about possible revenue generation that comes out of our waste stream." . "I talked with Ron Soroos, Galen Kuba, and Mayor Kim at the beginning of the year, and • suggested that they take a look at the Monterey Regional Waste Management District. This (printed material in hand) is off the internet. (Here is some informationfor you for the record.) There is in fact a history of Monterey's waste management system. I hope our history will be at least this aggressive. Then we may have a chance and have some kind of open mind. There's also a,lot about reusing recycled material. Monterey is actually reselling recovered materials, creating income to offset it. I asked both these gentlemen (Mr. Soroos and, Mr. Kuba?) about 0710LA Appendix G G-12 creating electricity from landfill gas. There's a federal mandate, and there's also federal funding availabletohelp develop landfill gas electrification. Monterey is creating enough electricity, free ' electricity, from their landfills to power an area larger than Waikoloa by itself. Both gentlemen said it was not in the scope of this study, which again leads me to believe that this is a reaction to a closing not an integrated solid waste management plan. If it's a reaction to closing, say so. We are not tapping the energy. Both gentlemen said that dumps need to be closed in order to get the gases. By the time you close a dump, you've lost the usefulness of it. There's a piece in here (printed material in hand) (happens to be one person I know about, Jenbacher Corporation who also happen to do the energy conversion of the landfill gases for Monterey) that shows a graph of when the usable gases are, it goes up in the beginning and drops off. As soon as you start a landfill, you start tapping the gas—it does not have to be lined. You can start anytime by drilling a hole into it and start tapping the gases. It's never too late to start generating electricity. Here's a diagram of an ongoing plant (printed material in hand)." "The only thing we're hearing is how much it's going to cost. Nobody is addressing how much we can save and how much we can generate that will offset those costs." Response: The title of the document prepared in 1993 by previous consultants and adopted by the County Council is Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawaii. The title of the document under discussion here is Addendum to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawai'i, which is intended to Iupdate the previous document. The addendum addressed the most critical solid waste issues, of which the most urgent is management of the east Hawaii waste stream after closure of South Hilo Landfill. An aggressive recycling program is planned for all parts of the island. In the near future, west Hawai'i has adequate landfill capacity and does not require a solution to the • problem that exists in east Hawaii. Comments about tapping landfill gas for energy generation are noted, however the current project did not address this issue. 6. Julie Jacobson ' "We need to ask the consultants for a lot more technical information and economic information. Rather than an overview that we can do ourselves, we need people with both the engineering and science/technology background to analyze it. We should not go for short-term cost savings but consider long-term environmental degrading. What we could possibly do with ' some of these businesses is spread a thin layer of a low-level wastebecause we aren't doing as effective source separation as we need to. In a coastal area, eventually this stuff, and the porous nature of our ground, ends up getting into our oceans more easily than it would in any i other coastal area. We already have a tremendous problem that we need to address in terms of a sewer system. We need to expand and improve that. We have people working hard on that. Again it's an area to maybe tap into some federal grants. And with our new leadership, I think we can do it." "I suggest that, maybe, roofs be built at the transfer stations over the place where people put their recycling. The facilities should also comply with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements." 0710LA Appendix G G-13 "We should not lock the transfer stations.. We should use camera systems to catch criminals who are abusing the facilities and people who are putting demolition waste or using it wrongly. Use camera systems. We can hook them up with solar lighting. But don't deprive everyone. And it's just so true that you're going to have piles of garbage outside the gates. That 24-hour feature (availability) is very important, especially for people whose work causes them to be away for long hours. That's one area where people in rural areas get some equitable services." "I would like to see the Ocean View transfer station get into place. It was legislated in 1999, and it's time for the administration to get that one moving." "On Page 62, it states that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee does not want pay-as- you-throw. I think that, just like locking the transfer stations, that's going to lead to massive dumping all over the island. Let's avoid going that route." Response:Technical and economic evaluations of waste management alternatives are included in Appendix C of the Addendum. The comment about roofs over the transfer stations and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act are noted. Opposition to locking the transfer stations at night and preference for surveillance cameras are noted. Desire for a transfer station in Ocean View is noted. Opposition to pay-as-you-throw is noted. 7. Larry Leaf of The Environmental Group I am going to leave some printed material for handouts as well. I am with the Environmental Group in Honolulu. We are representing another alternative that should be looked at, that is our Hydromex waste management system. Basically, we take the garbage ' from the waste stream and grind it and shred it and make building materials out of it. Our's is a recycling system. Hydromex, however, can not process wet waste along with the dry waste, so we are looking for a wet waste process to compliment ours. ' At previous presentations to the County Council of the Island of Hawaii, there were two key comments: (1) The Hydromex system is too good to be true, and (2) Where can we see a Hydromexplant in operation. At that time we had no facilities running. Now we have four. Y p g operating facilities, two in the Philippines, one in Mexico, and one in Mississippi. These facilities, small ones for 50 tons per day could be up and running in 90 days. Response: Comments noted. 