Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0591.001 2002-2004JNcr or H,� Harry Kim - -_ - Barbara Bell Mayor -='�` Director 1rE Oi.NI,V, ClilTtttv II �ttitltzii DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Street, Room 210 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086 April 8, 2004 The Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Council Chair And Council Members Hawai'i County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 SUBJECT: Information gathering process for Waste Reduction Technologies Dear Chairman Arakaki and Council Members, PURPOSE: In keeping with Hawaii Revised Statutes 103D-202 (i), the County intends to begin a process in order to proceed on the path of procurement for a high-tech waste reduction facility. Past failures throughout the State have clearly shown the path needs to be extremely focused so that the best possible proposals will be submitted for our consideration. With this carefully -authored document, the County can determine the most responsible long-term course of action in respect to resource recovery and solid waste disposal. We will be able to gather and share information publicly before the formal procurement process begins. PROCESS: 1. Attached is a questionnaire initially developed by the Department of Environmental Management for the October, 2002 Council Committee workshops on Waste Reduction Technologies. The department has added many more questions based on recent discussions with the public, industry, and elected officials. If you have any additional questions, please get them to me by Tuesday, April 20, 2004. 2. The Department of Environmental Management will publish an official Request for Information Notice. 3. The Notice will require answers to the questionnaire and examples of successful projects with contact information. Potential vendors will be allowed to give any additional information they desire. 4. The Notice is expected to be published on or about May 1, 2004, with responses due by July 1, 2004. 5. The information submitted by potential vendors will be available for the Council as well as the public's use. 6. This information will become the basis for defining the County's needs and narrowing our search for appropriate technologies. Comm. No. 541. Ref, lot f fief. Dote APR 8 7554 _ Hawaii County Council April 8, 2004 Page 2 7. The department will research the successful projects, along with all the other information provided in the questionnaires/responses. This will include interviewing our counterparts in the locations where projects are located. 8. The department will do an analysis of costs and risk assessments matched to Hawaii County's waste stream. 9. The department will present their findings to the Council and the public. The kinds of recommendations to be culled from this information gathering and necessary for an effective, and specific, RFP would be: 10. The specific type of technology that will best serve the County's residents and visitors. 11. The range of practical and effective costs, including where we should cap any County expenses, as measured in $ per ton of operating costs as well as capital costs. 12. The steps for further solicitation, evaluation, and selection of offers. After the above actions, the County's intention would be to enter into the formal procurement process through a Request for Proposals (RFP) or a Multi -Step Competitive Sealed Bidding process. The Multi -Step process is outlined in Hawaii Administrative Rules Title 3, 122-61.05 through .08. Attached is a preliminary critical path analysis which provides an overview for three possibilities. Path 1 represents our current path. Path 2 represents a strong reliance on Waste Reduction Technology only. Path 3 represents continuing with existing operations, repair and maintenance only. Also attached is Hawaii Administrative Rules Title 3, 122-61.05 through .08. I will keep you informed of the progress as we move forward. Thank you for your assistance in this endeavor. Barbara Bell DIRECTOR cc: Harry Kim, Mayor Bill Gray, Purchasing Agent Lono Tyson, Solid Waste Division Chief attachments Harry Kim Mayor Barbara Bell Director CounfV of (,:Rrzfunii DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Street, Room 210 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086 COUNTY OF HAWAI'I WASTE REDUCTION QUESTIONNAIRE April 8, 2004 BACKGROUND: About 43% of waste in Hawaii County is collected at Transfer Stations, with some of the locations being extremely rural. Some people have grown accustomed to disposing of anything they desire. You will need to consider how your firm would handle Household Hazardous Waste, bulky items, appliances, aggregates, or whatever could possibly be dumped into a trailer at a rural unsecured location. The County will be increasing source -separated recycling in the near term. We are presently diverting about 18% from landfilling, mainly