Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0591.006 2002-2004.......... y AL KONISHI CONST NCE R. KIRIU C'nuniP ('(crA' '� Lrslotirc iludian .JAY MENDE Deplm ('nun(y Clerk County gfHawai'i Office of the County Clerk 25 it upuni Siree[ Milo,Ihm(m 96720 Telephone_ (S08) 96/-8255 Facsimile: (80N) 961-8912 April 20, 2004 ry REGtN TO: Council Chair James Y. Arakaki Date - And Members Of The Hawai`ii County Council FROM: Connie Kirin, Legislative AuhiYai"-� RE: Observations, Questions and Comments regarding Barbara Bell's Mem randum dated April 8, 2004 on the RFP for Waste Reduction Technologies and Preliminary Critical Path Analysis on County Solid Waste Planning and Implementation As requested, we have compiled from staff members some preliminary observations and questions that are listed below. 1. Not everyone is convinced that the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station (EHRSS) can or should be a stand-alone facility. In other words, shouldn't it be operated in conjunction with a waste reduction facility? What benefit accrues from having the EHRSS operating without a waste ,,/eduction facility online -- except to sort the trash for long hauling to Kona? 2. The issue of long -hauling trash to Kona is troublesome to many. Is there any way of avoiding the long haul? 3. How would the EHRSS stand up to moisture, humidity and acid rain? 4. How many new workers are going to be required to operate this new facility? 5. Diversion Rates: One of the underlying assumptions is that the diversion rate will increase from 15% to 45% in FY 08-09. We don't have curbside pickup, so this rate seems overly optimistic. Is this a realistic estimate? If it is, what is this estimate based on? 6. Waste Reduction Technology: WRT implementation will take from 5-7 years. This is a very long time. What actions, if any, can be taken to speed up this process? 7. As we develop a solicitation list of vendors, what will be the scope? Hawaii only? National? International? 8. What is our own due diligence in terms of evaluating waste reduction technologies 'land their successes? 9. Lawsuits are a very real possibility. What steps can be taken to prevent lawsuits doting the RFP process? If you have any questions, you can call Wally Lida at 961-8495. Comm. No. Ref. To: /reseeded FEW..- Ref. MLRef. Dgte I Puna Waste To Energy Recycling Facility Exhaust Gas Conditioning I. The Current Situation Turbine Generator _. Building This is not a new proposal to the County of Hawaii, but the Hilo landfill is approaching its maximum capacity and in light of the controversy surrounding transporting waste to the Pu'uanahulu facility, we wish to present it again for consideration. We hope you will agree that changes in the situation since it was first presented in the summer of 2000 make it a viable and attractive option that is worth revisiting. I 1:\2004\2004_033.000 BEI Puna Waste To Energy\C Meetings\040400 WTE Presentation handout w graphics.doc L— Stephen Yee rsFM Project Manager I N T E R N A T 1 o N A L INTERNATIONAL, INC. 99 Aupuni Street, Suite 120 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 1 N qEFV- 99 Aupuni Street, Suite 120 75-5620-A Palani Rd., Suite 204 Phone: (808) 933-2727 Fax: (866) 887-8885 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Ph (808) 933-2727 1 Mobile (808) 937-8289 Fax (866) 887-8885 Ph (808) 326-4733 Fax (808) 887-8885 Project Managers, Planners, & Engineers syee@ssfm.com merican Council of Engineering Companies, Member Project Managers, Planners, & Engineers April 2004 SSFM 2004.033 Puna Waste To Energy Recycling Facility Exhaust Gas Conditioning I. The Current Situation Turbine Generator _. Building This is not a new proposal to the County of Hawaii, but the Hilo landfill is approaching its maximum capacity and in light of the controversy surrounding transporting waste to the Pu'uanahulu facility, we wish to present it again for consideration. We hope you will agree that changes in the situation since it was first presented in the summer of 2000 make it a viable and attractive option that is worth revisiting. I 1:\2004\2004_033.000 BEI Puna Waste To Energy\C Meetings\040400 WTE Presentation handout w graphics.doc L— ilk T.,AT� II. Waste To Energy (WTE) as the Solution Puna Waste To Energy Recycling Facility Page 2 SSFM 200400033.000 a. The Technology — The facility we propose would be a Mass Burn plant designed to RECYCLE MUNICPAL WASTE INTO ENERGY. Similar to the very successful H -Power operation on Oahu except waste is not shredded prior to combustion. A trade-off is greater fluctuation in power production than H -Power; an advantage is much lower up -front and operation expense. b. The Advantages i. Proven Technology — Commercial plants of this scale have been in successful operation for well over 10 years through out North America and internationally with over 70 such plants operating in the United States alone. ii. Versatile - Accepts wide variety of waste including medical waste, offal, cut tires, sewage sludge, waste oil, all commercial waste. Excluded are non-combustible