The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0591.010 2002-2004 JMty or q,~ c°', G ~ 6L.,•, Harry Kim Mayor Barbara Bell O II1TIt~'~t II~ ti~lTtltt s DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT O n J 25 Aupuni S[ree[, Room 210 • Hilo, Hawari 96720-0252 C' (808) 961$083 • Fax (808) 961-8086 G ~ F--• c'^ MEMORANDUM DATE: May 11, 2004 ~ cn TO: Council Chair James Y. Arakaki And Members of the Hawaii C, panty Council FROM: Bazbaza Bell, Director ~/~~f//p~~~ RE: Comments on Waste Reduction Technology RFP Issues For your review, I am forwazding Mr. Ted Vorfeld's May 7th fax that followed our phone conversation of May 6, 2004. Mr. Vorfeld offers his suggestions regazding agreement between administration and council on RFP issues, along with suggested technical questions for prospective vendors. His experience and analysis indicates we are moving in the right direction. His list of"Issues for the Council and the Administration to Agree Upon for an RFP" is an excellent starting place for us, I believe. The information gleaned from the Request for Information process which began with the May 2, 2004 publication of the Notice of Request for Information, will help us refine our requirements from vendors. As additional information, I have also included copies of letters famished by the City and County of Honolulu. These letters were written to the vendors that responded to their Request for Proposals for Municipal Solid Waste Plasma Arc/Torch and/or Gasification Facility, Proposal No. RFP-043. They summarize the evaluation criteria for selection and inform the Offerors that the RFP process was discontinued. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Mayor Kim SWD Enclosures: 5/7/04 Fax Message from Ted Vorfeld 2/20/04 City and County of Honolulu letter to JDUGeoplasma LLC 2/20/04 City and County of Honolulu letter to Institute of Reduction and Smelting Technology, `22, Inc. Comm. No. ~ ~ • ~0 Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Ref. TO: Ref. Date I~IA? 1 a-!_UL9 i~ 05fE~7A200a L9: 43 6083262949 HLIALALAI ENGIMEERIIJG PAGc ~J1 HLIALALAI ENGINEERING, INC. ~ Fax Messa e 75-5259 C Mamalahoa Highway Holualoa, Hawaii 96725 Phone: (808)326-9058 Fax No.: 961-8086 Pax: (808)326-2949 No. of pages including this sheet: 5 Email: hualeng@aol.com Date: 5/7/04 1'O: Ms. Barbara Bell FROM: Ted Vorfeld SUBJECT__ Comments on RFP Issues Per ocu conversation 1 attach two sets of suggestions for MSW reduction RFP's based on my recent experience with the Honolulu Plasma Arc/Gasification RFP. These continents wotild apply to any technology solicited by a Request fur Proposal. The first set of suggestions relates to my perception of the `apparent' lack of involvement of the Counci] and the public in the RFP evaluation process. While I understand that it is not always possible to get a clean consensus on many of these issues, it is well worth the et#ort, in my opinion. The second set of suggestions is merely a fleshing oat of the technical submittals which were not specifically indicated in the Honolulu RFP, the production of which added considerable time to the review process. Forciutg the bidders to face some of these issues is good for them as well as the eventual reviewers. (The gss path corrosion issue, for example, was a critical evaluation issue as Japanese waste, upon which the two short listed bidders based their experience, contains far less plastics and hence causes much less corrosion due to chlorides in the waste.) There was also considerable confusion over the air emission standazds to be met and they are much different than in Japan (which has no heavy metal criteria, for instance). We spent a lot of time trying to assist the bidders is responding to these issues and, as it turned out, there were some issue, that they never did understand since they were deeply involved in the basic process and not terribly experienced in these other areas. The bidders used different mixes of consultants to foan their teams. One of the bidders, IRST, had an extremely diffictilt time with the translations between metric and English standards not to mention the basic language differences between Japanese and English. I hope these suggestions will be of value in accelerating the RFP process. As I told you on zhe phone, I would be available to assist arty serious effort by the County to issue a RFP on a voluntary, non-compensated basis. Ucrcumcnt3 COPY Tt): ~ 5 V-d 65. 