8. Norman Olesen I am an engineer by profession. The secondary emissions caused by some of the things that have been discussed here are probably more important than the actual physical facility. The liabilities of scrubbers are about 50%. I would like toseea positive set of recommendations from a consultant. It appears that the consultants are offering a bunch of things that can be done. I would like to see the consultant say"here is the system we 0710LA Appendix G G-14 I recommend, period". And here is why. And here is why we don't recommend the following. I don't understandthe objective of throwing out two or three alternatives. Is it for the public to 111 make a decision about which they want? I think that is total folly. Initially in the presentation, the statement was made that there would be no transfer of I waste to west Hawaii. Somebody tell me how that is possible. If it's going to take 5 years for an EIS to get facilities going, how can you not transfer things to west Hawai'i? You're going to have to, in the interim, transfer. There is no way around it. IRegarding the closing the gates of the landfills and people dumping in front, I come from lower Puna. We don't have gates, we dump it inside. In Pahoa, for example, there were I mattresses all over the place, we have used iceboxes, used ranges spread out like you wouldn't believe. At one of the transfer stations, you can't get to the place to dump your trash. It finally got so bad, the county came out and cleaned it up. I Regarding costs and user fees: I can pretty much promise you that if you put in user fees in lower Puna, you're going to have trash on the roads like you never saw in your life. It will be all over the place, because people are not going to pay it. That's the bottom line. Please come up with a solid recommendation. Take care of the secondary emissions, so that when we have secondary emissions, they have been very thoroughly addressed. We I have a good history in lower Puna with regard to geothermal, and what happens with emissions. I would hate to see that happen again, that we're in the experimental phase. I Response: The Solid Waste Advisory Committee recommended a waste reductionlconversion facility to replace South Hilo Landfill. The committee further decided that three technologies should be considered and decision from among the three would be done Ithrough a procurement process and evaluation of proposals from vendors. Response to the comment about transfer to west Hawaii follows below. IComments about improper disposal at the transfer stations and user fees are noted. 9. Miki Lee of The Accord Group, Meeting Facilitator IWould you like to respond to that comment about no transfer to west Hawai'i? Did you say that? I don't remember hearing that. IResponse: This comment is a response to the previous comment. I10. Ronald L. Soroos of Harding ESE I don't recall saying that. If I said it, I misspoke. The plan is to transfer waste to west I i Hawai -- in the interim. And then, there will still be some residue that needs to be landfilled. Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment. I I I0710LA Appendix G G-15 11. Miki Lee of The Accord Group, Meeting Facilitator I think it might be important for someone from Harding to talk about what you were asked to do as part of this process. I've heard a couple of people say they were a little disappointed that there isn't a single choice that's come to the top. I don't believe that's what the consultants were asked to do. I believe they were asked to help the SWAC (Solid Waste Advisory Committee) to look at a variety of options and come up with a short list of possible options. What were you asked to do for this committee? Response: This comment is a response to previous comments. 12. George How of Harding ESE The main objective was to try to find a solution and an alternative to the South Hilo Landfill. But also look at an overall system for recycling and reduction. The idea was to not pick one technology now, because there are a lot of things involved. There are a lot of factors to consider like performance, cost, environmental, etc. Information and data from some technologies has been hard to get because they are proprietary processes, to the point that they won't give out a lot of information. There are very few thermal gasification facilities and anaerobic digestion facilities in operation that process municipal solid waste. We were asked to come up with a menu of options. Response: This comment is a response to previous comments. 13. Miki Lee of The Accord Group, Meeting Facilitator At previous meetings, the menu was longer. The SWAC weighed the pros and cons of various alternatives, reducing the list even further. Response: This comment is a response to previous comments. 14. Wayne P. Hagar Maybe it would be a good idea if, along with a definitions page, you put a page that outlines the scope of the investigation. Response: The scope of the project is outlined in the Section 1.2 of the Addendum. 15. Julie Jacobson When we approved the funding for the study, as a county council person, I was looking for some real specific comparison and a lot more analysis than you gave us. The facts, figures, and environmental information, that's what I expected. We need more technological analysis and true cost analysis. Response: Comment noted. 0710LA Appendix G G-16 I 16. Wayne P. Hagar "I lot of people didn't understand what Harding's mandate was. I spoke to at least one member of the commission who said, "Don't give me the information that I just gave you, talk to the people at Harding, give them the information because one, I'm a very busy person and I'm not very good at this, and two, I am relying on what Harding recommends for me to make a decision. So at least one member of the commission was expecting them to come up with a best-case scenario." Response: Comment noted. 17. Margaret Pahio There are a lot of places that have been doing incineration. But the others, thermal gasification and anaerobic digestion don't have track records. How did you come up with these to be the other two? With the other two operations, will we be more like guinea pigs? Response: A response to this comment follows. 18. George How of Harding ESE These are the systems everyone comes up with. These have been used for other waste streams. They have systems in place, but we just don't have a lot of technical information because they are patented processes. If you tell me the parameters, we can make a decision. For example how clean is clean? Does it mean that if it meets the EPA standards, it's sufficient? When it comes to emissions, you don't want to hear about it because someone is worried that there may be dioxin or some other risk factor? There's a lot of things that go into a decision. There's performance. Track record I think is a very important one. There's an advantage to being up front there, if the supplier is willing to assume all the risk and will guarantee he will take care of the waste. Someone at a higher level will have to make the decision. EPA has reduced allowable emissions of dioxin fromcombustion facilities significantly in recent years. But we've heard a lot of comments that people don't trust incineration under any circumstances. Regarding greenhouse gases, if you go to incineration or thermal gasification, you have a net reduction in greenhouse gas emission because you are substituting municipal solid waste for oil. Response: This comment is a response to previous comments. 