through creating mulch from greenwaste, recycling scrap metal and automobiles and through traditional recycling. These recyclables will be diminishing in the waste stream over time. As we become more and more aggressive, this may also include greenwaste and scrap metal. For more detailed information, you may access the County's Update to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, with the most current waste composition analysis, and the Environmental Impact Statement for the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station on our website at http://co.hawaii.hi.us/directory/dir envmna.lum Please answer the following questions. TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY: Incineration, Thermal Gassification, Anaerobic Digestion, or Other (Specify) Name of Company: Years in Business: Contact Person: Mailing Address: Phone: Email: Website: MATERIAL STREAMS/QUANITITIES: 1. What waste stream components are you able to process? (Glass, metal, plastics, raw greenwaste, paper fibers, treated lumber, construction/demolition debris, other? Please be specific.) 2. What waste stream components do you prefer? Any pre-processing requirements? (Raw greenwaste, construction lumber shorts, treated and untreated, plastics, paper fibers, other? Please be specific.) 3. What components of the waste stream are you unable to process? 4. Are there ratios of inputs needed? What are the limits? County of Hawaii Waste Reduction Questionnaire April 8, 2004 Page 2 5. What would you do with traditional recyclables, especially cardboard, newspaper, and office paper? END-PROUDUCTS/RESIDUE: 1. What is the end -product or residue? Are there any beneficial re -use possibilities? If so, are there any permitting/regulatory issues? Please include any test data regarding constituents. 2. What are the by-products? Emissions? Please include any test data regarding constituents. 3. What is the composition of any residue (in tons and as a percentage of total MSW by weight and by volume)?What percentage of the total waste stream will you recycle/recover? What are the materials? 4. What percentage of the total waste stream will you divert from landfilling? SIZING/ECONOMIES OF SCALE: I. Is the technology scaleable? 2. Is it modular? If so, in what increments? 3. What is the minimum tonnage you can process daily? 4. What is the maximum tonnage you can process daily? 5. Would you prefer the whole island's waste stream or would you rather East Hawaii only, West Hawaii only? 6. Tell us specifically how your firm would deal with particular Hawaii County challenges. (i.e. low volume over a large area). CAPITAL COSTS: 1. Are you willing to finance the construction? If so, at what interest rate? Please be as specific as possible about terms and payments from the County. 2. If you base the payback on tons/day and a tipping fee, what would be the amount/ton? Would it include any transportation? If so, from where to where? Would it include any up -front processing? 3. If we need more capacity, what are the break points in tons/day, and what are their costs (after the initial construction). 4. What would be the design life for the facility and its major equipment? 5. What does the community and/or local government customarily provide? Roads? Water? Power? Wastewater? Equipment? OPERATING COSTS: 1. What are the annual operating costs? What do they include'? What do they not include? Tipping fees for any residue, insurance, wages, benefits, maintenance, contingencies? Please be specific. County of Hawaii Waste Reduction Questionnaire April 8, 2004 Page 3 2. What are the annual operating costs per ton at 50 tons/day, 100 tons/day, 150 tons/day, 200 tons/day, 300 tons/day, 400 tons/day, 500 tons/day, 600 tons/day? 3. What type of incentives would you need to divert 50%, 60%, 70%, or more from landfilling? 4. How does recycling fit with your diversion estimates? DOWN TIME: 1. What is your annual maintenance schedule? 2. Would the facility be processing any waste? Does your process have redundancy? 3. How long is needed for regular maintenance? How often for each occurrence? 4. Would there be a need for landfilling while you are doing maintenance or repairs? 5. At initial start up, do you need a ramp -up time? If so, over how long and at what quantities of waste? 6. What is your history for reliability? FINANCING: 1. What are the possibilities for financing? 2. If you finance the capital costs, how long of a contract do you need? If the County was to own the facility at the end of any contract, what effect does that have on any contract? 3. If the County finances the capital costs, how long of a contract do you need? What other considerations would you have with public financing? SIZE/LOCATION: 1. Minimum/maximum Acreage needed: 2. What utilities do you need, and at what amounts? 3. Do you generate any wastewater? What amounts? 