6?!2604 69: 8083262949 HUALGL~11 Ehl:=;1NEFRIhJ~; F'A3E 02 Issues far the Council and the Administration to Agree IIpon for a RFI' 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? f. Do we accept unproven #ecbnology? g. How mnch operating experience and of what type and size are acceptable? h. How mnch energy efficiency is satisfactary7 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 waste 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? a Who is going to make the final selection? o. Who will evaluate the proposals? p. What technical help will be needed for the evaluation? q. How and when wall progress be reported to Council, Administration and Public? r. Can, should and how will responders be penalized fur attempting to circumvent the RFP process? s. Is a sort station to be included and, if so, what materials should be sorted? t. Should the R~'P be restricted to any specific technologies? u. Should the Owner/Operator be the technology supplier or should the Owner/Operator be anyone capable of owning and operating a facility using the technology of his choice? v. Should the technology developer/supplier be made a direct part of the ChvnerlOperator's team and financiaQy liable for performance? 0510%; ~'0b4 +19:43 Br'83~E~2949 NI IFtLALNl EPlG1hdEEP.INU FLUE +73 RFP TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR WASTE-TO-ENERGY SXSTEM SUPPLIERS 5-7-04 1. Provide a flow diagram for the entire process you intend to use, include on that dagrarn~ a. All mass and energy inputs and outputs h, Any chemicals and steam inputs and vutputs c. Energy for MSW receiving, handling and preparation and other internal lc+ads. 2. How much land does your process occupy? 3. Do you have a representative system in cvrtrtttercial opereti.on attd where may we see it in operation^ 4. How long has this process been in cotntnercial operation? 5. Describe the tnethod of feeding MSW. 6. Describe materials tut MSW that are suitable for your process. 7. Describe materials in MSW that are not suitable for youz process. R. Does the MSW need to he prepared in any way? 9. Describe haw your process deals with tutsui.table materials. 10. For MSW, state the MSW analysis and higher heating value (HHV) assumptions used for the process. 1 l ,Tor electric or thermal energy inputs, if arty, provide conversion ef3iciency assumptions. 12. What hazards to operating persozutel are assex:iated with the process and how are they dealt with? 13. What are the ettd products and how will they be utilized? Include data nn anticipated markets for residuals as welt as energy and documentation froth the purchaser of those end products of its willingness to enter into a contract to purchase at the assumed prices. l4, Where applicable, provide documentation. of discussions with the Hawaii State Department of'Health regarding applicable standards for emission control sad residue marketing ar disposal. i 5. Is a covered Source Air Perini[ required for the system and who will be the firm or individual responsible £or obtaining this pettttit and what is its (his/hez) previous experience in air permitting? X75/~li;~LLH04 079:43 31]83^62949 HIIALIiLCIl ENG1tJEERING PAGE 0a 1 b. I~scrbe all pollution control systems as well as the applicable standards and ilte means to achieve those standards. i'7. What is the expected life of the system? ] 8. Describe the maintenance regairements of the system. l9. What is the assumed capacity factor and availability of the process? 2t). Describe how the process may be expanded to met increases tut MSW or deficiencies in reliability. 21. Describe how gas path corrosion will be minimized or avoided. 22.13escribethe means for providing steady, farm electric power, if electric. energy is an end product of the process and the anticipated purchase prices assumed. 23. Which conventional lenders such as banks have indicated a willingness to finance this process? For Gasification and Thermal Vitrification Systems, please provide tl~e following additional information: 1. What is the temperature of and quantity of heat in the gas leaving the reactcti'? 2. Flow is the sensible heat of that gas utilized? 3. State dte chemical composition of the gas and any tars that era produced. 4. Statz. the higher heating value (IIIiV) of the gas. 5. Is gas compression and storage rec;uired7 b. 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? 9. What is the temperature of'and quantity of heat in the ash or frit leaving the system'? 10. Flow is Ute sensible heat of the ash or frit utilized? 05/07/2004 09:43 60632E2y45 HUALALAI ENGINEER.NG FACE tJ5 l 1. If the ash is fluidized in the reactor, how are volatile metals such as mercury captured and discarded? Is the material captured and discarded classified as hazardous wfl9Cll? 12. Ilow do you withdraw the ash or frit from the reactor? I3. What is the final disposal means for the ash or frit? 14. If the ash is fluidized, haw do you deal with the heavier metals in the frit? 15. [f wet sctvbbers are used, describe how the wastewater is treated and disposed. ICz tTescribc all ether wastes from air pollution control or gas cleats up processes and how these wastes are handled and disposed. 