19 Julie Jacobson Maybe the information from the appendices could be summarized in a table, and the alternative technologies could be ranked in terms of air pollution, coastal water pollution, etc. This could be a method for us to analyze them. 1 0710LA Appendix G G-17 Response: Comment noted. New facilities will be subject to the Environmental Impact Statement process, which will further address impact of alternative projects. 20. John Ross We don't have two years on the Hilo Landfill. We've got less than a year and a half. The problem is you've given us only one viable alternative to date, and that's incineration. Because you don't have information on the other alternatives. My recommendation is to check with military sources for waste management information. Response: According to current estimates, South Hilo Landfill will be full in the second quarter of 2004. Data for several alternatives is not available because the technologies are proprietary or because there are currently no facilities in operation that manage a comparable waste stream. 21. Barbara Bell of Hawai'i County Department of Environmental Management I just want to comment on why anaerobic digestion is on the short list. Because it is operating in Europe on a fully-commercialized scale it has a lot of promise, and the commissioners wanted to research it more thoroughly. That's whyit on the list. We thought 9 more research would be valuable. Gasification is on the list because it does have a lot of promise, and in the research we discovered that its track record is pretty thin. It's still on the list because we haven't taken anything off. Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment. 22. Mack Asato, Member of the Environmental Management Commission Has anyone considered how these new technologies will affect the current employees? Response: A response to this comment follows. 23. George How of Harding ESE Any new system will require training of workers. Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment. 24. Barbara Bell of Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management The next steps in the planning process are to add the comments from the public to the draft and bring it to the County Council Parks and Environmental Management Committee so council can debate it for a couple of meetings. At some point in October or November it will come back and become a final. Then hopefully the council will adopt it. There will be further opportunities for public comment at the council hearings, and it will be on cable television. Response: Comment noted. 0710LA- Appendix G G-18 I COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND RESPONSES Public Meeting for Discussion of a Draft Addendum to Hawai'i County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan State Office Conference Room, Waimea 8/20/02 7:00 to 9:00 PM 1. Riley Smith, Co-chairman of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee Long wheel-based trucks (such as used on Oahu for long-hauling waste) have difficult time making the turn at the intersection of Lindsay Road and Mamalahoa Highway. In general, hauling equipment should be sized for the planned route of travel. Response: Comment noted. 2. Christine Ross of Pacific Waste, Inc, Heavily loaded trailers are prone to overturning at the turn into Queen Kaahumanu Highway from the Kawaihae Road. Response: Comment noted. 3. Leningrad Elinaroff, Member of the County Council Representing the North and South Kohala District Adjustments can be made to the east Hawaii waste stream by bringing the waste from more of the convenience centers (transfer stations) to Hilo to provide feed stock for a waste reduction facility. 1 Response: Comment noted. 4. Christine Ross of Pacific Waste, Inc, Waste is sorted for recovery of recyclable materials at the H- Power facility on Oahu. Response: Comment noted. 5. Reynolds Kamakawiwoole, Candidate for the County Council from the Hamakua District I recently visited a small community in Massachusetts, which has a very successful recycling system. We haven't been doing what others have been doing. We should consider some of the ways other people are recycling their wastes. We've really not touched recycling as much as we should. The people in the Massachusetts are really involved in recycling. They really believe in it. It's done very neatly and cleanly. Response: Support for recycling is noted. 0710LA Appendix G G-19 6. Jim Thropp (Regarding alternative waste reduction technologies) whatever is done, people will not like it -- particularly in their backyard. It will be a struggle for Brewer to get their combustion facility going. If we could interview the people who are protesting to find out their basic concerns and what it is that they want to resolve the problems. Response: Comment noted. 7. Lorraine Inouye, State Senator for North Hilo, Hanakua, and South Kohala The,planned use of the HCPC (Hilo Coast Processing Company) facility was presented to the community, and they just totally told them that they don't want it in their backyard. - I . Response: Comment noted. 8. Barbara Bell of Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management There is a "whole activist group who's sole mission is no incineration." There are a lot of them, and they are very committed to their issues. I would fully expect that Pepeekeo would just be different people if an incineration project were chosen for somewhere else. Response: Comment noted. 9. Michael Kaha There is a very small plasma arc facility for medical waste on Oahu that turns 3 tons (of mostly medical wastes) into 13 gallons. Just to give you folks an idea of what you can do. Just so everyone has it in their minds, turning waste into energy is recycling. Response: Comment noted. . 10. Bets Lawrence The South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee is really concerned about increased large- truck traffic from Hamakua through.Waimea town. As Riley pointed out, that turn by the Shell station is really bad. We've got five, six schools between there and down the hill (to Kawaihae). If you use the Waikoloa Road, you've got tremendous hills. There are tremendous hills no matter where you are. I know people are going to be extremely upset however many additional trucks travel through Waimea. If the community can be assured that the county is going to aggressively pursue other means of waste management so that when South Hilo Landfill closes in 2004 truck traffic will increase for a finite amount of time and then there will be reduction in the amounts of transported wastes, the community willtake it better. Response: Concern about increased truck traffic is noted. 