4. Do you need proximity to transmission lines, or have other special transmission requirements? If they are not present, how would you expect them to be provided? 5. Do you have an ideal site in mind? If so, where? If not, do you have criteria for a site? If so, what are the criteria? ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION: 1. Does the process consume electric power (kWh per ton processed)? 2. Does the process export electric power for sale to a third party that is net power produced in excess of that consumed by the process (kWh per ton processed)? County of Hawaii Waste Reduction Questionnaire April 8, 2004 Page 4 3. If electric power will be produced, what would be the MW capacity (net export to the electric utility grid) for a plant processing 50 tons/day? 100 tons/day? 150 tons/day 200 tons/day? 300 tons/day? 400 tons/day? 500 tons/day? 600 tons/day? 4. Could the facility be operated so that electric power export was maximized between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.? And minimized between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.? 5. Would the electric power output be steady, that is, output various less than +1 MW/min? 6. Could the operation of the plant be designed and operated for firm, dispatchable electric power export? EXISTING FACILITIES: 1. How many facilities are in operation that you have built or operate? Where are they located? Please provide all contact information. NON -BENEFICIAL END PRODUCTS: 1. What are all the end products? Have you had them (it) tested? What were the results? Please provide copies of any test results. RISKS: 1. Have you ever held a performance bond? What amount? 2. Have you ever had any confusion regarding whether you were performing or not? 3. How many operational facilities do you own or control? Where are they? How much is processed in average tonnage/day? What is the nature of any/all agreements? 4. Has your firm ever been in a contract that was terminated prior to the contract expiration date? If yes, please explain. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. Will there be any smell, fumes, dust, particulates, furons, dioxin, heavy metals, or any other by- products due to combustion or degeneration of waste in any way? 2. What are the relative greenhouse gas emissions? 3. Could the plant be designed so that the noise level at its perimeter be less than 70 dBA? 55dBA? 45dBA? County of Hawaii Waste Reduction Questionnaire April 8, 2004 Page 5 SOCIAL IMPACTS: 1. How much residual waste would you generate? Must it be landfilled? Is there any beneficial use, and if so, is it permitted? 2. Would trucking be required? From where to where? What times of day are best? What times of day are not viable? 3. Would there be lighting at the site during the night? How many hours/day? Is it contained or ambient? 4. Do you require certain hours of operation? PERMITTING/TIMELINES: 1. How long would you hope for from a County fully executed contract to full operation? How long would you reasonably expect this process to take? In your experience, how long has it taken for a facility to be fully operational? 2. What permits are required for your process? 3. What is the average length of time to obtain each permit? TRANSPORTATION: 1. Do you envision hauling residual, recyclables, or anything else? If so, please identify and include it in your cost estimates? 2. If any transportation is required and you would rather not do it, who do you expect would? 3. Do you have any plans for backhaul of materials? § ■ / § LL/ E LU ,�,![ ± m _ ® « j § : /- ,�,![ _ ® « j § : 3 6 OF , � � w I , � °w§® ------ , �\ � ® « j § : 3 6 OF , ® « j § : � § : °w§® ------ Critical Path For Solid Waste Division (Estimated Gen Fund subsidy - No CIP) $24 Million $22 Million $20 Million 110 R/T MSW Hauls $18 Million I To W HI LF $8 Million --M 'SW & 15% Diversion FY2003 FY2005 FY2007 FY2009 FY2011 FY2013 119 R/T MSW Hauls To W HI LF 15 Trailers Haul & Backhaul MSW WRT & 8 Trailers Haul & Backhaul MSW FY2015 129 R/T MSW Hauls ToWHILF 17 Trailers j Haul & Backhaul MSW 8 Trailers Haul & Backhaul MSW FY2017 NO ACTION 140 R/T MSW Hauls ToWHILF WRT & 18 Trailers Haul & Backhaul Operational & 9 Trailers Haul & Backhaul MSW FY2019 Path 3: W HI LF Reaches Capacity 2025 Significant Traffic Impacts Escalating County & Hauler Costs & Accelerated Equipment Wear & Repair & No Value Added Product Path 2: W HI LF Reaches Capacity 2035 Moderate Traffic Impacts Operating Costs Increase & Limited Value Added Products Path 1: W HI LF Reaches Capacity 2048 Minimal Traffic Impacts Operating Costs Increase Initially Then Level Off & Value Added Products Generated From MSW LEGEND: MSW = Solid Waste R/T = Truck Roundtrips TS = Transfer Station LF = Landfill SS = Sort Station WRT = Waste Reduction Tech E] 102 R/T $16 Million MSW Hauls _ 10WHILF e 14 Trailers 94 R/T MSW Haul MSW & Hauls To W Backhaul $14 Million E HI LF HI LF Operate MSW