construction waste products like grubbing material, masonry and gypsum board. iii. Affordable — Construction is estimated at $20 million, plus land cost, but with proposed private financing, ownership and operation it would be constructed at NO COST TO THE COUNTY. iv. Clean — Highly regulated to meet all current EPA air pollution requirements; will produce less greenhouse gas than a landfill — even less than emissions from diesel trucks transporting waste to Pu'uanahulu from Hilo. Emissions are scrubbed with state of the art technology; emission was 's mixed with ash and rendered non -hazardous prior to disposal. x,•\2004\2004_033.000 BEI Puna Wast nergy\C Meetings\040400 WTE Presentation handout ics.doc Puna Waste To Energy Recycling Facility Page 3 SSFM 200400033.000 v. Sized for Current Demands and 20 Years of Growth — Proposed design will handle 300 tons per day (two 150 tpd combustion units), or well over 80,000 tons per year. vi. Fast -Tracked — Excluding permitting, it is estimated that, design and construction could be completed within 24 to 36 months of a Notice To Proceed. vii. Compatible with Other Recycling Efforts — A recycling picking station can easily be incorporated into the tipping floor allowing for separation and recovery of metals, glass, paper and other materials. viii. Options Available - Disposal of resulting non-toxic ash (5%v of original volume) is by landfill or by vitrification (melting ash into inert glass with extremely high temperatures) which even further reduces volume. ix. Power Generation — A maximum generating capacity of 5.5 MW is more than enough to operate the ash vitrification unit if desired with the surplus going to the County power grid. c. The Challenges i. Zoning — The proposed site currently has Industrial Zoning which the land owner will change to the required Heavy Industrial Zoning. 'This change is not anticipated to be difficult. ii. Air Permit — It is anticipated that the permitting process can exceed 18 months, but could be processed concurrently with design. III. The Team — Hawaii Owned and Based Companies a. Richard Hill, Brewer Environmental Industries, Inc. — Financier, Owner/Operator. As President of Hilo Coast Power Company, Vice President of Brewer Environmental Industries Holdings, and with a long history as an Industrial Engineer in the local sugar industry, Mr. Hill brings a vast depth of knowledge to the project. His broad experience in financial planning, heavy industry and power generation provide unique qualifications for leadership of this complex project. Brewer Environmental Industries, a well-established kama'aina firms will provide financing options as well as operation and management of the WTE facility after it becomes operational. b. Jere Henderson, Continental Pacific, LLC — Land Owner. The proposed location of the new WTE plant is the site of the former Puna Sugar Mill. The 3 acres required for the facility are readily accessible, yet isolated from the rest of the community. Operation of the mill's power plant which is adjacent to the proposed site, has been assumed by HELCO to generate County power, so connection of the new WTE facility to the power grid would be convenient, inexpensive and seamless. /:\2004\2004 033.000 BEI Puna Waste To Energv\C Meetings\040400 WTE Presentation handout w graphirs.doe I Puna Waste To Energy Recycling Facility Page 4 SSFM 200400033.000 c. SSFM International, Inc. — Project Manager and Design Consultant. With offices In Hilo and Kailua-Kona as well as state-wide and internationally, SSFM provides a motivated and experienced team of professionals to manage the project from design inception to construction completion. IV. The Approach a. Request For Proposal — This is a turnkey proposal that includes financing, and private ownership/operation. However, to assure the project's viability, it would kequire: i. A guarantee that the facility would receive the waste currently delivered to the landfill with a contract of not less than 20 years. ii. That the County issue an RFP to which the Project could respond to insure that all other proposals would be considered on a "level playing field." b. 'Expandable — Pu'uanahulu is the site of the current landfill on the west side of the island. This proposal could be written to include a similar facility there. This option would obviously provide the same advantages to that operation and could defuse any opposition that might arise from perceived conflicting interests if management were offered to or assumed by the current landfill operator. Prepared by: SSFM International, Inc. Stephen Yee, Project Manager Email: syee@�sfm.com L\2004\2004_033.000 8E7 Puna Waste To Energy\C Meetings\040400 WTE Presentation handout w graphies.doc RIP TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR WASTE -TO -ENERGY SYSTEM 6/18/03 1. Provide a flow diagram for the entire process you intend to use, include o4 that diagram: a. All mass and energy inputs and outputs b. Any chemicals and steam inputs and outputs c. Energy for MSW receiving, handling and preparation and other in emal loads. 