0710LA Appendix G G-20 I 11. Cindy Evans, Candidate for State House of Representatives from South Kohala I Because the roads up through Waikoloa to.Waimea are narrow with small shoulders and drivers get impatient and pass when they should not, I would discourage the use of long-haul trailers. II oppose increases in tipping fees, especially for construction and demolition debris because there is a lot construction in Waikoloa and higher tipping fees will lead to illegal Idumping on utility roads. On behalf of Waikoloans, please get us a transfer station. 1 Response: Concerns about traffic safety and increased tipping fees are noted. Desire for a transfer station in Waikoloa is noted. I 12. Reynolds Kamakawiwoole, Candidate for the County Council from the Hamakua District I Mr. Kamakawiwoole suggested that there are sites of former sugar mills on the Hamakua Coast that may be suitable for waste management facilities. I Response: Comment noted. The siting of solid waste facilities is beyond the scope of the ISWMP project. I13. Riley Smith, Co-chairman of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee It was a condition of zoning that the developers of Waikoloa put in a transfer station there. The County Council should probably enforce that commitment of the developer to put it in next time they come in for zoning. 1 Response: This comment is a response to a previous comment. 14. Steve Powell of Real Earth United States Enterprises, Ltd. (REUSE) I Aerobic composting has been omitted from the three waste reduction technologies that P 9 9 are being considered. My company is involved in aerobic composting of municipal solid waste I and would like that method considered as well. The advantage of the aerobic composting method is it's done quickly, thoroughly, and,efficiently and compost is produced, which has an enormous number of beneficial uses. IResponse: Aerobic composting was included in the group of waste reduction technologies that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee considered. It was excluded from list of technologies to be pursued with a Request for Proposal (RFP) because of concerns Iabout odors from such a facility and because it would process only the organic portion of the waste stream. I I 0710LA Appendix G G-21 15. Jim Thropp • Make waste receiving facilities user-friendly, particularly for old cars because I see them going up the hill by my house and I know they're not going to be used for dog kennels. Response: Comment noted. 16. Unidentified • Expressed concern about an aggressive recycling program and the marketability of recyclable materials. Will the county help develop a market for recyclable materials? Response: Helping with marketing of recyclable materials should be part of the job of a full-time county recycling coordinator. 17. Larry Capellas, Solid Waste Division Chief, County of Hawaii Always been a very strong believer that you have to start with marketing before you start with recycling, and if you don't do that you are guaranteeing yourself a disaster in the end. We've seen it in the Solid Waste Division. If we don't have the markets, we can't get rid of the materials. Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment. 18. Riley Smith, Co-chairman of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee 111 I wanted to respond to Steve Powell. The county hired consultants to prepare the addendum to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan and what's included in here is the result of a lot of meetings and a lot of input from a lot of people. So I think the process you should follow if you want to allow the flexibility of aerobic composting, is to provide the consultants with adequate information so they will be convinced that that's a viable alternative and they will recommend to put it in the final draft of this., They mentioned to give the comments by the end of the month. Response: This comment is a response to a previous comment. 19. Unidentified I was wondering why it (aerobic composting) hadn't been given consideration up to this point. Is it because they've never heard of the information? Or they hadn't been presented with this as an option. If you had been doing the research; how is it that you, as consultants, didn't know this was a viable option that you could bring to the table, to the group you were consulting? Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment. 0710LA Appendix G G-22 • 20. Miki Lee of The Accord Group, Meeting Facilitator Was this technology considered? Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment. 21. Ronald L. Soroos of Harding ESE Yes. It's covered in the appendix. Response: This comment is a response to previous comments. 111 22. Unidentified It was considered and decided against. Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment. 23. Ronald L. Soroos of Harding ESE Yes. Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment. 24. Unidentified I see. Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment. 25. Miki Lee of The Accord Group, Meeting Facilitator If you look at any one of these pages in the back, they're laid out rather nicely. They talk about cost. They talk about the risk. They talk about how you might do it. So all that information is laid out for all the options, and then it was sort of a weighing situation for the commission (Solid Waste AdvisoryCommittee) to whittle down the list. Response: This comment is a response to previous comments. 26. Barbara Bell of.Hawai'i County Department of Environmental Management I think that Riley's point is very well taken. We didn't have any champion for aerobic composting. Response: This comment is a response to previous comments. 0710LA Appendix G G-23 27. Maata Tukuafu of North Hawai'i Today Speaking as a resident, I am very willing to recycle everything I have. I lived on the mainland and did it there. It was easy once everyone got to-be responsible for it. The problem . is, you.get everyone doing it, where's it going to go? Who's going to pick it up? What are we going to do about it? How are we going to switch the mindset of people? V Response:_ The Addendum includes an aggressive recycling program. Many details of the program will be added later by the full-time county recycling coordinator.- . . 28. Miki Lee of The Accord Group, Meeting Facilitator • A large part of the recommendation on the aggressive recycling program, was that there_ needs to be.good lead time to get people to understand and.to participate.. It can't happen overnight. It's a change in living behavior. Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment: V V 29. Riley Smith, Co-chairman of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee One thing that came out of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee meetings is that - V financial incentives are needed to make it viable to recycle. This is done by raising tipping fees so alternatives become more economically viable for the companies that haul to the landfill. The stumbling block toincreasing the tipping fees has always been the County Council. When the Solid Waste Division proposes higher tipping fees, we allneed to support the council when . these kinds of issues come forward so they are inclined,:even in election years, to raise the tipping fees. a Response: This comment is a response to the previous;comment: Comment about increased tipping fees is noted. 30. Christine Ross of Pacific Waste, Inc. I wasn't going to say anything, but I have to defend my customers. My customers are all commercial people, and they are the ones paying the landfill tipping fees. How come only them? It's one thing to make all the businesses pay for these things, but it should not only be them. I know that my customers have no problem with the landfill increasing the fees. I've already talked to at least my major customers and they have no problems with that as long as they're not the only ones footing the bill for everything. We're already known as an anti- business state. This is not good. So we,need to make it everybody (who shares the cost). You know, good for one—good for all. I've already talked to my customers that it is going to go up., and it's going to go up for the next five years. What are we paying for? You're paying for getting rid of your trash because you've been underpaying all these years. That's fine until you get to the point, now what are we paying for? Now you're paying for the, community's recycling. But we do recycling, but how come we're paying for the whole island? . Response: This comment is a response to previous comments. Opinions.about fees for waste • disposal are noted. 0710LA Appendix G V , . 'G-24 . I 31. Barbara Bell of Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management I The county, has a policy that, mostly because of fear of illegal dumping, residential trash management is subsidized through the general fund and commercial is supposed to pay for itself. At $35 per ton, commercial is not paying for itself. It's at least $60. IResponse: This comment is a response to the previous comment. I 32. Leningrad Elinaroff, Member of the County Council Representing the North and South Kohala District Have the consultants run across any community or any state or any municipality that I restricted the importation of containers to recyclable ones only? I know some people will never drink beer unless it's from a bottle. Is it reasonable to expect that or ask for that? IResponse: A response to this comment follows. 33. Miki Lee of The Accord Group, Meeting Facilitator We talkedabout that this morning, and the only analogy-we could come up with is Berkeley, where they are restricting the import of coffee to only environmentally friendly and I socially responsible brands. It sort of goes into the idea of Hawaii being really difficult for businesses and telling what they can and can't bring in. Response: This comment is a response to the previous comment. 34. Lorraine Inouye, State Senator for North Hilo, Hanakua, and South Kohala The state its working on the administrative rules for beverage container redemption. This all has to work hand in hand. The recycling efforts are going to be placed on the county with the state's oversight. The recyclers will need to take in glass, plastic, and metal containers. The ramifications of the bottle bill can be applied to all other aspects of recycling. Hopefully, people will learn to participate in recycling through the bottle bill. The legislature is looking at building up the fund so that they can give it to the counties to administer the recycling of those three ' items. The state marketing of recycling will be part of the plan. It should really assist the county efforts. I Response: This comment is a response to previous comments. The beverage container redemption program is primarily an anti-litter measure, but it should also encourage recycling. t35. Anne E. Field Gomes David and I have been recycling ever since we got married in 1989. We compost green I waste and have separated aluminum, glass, and plastic. However, now there is no place to put it anymore; so even though it goes against the grain to put it in with everything else, that's what they have to do. "We believe in recycling, and we would do anything in our power to help the I community, work through the schools, work through any group to get the community educated about how to recycle and ... make it user-friendly. I am personally totally opposed to trucking garbage through Waimea, any time, ever". Big trucks will be hard on the pavement that was recently installed at our intersection. Why not take it over the Saddle Road? 0710LA Appendix G G-25 111 Notes read by Ms. Field-Gomes on behalf of her husband: "Recycle everything possible. Place a recycle tax on all non-consumables to make it worth the while and cost-effective. COMPOST green waste. Burn the remainder to create power. Or give it as an offering to Pele and send it to Kona as bombs." Response: Support for recycling and opposition to trucking are noted. 36. Barbara Bell of Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management Regarding the planning process from.here. Dominic Yagong., the Chairman of the Parks and Environmental Management Committee of the County Council, requested the draft come to his committee as soon.as possible, in draft form with everybody's comments. So we are thinking around September 10, and he thinks it will be on the agenda for 2 or 3 meetings. And then it would go back to the consultants for final draft so.the council's comments can be incorporated with the citizens' comments, and hopefully that will make a strong final draft. Then it will go back to council for approval by resolution. It's hard to predict when that will be. Definitely it is a before-the-end-of-the-year timeframe. Response: Comment noted. • 0710LA Appendix G G-26 1 111 August 26, 2002 TO: County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, HI 96720 FROM: Carol Perry POB 8, Kapa'au HI 96755 889-0317; iolanil7@ilhawaii.net SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ADDENDUM TO THE INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOP THE COUNTY OF HAWAII I congratulate you on the ISWMP addendum and direct my comments to the recycling program. I read