Closed & 87 WRT & 13 R/T MSW Hauls – Construct Trailers Haul & Backhaul 2 TS Enhanced E HI LF WRT & 94 R/T MSW MSW I. Closed – 87 Hauls Site - $12 Million Select WRT & 2 R/T MSW Construct TS Enhanced Hauls & SiteEHILF Select WRT WRT & 20 Construct SS & 7 WR WRT Closed & 17 Closed 18 Trailers Trailers Haul TS Enhanced Operate SS Trailers Haul Haul MSW MSW —— $10 Million &17 TS Enhanced & Study WRT MSW &Ail TS Enhanced $8 Million --M 'SW & 15% Diversion FY2003 FY2005 FY2007 FY2009 FY2011 FY2013 119 R/T MSW Hauls To W HI LF 15 Trailers Haul & Backhaul MSW WRT & 8 Trailers Haul & Backhaul MSW FY2015 129 R/T MSW Hauls ToWHILF 17 Trailers j Haul & Backhaul MSW 8 Trailers Haul & Backhaul MSW FY2017 NO ACTION 140 R/T MSW Hauls ToWHILF WRT & 18 Trailers Haul & Backhaul Operational & 9 Trailers Haul & Backhaul MSW FY2019 Path 3: W HI LF Reaches Capacity 2025 Significant Traffic Impacts Escalating County & Hauler Costs & Accelerated Equipment Wear & Repair & No Value Added Product Path 2: W HI LF Reaches Capacity 2035 Moderate Traffic Impacts Operating Costs Increase & Limited Value Added Products Path 1: W HI LF Reaches Capacity 2048 Minimal Traffic Impacts Operating Costs Increase Initially Then Level Off & Value Added Products Generated From MSW LEGEND: MSW = Solid Waste R/T = Truck Roundtrips TS = Transfer Station LF = Landfill SS = Sort Station WRT = Waste Reduction Tech E] PRELIMINARY CRITICAL PATH ANALYSIS COUNTY SOLID WASTE PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION April 8, 2004 Underlying assumptions applied to next 15 years 1) 204,000 tons of rubbish generated in the County FY 2002-03. Approximately 43% is currently disposed of in the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill. Diversion rate 15% (31,000 tons diverted from landfill in FY 2002-03). The compliment of the diversion rate is the percentage of rubbish that must be landfilled. 2) Rubbish generation increases at: a) 4% annually per historic increases observed from 1993-2003 3) Estimated amount of general fund subsidy is that portion of solid waste disposal expenses less tip fee and grant revenues. 4) The amount of general fund subsidy is difficult to predict 15 years into the future as there are many variables that may change. These estimates are extrapolated from our 5 -year tip fee projections (Path 1), anticipated $100 per ton costs of a Waste Reduction Technology (Path 2), and current per mile operating costs (Path 3). These projections do not take into account quantity discounts that accrue to scale of operations or impact of market prices on diversion expenses. Projections do account for the deferral of future landfill construction costs. 5) West Hawaii landfill (W HI LF) currently has airspace for 12 million cubic yards or roughly 6 million tons of solid waste before reaching capacity. 6) East Hawaii landfill (E HI LF) will close: a) 2006 (current estimate with 15% diversion and no change to closure plan) b) 2007-2008 (optimistic estimate, DOH acceptance of new landfill closure plan, East Hawaii Regional Sort Station (EHRSS) built and operative 2005, increased diversion rates — FY 03-04 (20%), FY 04-05 (25%), FY 05-06 (30%), FY 06-07 (35%), FY 07-08 (40%), FY 08-09 (45%). Description of Critical Paths • Path 1 — DEM plan: (a) build EHRSS 2005, (b) implement 5 -year transfer station enhancements starting 2004, (c) implement ADFs, bans, and other legislation to encourage source reduction, increase revenues for operations, and spur residential and commercial recycling, (d) investigate and analyze waste reduction technologies for implementation no later than 2014. • Path 2 — Status quo with County taking immediate steps to develop a Waste Reduction Technology (WRT). Streamline steps to WRT implementation still requires a 5-7 year planning timeline. WRT operative in 2011: (a) technology selected by 2005 (b) environmental reviews, site selected, and procurement completed by 2007 (c) construction and permitting completed by 2010 (d) completely operational by 2011 Path 3 — Status quo: (a) no new facilities, (b) continue operations at existing transfer stations, (c) build new transfer station at Ocean View and Waikoloa per County General Plan, (d) minimal maintenance and repair activities for facilities and equipment, (e) require all rubbish be hauled to W HI LF when E HI LF closes, including commercial haulers and transfer station trailers. §3-122-59 contract period; (2) Receive prior approval of the chief procurement officer or a designee; and (3) Be made a part of the contract file upon award by the procurement officer. [Eff 12/15/95; am and comp 11/17/97; am and comp 7/25/02; comp 11/15/03 ] (Auth: HRS §103D-202) (Imp: HRS §103D-303) 93-122-60 Debriefing. (a) The purpose of a debriefing is to inform the nonselected offerors of the basis for the source selection decision and contract award. (b) A written request for a debriefing shall be made within