2. How much land does your process occupy? 3. Do you have a system in commercial operation and where may we see it io operation? 4. How long has this process been in commercial operation? 5, Describe the method of feeding MSW. 6. Describe materials in MSW that are suitable for your process. 7. Describe materials in MSW that are not suitable for your process. 8. Does the MSW need to be prepared in any way? 9. Describe how your process deals with unsuitable materials. 10. For MSW, state the MSW analysis and higher heating value (HHV) for the process. 11. For electric energy inputs, provide conversion efficiency assumptions. 12. What hazards to operating personnel are associated with the process? 13. What are the end products and how will they be utilized? 14. Is a covered Source Air Permit required for the system? 15. Describe all air pollution control systems. 16. What is the expected life of the system? 17. Describe the maintenance requirements of the system. 18. What is the assumed capacity factor and availability of the process? 19. Describe how gas path corrosion will be minimized or avoided. used 20. Describe the means for providing steady, firm electric power, if electric a ergy is an end product of the process. 21. Which conventional lenders such as banks have indicated a willingness td finance this process? For Gasification Systems, please provide the following additional informal n 1. What is the temperature of and quantity of heat in the gas leaving the re tor? 2. How is the sensible heat of that gas utilized? 3. State the chemical composition of the gas and any tars that are produced. I 4. State the higher heating value (HHV) of the gas. 5. Is gas compression and storage required? 6. What is the market for the gas and the assumed value of the gas? 7. If the gas is to be utilized for on-site electric energy generation, state the assumed conversion efficiency to produce electric energy. 8. How do you prevent gas fires and gas explosions as well as personnel exposure to toxic elements in the gas? 4. What is the temperature of and quantity of heat in the ash or frit leaving he system? 10. How is the sensible heat of the ash or frit utilized? 11. If the ash is fluidized in the reactor, how are volatile metals such as mercury captured and discarded? 12. Is the material captured and discarded classified as hazardous waste? 13. How do you withdraw the ash or frit from the reactor? 14. What is the final disposal means for the ash or frit? 15. If the ash is fluidized, how do you deal with the heavier metals in the fri? I 16. If wet scrubbers are used, describe how the wastewater is treated and di posed. 17. Describe all other wastes from air pollution control or gas clean up pro sses and how these wastes are handled and disposed. 18. If gas is utilized on site to produce electric energy, explain the type of equil meat to be used and the experience of that equipment with this gas. FACTS and ISSUES 1. Ash It takes 180-204 kWh to melt ash using any DC plasma electric arc furnace Garbage has from 15-25% ash Melts at 1350-1600 deg. C. (2462-2912 deg. F.) 2. Energy Conversion (Net to the grid) HPOWER-500-550 kWh/ton MSW Commerce -400-450 kWh/ton MSW Small Modular Mass Burn plants 300-400 kWh/ton MSW JDI Plasma Arc Claim -480 kWh/ton MSW JDI Probable Maximum 400 kWh/ton MSW 3. Preliminary Questions for Selecting a Waste -To -Energy Technology a. How long has the process been in commercial use on MSW? b. Where can I see an example of the technology you propose operating on US -type MSW? c. Can the process be financed using conventional means with only tipping fee guarantee by the County? d. Is the process suitable for Hawaii MSW? e. What material is unsuitable to be processed? E Is there a need to prepare the MSW for the process? g. If a gasification process, how are the gases stored, transported and used? h. How are air and water pollution controlled? i. Does the process require a Covered Source Air permit? j. How are the heavy metals and the metals that are volatile treated? k. How are valuable materials such as aluminum obtained for recycling? 1. What are the inputs and outputs of material and energy? 4. Issues for the Council and the Administration to Agree Upon for a RFP a. Is the site to be provided by the County or the responder? b. Is the County to ultimately own the facility? c. What is an acceptable range of tipping fees? d. What needs to be processed? e. What can be landfilled and where? E Do we accept unproven technology? g. How much operating experience and of what type and size are acceptable? h. How much energy efficiency is satisfactory? i. How compatible with recycling efforts is the process? j. How much waste is to be handled and of what type? k. Who is responsible for the remaining wastes and where does it go? 1. What should be the evaluation criteria and how should these be weighted? m. What is the timeline to get the project approved and on line? n. Who is going to make the final selection? o. Who will evaluate the proposals? p. What technical help will be needed for the evaluation?