the Executive Summary and only browsed other areas of the report,so please excuse me if I suggest something which is already recommended but which I've overlooked. Please just take that as confirmation. I've recycled for over 30 years (mostly in Oregon, one of the recycling pioneers) and been greatly concerned over the lack of awareness regarding recycling on our island since I arrived in 1995. A couple of years ago, I wrote a short editorial for the Kohala Mountain News (unfortunately, now defunct)offering simple, practical suggestions for how people could incorporate recycling into their daily lives (copy enclosed). I doubt many changed their ways as a result of this little article, however, because old habits die hard. That,the County has now envisioned a comprehensive recycling plan and is putting the machinery in place to implement it, with the full force of the law behind it, is necessary and appropriate. Recycling can no longer be deemed optional, especially for a small, rocky island in the middle of the Pacific. More specifically: Establishing recycling drop-off centers at transfer stations and reconfiguring transfer stations for recycling To help ensure compliance with the new plan and to make recycling convenient and less of a radical change for many, altering the existing transfer stations to accommodate recycling is idealwherever the space can accommodate that. After all, people already have the habit of going there. However, waiting till years 4 & 5 to reconfigure the transfer stations is too long. That needs to happen sooner because reconfiguration is part of promotion and re- education. If this is a matter of cost, perhaps reconfiguration can be done in two stages: something basic in year 1 or 2, something more comprehensive in year 3 or 4. Banning yard trimmings at transfer stations in year 1 YES! Every time I go to our local transfer station (Hawi, North Kohala), someone is dumping green waste,sometimes a small amount, other times a whole pickup load. Removing green wastes from the regular garbage stream, where they never belonged in the first place, is essential, not only to significantly reduce the total tonnage going into the landfill but also to replenish the 'ai na with the nutrients held in plant material and the structural and water-holding properties of woody debris. Much of our island still needs to build soil. • Again, where space is adequate, a green waste disposal area should be created at the existing transfer station. People also should be encouraged to compost both kitchen wastes and yard trimmings on their own property (this takes only a small area),or to make arrangements with friends or neighbors who have more land (less likely to occur, but still a pleasing idea). Basic instructions about composting in the form of a short illustrated pamphlet, including contact information for the Dept. of Environmental Management and/or recommended websites for those with Internet access, would be highly beneficial. People don't have the time or motivation to come to meetings. Increasing the budget for promotion and education on an ongoing basis Education is the key, and here I think the schools could be immensely helpful and should be involved, beginning in kindergarten, when children are forming not only habits but their views about the world. The concepts of sustainability, walking lightly on the Earth, valuing resources, malama 'ai na (a core value of the host culture), and so on could be built into a variety of classroom programs and curricula. In the best of all worlds,this would be required by the State DOE. As children grow older, they could be involved in recycling projects at school; when they're high school age, they could initiate projects in the community and get credit towards graduation. Hopefully they would also take this mindset home to theirP arents, for whom recycling might be unfamiliar or too "inconvenient." I realize the preceding goes beyond your current addendum, but it seems a good time to plant this seed. I noticed an interesting phenomenon in Oregon. As a recycler, I remained in the minority until the disposal company in my community began a curbside recycling program. As part of this program, an incentive perhaps, they handed out red plastic containers for home use (for separating recyclables). Recycling suddenly became trendy. Red containers in front of one's house on garbage pickup day became a kind of status symbol for being socially responsible. I realize half the island population carts garbage to transfer stations and doesn't have curbside pickup, but maybe a similar phenomenon could be triggered at the transfer station as well. Seeing some of your friends and neighbors recycling at the transfer station makes it more "the thing to do." Communicating about the new plan and about new ways of thinking about wastes I hope the County will prepare a circular to be mailed to every household about the new requirements and the benefits of recycling —something short and simple enough that people will read it, but thorough enough to communicate the basics, including practical suggestions for setting up recycling at home. I realize that changes at the transfer stations will begin to deliver the message, but some people will choose to view this as optional no matter how many signs are posted and newspaper articles written. Circulars can be ignored too, of course. (See later, on compliance.) Emphasizing that recycling is something old, not new— the ancient Hawaiians were expert recyclers — might also be important. In our multicultural island tapestry, cultural and ethnic components might work both for and against"new" approaches to solid waste management. Enhancing local markets for recyclable materials I 'd like to see the County look for ways to assist residents interested in creating a livelihood,from some aspect of recycling. For example, in North Kohala,a young Tongan man,Ika Vea Jr., has wanted to start up a green waste/wood chipping small business. He's been investigating collaborating with New Moon Foundation (Bond Estate) for financial backing; my understanding is that New Moon would buy the chipper and donate the land upon which Ika could begin operating. I don't know further details. Ika also spoke at one time about doing this through the schools or on school property; I don't know the viability of such a plan, but the visibility and educational potential would be wonderful. Perhaps the County could assist such individuals through low-interest loans,tax breaks, informational resource sharing/mentoring (including collaborations such as Ika isP ursuing); it's to everyone's benefit. I'd also like to see the County encourage residents to be creative (within the law, of course)and participatory. As an example: In our household, because we're currently able to recycle only