three working days after the posting of the award of the contract. (c) Debriefing shall be held by the procurement officer or designee, to the maximum extent practicable, within seven working days; provided the procurement officer or designee may determine whether or not to conduct individual or combined debriefings. (d) A protest submitted pursuant to section 103D- 701, HRS, following a debriefing shall be filed within five working days, as specified in section 103D -303(h), HRS. [Eff 11/15/03 ] (Auth: HRS §§103D-202, 103D-303) (Imp: HRS §103D-303) §3-122-61 (Reserved). SUBCHAPTER 6.5 MULTI -STEP COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING §3-122-61.05 Purpose. The purpose of this subchapter is to provide rules for the use of the multi -step competitive sealed bidding method of source selection when it is determined that award to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder is desired, but it is not practical to initially prepare a definitive purchase description which will be suitable to permit an award based on price, and it is desirable, prior to soliciting priced bids, to: (1) Invite and evaluate technical proposals to determine their acceptability to fulfill the purpose of the procurement; and 122-46 §3-122-61.07 (2) Conduct discussions pursuant to section 3- 122-53. [Eff 11/15/03 ] (Auth: HRS §103D-202) (Imp: HRS §103D-302) §3-122-61.06 Preparing a multi -sten invitation for bids. (a) The multi -step sealed bidding process uses an invitation for bids consisting of two phases, and combines the receipt of proposals of the competitive sealed proposals process and the low priced bid award of the competitive sealed bidding process. (1) Phase one is composed of one or more steps in which bidders submit unpriced proposals to be evaluated based on criteria set forth in the invitation for bids; and (2) Phase two in which those bidders whose unpriced proposals are determined to be acceptable have their priced bids considered and award is made to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. (b) The two-phase invitation for bids shall conform to the requirements of section 3-122-21, including the following: (1) That unpriced proposals are requested; (2) Whether priced bids are to be submitted at the same time as unpriced technical proposals, and if they are, that the priced bids shall be submitted in a separately sealed envelope; (3) That the priced bids will be considered only in phase two and only from those bidders whose unpriced technical proposals are found acceptable in phase one; (4) That the State, to the extent the procurement officer finds necessary, may conduct discussions pursuant to section 3-122-53; and (5) That the good, service, or construction being procured shall be furnished generally in accordance with the bidder's unpriced technical offer as found to be finally acceptable and shall meet the requirements of the invitation for bids. [Eff 11/15/03 ] (Auth: HRS 9§103D-202, 103D-302) (Imp: HRS §103D-302) 93-122-61.07 Phase one. Phase one shall be conducted in accordance with subchapter 6, with the exception of the rules relating to the priced offer and 122-47 §3-122-61.07 the following (1) The procurement officer may initiate phase two of the procedure if there is only one acceptable unpriced proposal. If no proposals are submitted, the procurement officer may make a determination pursuant to section 3- 122-59(b). (2) The procurement officer shall notify the bidder in writing when oral or written discussions are not conducted, and upon written request from the bidder, the bidder shall be given the opportunity to review the evaluation of its offer and meet with the evaluator(s) to discuss the evaluation at least five working days prior to the deadline for receipt and opening of the priced offers. [Eff 11/15/03 ] (Auth: HRS §§103D-202, 103D-302) (Imp: HRS §103D-302) §3-122-61.08 Phase two. (a) Upon completion of phase one, the procurement officer shall: (1) If priced bids were required to be submitted in phase one, open the priced bids from bidders whose unpriced technical offers were found to be acceptable; (2) If technical discussions have been held, or if material modifications to the procurement item, project or procedure have been made after the original submission of priced bids, return the sealed priced bids to bidders and provide them reasonable opportunity to submit a modified priced bid; or (3) If priced bids have not been submitted, invite each acceptable bidder to submit a priced bid. (b) Phase two shall be conducted as any other competitive sealed bid procurement except as specifically set forth in this subsection and no public notice need be given to phase two, submission of priced bids, because the notice was previously given. [Eff 11/15/03 ] (Auth: HRS §§103D-202, 103D-302) (Imp: HRS §103D-302) SUBCHAPTER 7 PROCUREMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 122-48