17. I£gas is utilized on site to produce electric energy, explain the type of equipment to be used and the experience of that equipment with this gas. 04/29/2004.08:49 FA3 6925402 X001 o2/za/e4 Tttc 11:24 FAZ aos eszsna wlaon'n:eNTeL secs blS7klf3liTlp~1: C~jooa ~ 1L _ ? S~"dG DEPARTM OF EN NMEN'fAL SERVICES ~ CITY AND COUNTY OP HONOLULU 1 W0 UlUGHIA 9TREET. SUITE 3U8 RnPOIFI. MAWP Ii 96]0] TELEPHONE 1!081 6 4 2-51 5 9 FA%'. IB08i 692':1IZ WTERN EG WxW_<O h,11pNILLhi.Vs HTY Dp JEREMY HRRRIS ~ ~ _ p ~J KRroR Y 1 C FR0.NN J. DOYlE. P.E j C_ OIR[ROP T 4 R TIMOTHi A. MObGHTON ' OEVVTT GIIIQCioq n fH E F N JI ~ IN 0.EPlY'REFER TO: DIR 04-08 February 20, 2004 7D1/ Geoplasma LLC Ivlr, James Jacoby, Chairman JDI 1000 Abernathy Road NE, Suite 1250 Atlanta, GA 30328 Dear Mt. Jacoby: We have reviewed your response to issues disetrssed at our last meeting and have concluded that continuing the Request for Proposals (RFP) process is not in our best interest as we see no significant City bene5t utilizing the priipbsed J77I teclirro"Ibgy: " The evaluation criteria for selecting an O1Teror as provided 1.'or in the RFP is summarized below: . 1. Costs to the City as provided in the Offeror's Pricing Proposal. 2, The Offeror's ability and experience to finance the Facility 3. The Offeror's Proposal 4. Experience on projects of similar complexity and stze 5. Ability to meet the project schedule Cost to the City: The cost for Plasma Arc technology waa considered to be comparable or less than our present waste to energy operation at H-Power. JDI has proF~osed a first year tip fee of S 141 per ton. We believe this estimate will probably increase to at least $150 per ton considering the level of design completed to date and relatat construction cost, and our concern with respec! to under estimated operating and maintenance costs. The per ton cost is significantly higher than the expected maximum $80 per ton initial cost from alternative waste to energy technologies. When processing 100,000 tons per year, the JDI proposal would cost the City an additional seven (7) mlliop dollazs in its first year.of . operation and increase thereafter. - PoSt•it' Fax Note 7671 Daly-~~ pages ro.c9/.T7Y4 i2 ~-''GG From --7~/Y'T~ GE'ES' Go IOepl. Co. i9// CDUNi~' Fem.'(/- ~~~4cS Phone M Phone k ~y~-~• 3 os/2s~zooa os:3a rnx ss2saoz [fool 02/24%G4 1'UE 11:28 PAX 808 6925113 C&C F.NL'IRUNDfENTAL S\'CS ~UU4 ivTr. Jamos Jacoby February 20; 2004 Page 2 Ability and Fxxperience to Finance the Facility: We believe the JDI track record for financing major projects would-be an asset'in financing the facility. We arc concerned however, that emerging technology project financing will be viewed differently and be more restrictive than your previous financings, with additional commitments, required as the fnurncing progresses. The Offeror's Proposal: We appreciate your detailed discussions and response to questions regazding air and ash emissions. V~'ith respect to air emissions, as with all waste 1:o energy facilities, air pollution control equipment is required and provided in your proposal. With your process, dioxin concentrations may be lower, however other emissions numbers will be similar to those of presently permitted facilities. A portion of the energy produced by the process is from coke, which continues our dependence on fossil fuels and increases potential greenhouse gas emissions despite starved au gasification. Overall air emissions are therefore not expected to be significantly reduced. With, respect to landfill operations, your process requires that material be shredded prior to charging into the furnace. While some waste presenLy going to landfill may be processed using your proposed techmology, items such as mattresses and rugs may not be easily processed and will be continued to be •land-filled. The quantity of ash required to beland-filled using Plasma Arc technology may be less and more aesthetically attractive than that from other waste to energy technologies, however, none has yet been sold continuously and,our experience leads, us _ . to bel%cvc it will most likely be land-filled. Experience on Proiects of Similar Comploxity and Size: To date we have not received notification that Hitachi Metals, Ltd is a member of the Off ror's legally constituted entity (company, corporation or joint venture), As previously discussed, a required item of the RFP procurement process leas not been satisfied. The JDI letter of January 22, 2004 stated that the Hitachi faciliy started exporting power on a very limited basis in November 2003. A required item of the RFP procurement process is that "The product produced at the facility has in the past six (6) months been marketable and resulted in the beneficial reuse of the processed materials and/or energy." This requirement has not been satisfied Ability to Meet the Project Schedule: We believe your organizational structure would allow you to meet a reasonable project schedule once financing was completed. We appreciate the effort your organization has made to assist the City in evaluating your alternative teclwology. Should you have any additional continents, you may reach me at G92-5159. Sincerely, - F J. DOE, P.E. Director U4%Y9/'lUU4 