white office paper (we take it to Kona), my husband has been experimenting with composting junk mail. Like everyone else, we get piles of it. Resources have already been wasted to produce it; to just throw it away seems like adding insult to injury. He's created a system that works for us — it makes wonderful soil — but it's too labor intensive for most people to bother with. Perhaps, however, there's a way to take his idea and commercialize it on a small scale, offering it as an alternative to standard paper recycling (I assume we'll soon be able to recycle paper types other than white office — or will we?). He's not looking to go into the recycling business, but his idea and experience might benefit someone else who is. Ensuring compliance with the new recycling regulations Compliance will almost certainly be.a problem,at least for a while. Even if the County places a monitor at each transfer station, there's no way to know what's in every bag of garbage tossed into the station containers, and searching is impractical. . If some kind of monitoring is established, I would recommend a warning on the first offense and thereafter a modest fine. The idea is to encourage, educate, and re- train people, not penalize them. I would rather see incentives to comply, • accompanied by the underlying rationale. 1 ******************** Mahalo for your time and consideration. 1 1 1 . 1 • VIEWPOINT Information and opinions expressed in viewpoint articles are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily I reflect the position of the News or its staff. Viewpoint articles,up to 300 words,may be submittedan Kohala resident;they must be relevant and specific to Kohala,and include the author's name,address,and tetep hone number. I Recycling: Everyone's Kuleana • _ I'm increasingly con- egg shells, coffee grounds, and the like. We keep cemed about recycling—or ours under the kitchen sink so it's a convenient, the lack of it in North Ko- habitual part of cookingand cleaning 4. hala. Recycling is an an- the continer is full,bury the contents up.an out- cient activity whose side compost bin(small soil enclosure):garbage+ implementation in soil a highuality garden amendment. today's world is ur- Return "green waste" to the 'amna: Pile lik gent, especially on an mulch garden trimmings somewhere in your island largely corn- ard. Or arran a with a nei r who ha sed of rock. g s more and to accommodate lamer debris there. Don't But doing it is nota big deal. It doesn't re- haul it to the transfer station. Green wastes take quire special outlays of time or money. Here's up valuable landfill space,and their nutrient pay- what we do—and what you can do now: load is sqquandered. I. Set up convenient recycling at home: Find Rec,ycl'ing is everyone's kuleana,especially as our a spot to store cardboard boxes (free) for white island s population,increases. We can't afford to paper, newspaper, corrugated cardboard, glass, bury our heads as we bury our garbage. and aluminum (soda cans, foil, pie tins, etc.). I What's recyclable is market driven;unfortunately Carol Perry we can't recycle plastics Kapa'au HI 96755 or "tin cans like soup cans at this time. Repro- !! to place items here, not in the trash headed for the transfer station. 7 Tote along recy- cling items when going. to Kona: How many times a month do you go I to Kona—to Costco or Kmart? For apoint- ments or visiting? Add one more stop to your list I and take your filled boxes. to. Kona Waste Management in the old industrial area (end of I Pawai Pl., a side street off Icaiwi St.). The yard, with open business hours on weekdays, contains labeled bins and dumpsters. Deposit whatever you've got and be on your way. Just I takes a minute. Check the Yellow Pages for other recycling centers. Compost kitchen wastes: Buy a one- or two-gallon plastic con- tainer with lid (small I purchase) and collect veggie and fruit wastes, ,j I /6/1/4611.14'‘.44 tek iit C(47T- Ail e4ALC Page 1 of 1 To Barbara Bell: This is Ed Johnston. I spoke very briefly at the Environmental Management meeting last August 21. 1 I own a small farm in Pepe'ekeo,,makai. I amnotcertain,that the committee understood my testimony that day. My point was that regardless of what technology is decided upon (to deal with waste), the idea of incineration in Pepe'ekeo is not acceptable. Only part of the reason for this is the dramatic increase in truck traffic it would generate, The best. solution is to deal with the waste in the location where it has been:building up for decades. I understand that, regardless, there will be some increased truck traffic due to whatever technology is decided upon. But, if the bulk of the waste is dealt with at the site of the greatest amount of the waste (in east Hawai'i), then the truck traffic through bay front, to. Hilo Coast will be considerably less than moving all the material via Highway 19. 1 AUG 2 . . a.1 • • I • I file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\ATT00000:htm1 8/28/02 U6/2/i0L12 80t1A,b1319 STEEL ERECTORS INC PAGE 01 August 27, 2002 AUG 2 7 2002 To: Solid Waste Advisory Committee(SWAC) do Dept.of Environmental Management 25 Aupuni St.,Room 208 Hilo,HI 96720-4252 111 FAX:9614086 Aloha Barbara&Sharron, Please forward these comments to the SWAC/Consultants. I would like to recommend the following.inclusions for your consideration in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan(ISWMP)for the County of Hawaii. 1)The jarioritization of solid waste recommendations according to State Law. •It was brought to my attention at the public hearings that aerobic;myosin*should be included in . our recommendation of options. 2)A long term waste management program.for the entire island,including ispecificreduce,reuse and recycling directives I3)More specific data about per capita increases(i.e.population-increase,business increase) 4)Research on Federal Programs,etc-.that may be a potential sour of funding towards the ISWMP. Mahal°, Luana Jones EMC I I I .. • Hawaii Tribune-Herald, Wednesday, August 28, 2002 • • • LettersI landfill through Kawaihae or Waikoloa. Boywill Waimea bypass road ---= had � � g Several years back after the demise of.sugar, ' Waikoloa love that. plans,to utilize the acreage was the planting of Subject Waimea.bypass road--ha! That's fast growing wood.It was.proposed the use of. not going to happen,I've lived on this island for this timber could be for lumber,furniture, tools, 30 years and that bypass is not one inch closer pulp, etc. Harvest time is approximately 7 years to being a reality. of which this time frame is getting near. This ! My point: Send all those logging trucks to material will be trucked from Hamakua coast, Hilo harbor and find a place in your own back up hill toWaimea,thendown hill to Kawaihae yard for your waste! • 24 hours a day. Albert Shepherd Now the hot topic is what to do with Hilo's Kamuela waste. Seems they can't finda place on the east side so let's truck it to the west side.Trucks again going up hill either via Saddle Road or Waimea and then down hill to the west side • • ' 1 • • • • • • • 1 1 111 1 ' APPENDIX H 111Glossary 0710LA Harding ESE GLOSSARY aerobic composting, composting Aerobic composting or composting is the biodegradation of organic materials through microbial activity by aerobic bacteria to produce a stable, humus-like substance known as compost. air space The unfilled space above a landfill's waste management area that is planned to eventually be occupied by deposited waste. A term for expressing a landfill's remaining capacity. anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion is the biodegradation of organic materials through microbial activity by anaerobic bacteria, accomplished in closed vessels without oxygen. bio-conversion Bio-conversion is the processing of the organic fraction of the waste stream through biological or chemical means to produce compost or other products such as fertilizer, feed, methane, alcohol, and tar. These processes include, but are not limited to, anaerobic digestion, biogasification, acid hydrolysis, composting, pyrolysis, and fermentation. biogas Biogas is the gaseous product of bio-conversion processes,which is composed of methane and other less abundant gases. Biogas can be used as fuel. bioreactor landfill Bioreactor landfills maintain the deposited waste in a moist condition, unlike traditional landfills, which are designed to exclude as much moisture as possible. Wastes degrade faster in bioreactor landfills and thus accelerate consolidation (settlement) of the waste and the production of landfill gas. bio-refining Bio-refining is the production of ethanol by hydrolysis of organic materials initially using acids, enzymes or steam and then using microorganisms to further ferment the resulting glucose. combustion See incineration. Combustion is the destruction of solid waste by burning in a furnace designed for that purpose where solid waste is reduced to ash, carbon dioxide, and water vapor. composting See aerobic composting. construction and demolition waste (C&D waste) Waste generated by construction and demolition activities. convenience center Waste-handling facilities performing limited transfer station operations that receive less than 40 tons per day of only household or residential solid waste. Known in Hawai'i County as transfer station. glass cullet Pieces of broken glass used in the manufacture of new glass products. 0710LA Appendix H H-1 green waste Leaves, garden residue, shrubbery and tree trimmings, grass clippings, and similar refuse consisting of plant materials. HMR Hawaii Metal Recycling Company. Incineration Incineration is the destruction of solid waste by burning in a furnace designed for that purpose where solid•waste is reduced to ash, carbon dioxide, and water vapor. Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan is a plan by a county for the safe and effective management of solid waste as required by Chapter 342G of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. material recovery facility (MRF) Material recovery facility is facility for the recovery from the waste stream of materials that would otherwise be disposed of as municipal solid waste. municipal solid waste (MSW) Garbage, refuse, and other residential or commercial discarded materials, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous materials resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations; sludge from waste treatment plants and water supply treatment plants; residues from air pollution control facilities and community activities. pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) A system of paying for waste disposal based on the amount of waste generated and discarded into the county solid waste system. plasma arc A process of waste reduction that uses electrical energy to heat plasma gases to super hot temperatures to melt and decompose solid materials into molten rock and gases. pyrolysis A process in which solid waste is heated in an enclosed vessel in the absence of oxygen to vaporize the waste, producing a hydrocarbon-rich gas that is capable of being burned for the recovery of energy. refuse-derived-fuel (RDF) Fuel for energy production produced from solid waste that is processed for convenience of transporting, storing or feeding into a furnace. source reduction The design, manufacture, and use of materials to: (1) minimize the quantity or toxicity, or both, of waste produced, and (2) reduce the creation of waste either by redesigning products or by otherwise changing societal patterns of consumption, use, or waste generation. recycling Recycling is the collection, separation, recovery, and sale or reuse of materials that would otherwise be disposed of as municipal solid waste. 0710LA Appendix H H-2 I • Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) An advisory group appointed by the mayor composed of representatives from citizen I organizations, industry, private solid waste and recycling or scrap material processing industries, county coordinator, and others. The group reviews the integrated solid waste management plan during its preparation, makes suggestions, and proposes appropriate I changes. Subtitle D Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which requires the U.S. I Environmental Protection Agency to establish a regulatory framework fr controlling the management of nonhazardous solid waste. The resulting regulations are Parts 257 and 258 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Ithermal gasification A type of waste reduction process, which operates at high temperature in the presence of a small amount of oxygen or air and produces a gas for fuel. The gas may be used in existing Iboilers or furnaces, or can fire combustion turbines to generate electricity. tipping fee A fee charged for the disposal of waste at a landfill or alternative waste management facility. transfer station Waste-handling facilities performing limited transfer station operations that receive less than I 40 tons per day of only household or residential solid waste. Known elsewhere by the term, convenience center. waste reduction, waste reduction/conversion The reduction of solid waste by weight or volume, or both, through a variety of methods. waste-to-energy Any types of process that produce energy from solid waste. These processes include combustion, thermal gasification, and others. white goods Electrical and mechanical appliances made primarily of metal parts such as refrigerators, clothes washers, clothes dryers, stoves, and dishwashers. 1 WMI Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc. 1 1 I 1 0710LA Appendix H H-3