U8:5U P~.qi 09254 U'L I~UU2 W 02:24/04 TUE 11:27 FP.b 808 0925113 C&C ENVIROYN~NTAI. 51'CS f~Jl)ol L OEPARTfd EtYT OF' ENVIRONMENTAL SE:R VICES C17'V ANC3 COUNTY OF HONOLULU 1000 ULUGHIA STk E! [SUITE 30B ~ KAPOLEI. HAW lII 56]O) TELEPMON E: IBp01 692-5159 -PAX: IBOEI 592-5113 IN iERNIS: xwx CO nonoNk k.u: 0 MTY JEREMY HARRIS ~ 4 weron FRANK J. COYLE. P.E. oatc]oa . - ~ 0 t TIMpTHY A. MOVGHTON Y ocrvtt mnc~TOa r ~ Y2E OFX ? IN P.fPLY-R EFtR TO: DIR 04-07 February 20, 2004 Institute of Reduction and Smelting Technology,'22, lnc. Shoichi Kmne Ph.D., Representative Director and President 302 Shin Nittetsu Service Center 1 Kimitsu, Kimitsu City Chiba Prefecture 299-I l41 Japan Dear Mr. Ktune: We have reviewed your response to issues discussed at our last meeting and have concluded that continuing the Request for Proposal (RFP) process is not in otrr best interest as we see no significant City benefit utilizing the proposed. IRST technology. The evaluation criteria for selecting an Offeror as provided for in the RFP is summarized below: I. -Costs to the City as provided in the Offeror's Prcing Proposal. . 2.. The Offcror's ability and experience to finance the Facility.-,, , . _ . 3. The Offcror's Proposal 4. Experience on projects of similar complexity and size S. Ability to meet the project schedule Cost to the City: IRST has proposed a first yeaz tip of $122 per ton.. We believe tkris esfimate will probably increase to at least $150 per ton considering the level of design completed to date and related construction cost, and our concern with respect to under estimated operating and maintenance costs. The per ton cost is significantly higher than the expected maximum $80.00 per ton initial cost from alternative waste to energy technologies. When processing I OO,ODO tons per yeaz, the 1RST proposal would cost the City an additional seven (7) million dollars in its first year of operation and increase thereafter. Ability and Experience to Finance the Facility: We believe the your financing of similar projects would be an asset towazds financing of the facility, Whcfllcr Banks in 3apan will commit to similar investments in the United States at low rates of financing is questionable. o4.za.'zuw ua:ai ran 68L04VL iyJVUJ 02/24:04 'ItiB 11:28 RAX 508 6925113 C&C ENl'IROYLSENTAL Sl'CS ifi 002 Mr. Shuichi Kume February 20, 2004 Page 2 In addition, we aze concemed that emerging technology prniect financing may be viewed differently and more restrictive than your previous financings, with additional commitments required as the financing progresses. The Offeror's Proposal: We appreciate your detailed discussions and response to qu<:stions regazding air and ash emissions. The utilization of a technology in which approximately fifty percent of the energy produced by the process is from coke and coal does not reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. In addition the potential for greenhouse gas emissions due to the coal and coke is increased despite the starved air gasification process. As with all waste to energy facilities, aii pollution control equipment is required and provided in your proposal. With your process, dioxin concentrations may be lower, however other emissions numbers will be similar to those of presently permitted facilities. Overall air emissions are therefore not expected to be significantly reduced. With respect to lailditll' operation's, your process requires that material be shredded prior to charging into the furnace. While some waste presently going to landfill may be processe3 using your proposed technology, items such es mattresses and rugs may not be easily procossed and will be continued to be land- filled. The quantity. of ash required to be land-filled using Plasma Torch technology may be less and more aesthetically attractive than that from othca~ waste to energy technologies, however, none has yet bcen sold continuously and our experience leads us to believe it wil[ most likely be land-filled. )Jxpcrience on Projects of Similaz Complexity and Size: We believe your team is capable of providing the facility as proposed. We arc however concemed that while the planning, design and construction of the facility is feasible, the actual operation over a twenty year period would require the continual commitment of IRST, not just the training and start up support as proposed. We also believe that the requirements of the Operations and Maintenance Contract with respect to penalties for non-performance, although accepted, by you, may not be completely understood. Ability to Meet the Protect Schedule: We believe your organizational struotute would allow you to meet a reasonable project schedule once_financing was completed, We appreciate the effort your organization has made to assist the City in evaluating your alternative technology. Should you have any addifional conunents, you may reach me at 692-5159. Sincerely, `~/R~~~~ F J. DOYL P.E. Director