HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0272.002 1996-1998 r~Ly~,~-05-9T MON la:b7 HRWCIII DIVERSIFIED TECH. 808 966 6977 P.(il
12~cycl~ ~~~s t[awai ' i
r:-~
p.0.13ox3220 Kallun-Kona,Hawal'1 9~~45-3220
cal: (808) 966-69~~ Sax: (80~~ 66-169iii7
9NfoflNl: 339-3886 J ~~~1~1 5 f'~~ L C~
aue14 ~t an..,i~,~. May 5. 117177 ~ ~ ,
CG'.~I
s~aoen ~atcopn°cr. CQUiVTY v;- h-;r','~'JAII
''~°''b°^~ Cvuncilu,ar, Santangelo and Finance Committee
C:oa,nty Council
TOrcI M]M]'4Cn' 25 AU un1 Street
vice-rme,dpnp P
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
CoTNye; A_MUrr,ll, Viii. face1zn31e -Please pass on to the other member3. Mahato.
4o-.ul.nnin Miann,
bCi01ery 1:L: Dill 77 (aelatllag lu landfill uluaurn acid Materials Recovery FACIl3ty)
Angie Ooker
Aloha John and other Ffnancc Commtttcr. mcmhers,
N,cN O«nmo I am wrltlrlg to you to rcqucat a vot.c to ~irfe.r Iitll 77
Jerryoo^,ale (couununlCatlon 272) uriii] more lnformatfon ie available to us all.
As you may know. Recycle Hawai-t (RH) has been involved with and
Bob Nllllor
1>iou,uled au11d waste education for several yrarg now, We have Uee,a at
`~~-v^e"nqp°~•' the forefivul of ibr~ues related to our solid wash. r)cvrhpment. We were
,,~~^°,,,,°~,°,8~,, one of the ma,iy (including the Administration) that Aolltl,r,rted the
1nteF{rated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP).
"""0"'"'°""I° Allocatlug $10 ,ulllion now, "1n CAGe" we need tt in the future for
quue .41 .luln,a the Wcst llawall la,,,lflll Closure, Ss inappropriate ,oar of our county lauds.
T.r t'S cross that briclbe when we come to it. Wr. rlnn't know how nrucl, it
will rnct, when It will cloe;e, or If we must close it.. W han the .judgment
~^~'•~~>"Nn~. comcg, we ran look at Llic facie and the options. Can w~ Afford to close
(=YCfUpVp inrocar
it? Can wr. nae the iaciltty under county management ~trlth union
Jnlf Tuu,er, G.P.a
A„I. worlcera? What responsibility dues Waste Management. have regarding
the clo9nrc?
Rrfrrring to tlae use of the remaining funny for 1 "Materials
vq~eb°. •.'°o °,ro: ReCOVCry Facility"- again, we aced Information on which to hase the need
N,Ip:/Pn-n-w No1+OlO,nCV
,•~w'a to allocate money now. Although llae ISWMP and RH rcrngnizc the need
cp^,rp~~burubv fur a facility to recover rrcyclahles fur market, we have yet to rccaivr any
infnrmatiou Irultl the Admintvtration rettardiaag the lyye of fac113ty that is
I,JI®m,n,Pn . nm
A SOJ (y 3 cnaritablc, tax-oxcntpt orgonlzaffnn s.>•rviny lha /3iy 9sfand
® PtlwW nn reCYOeO k fOCYCleble Peper
2 72 e oL
nl~ rrl~. c
~ Yof Presented F G
5
DrR. ~ ~A~ .__~m._~
M C. 1'-OS-57 MON 14e.7 HAWG~II DI VERSIF IEL TECH. 808 966 6977 P.-02
I
a
being pmpnged. As costs for systems vary, the need for ~lU million has
not horn vrrifird .john harder of the Department of health- Uificc of
Sn11A WAStr Management (see attached) suq~{ests that a 'lUU tons per day
(equtvalrnt of Hiln's wade stream) Municipal Wa.cte 1-`rocessinl( I•'acility
(MWPF - mlxcrl wAatr. handling) wrnllrl cent arrnmri 1;110 million; a SU
tone; per day Materials Rrcovary FArility (MRF - Anurrr-srparatrrl
recyclables) rnntrl he hunt fnr trss than hAlf of that. In conjunction with a
MRF. we can upgrAdr thr Hiln transfer station as will as other transfer
statioria to accommodntr. rrcovcry of rccyrlal-~Ir.a and greenwaste. A
MWPF i3 not ncccasAry. 'Thr. hr_at nsr. of pnhtir funds will be the best
long term benefits.
't`here are many unanswered questions relating to thta decision. Sn
wllal i5 the proposed plan? Does it follow our ISWMP? «Thn will it
LleueIIl? Who will It impact? Is the best option for us in the long rer,»•,'
W11a1 oilier upllune are there? Can we accompltAh whAt wr need without
a MRF" ur MVVPF? How soon Could A MWPF be complrtrd (in time for thr
real closure of llic Hllu landfill in Oct. '98)? How soon could A Mur hr.
completed?
!n the meanthne, wC need to focus on waste reduction, mcychng,
wisr ptirchasiny; and personal rea;pons1b111ty for our waste.
In summary, please Qefer B111 77 until we can all get. Answers to
thcac gnrsrions and have au opportunity to discuss the options.
-ThAnlc-ynt, for the opporlunlly Lu address this bill.
Respectfully,
~~~~1~,,,~0 ~
Lliurrl A. I )ekkcr
ExCCUUve Director
MIXED WASTE PROCESSING AND MSW COMPOSTING
The processing and composting of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) is a technology
which has generated a great deal of controversy among solid waste managers, composting
proponents, and the ultimate end users (farmers, landscapers and home gardenersl.
The technology is often times portrayed as a "Quick Fix" to allow communities to reach
their waste diversion goals without requiring a change in the existing solid waste
management system.
While the basic operations and resulting products are similar in nature to the processing of
source separated recyclables and the composting of source separated organics; the
preprocessing requirements, management of contaminants, and final use of the product
require a considerably greater level of regulatory oversight.
Due to the environmental concerns and the economic problems which many facilities have
encountered (relating both to processing costs and the marketability of the product), there
have been significant questions as to the viability of mixed MSW composting as a solid
waste management option. In addition there are major concerns relating to costs, diversion
rates and marketability of the end product.
Many mixed waste processing facilities ("Dirty MRFs"1 which have been sold to communities
as no effort solutions to their waste management problems have been found to be economic
"Black Holes".
THE QUALITY OF THE RECOVERED RECYCLABLES:
The cross contamination of recyclables separated from MSW at the processing site has been
one of the prime problems affecting mixed MSW management facilities. Recyclables
extracted from mixed MSW have a greatly reduced market value. Here in Hawaii where we
must compete for mainland and Asian markets with large volumes of high quality material
collected from mainland source separation programs this is a significant concern. Vendors
claiming to be able to market contaminated recyclables at prices comparable to clean source
separated material either have limited marketing experience in Hawaii or are purposely
overselling their proposal. The computer clichE, "Garbage In -Garbage Out," also holds true
for recycling.
COMPOST QUALITY:
The primary problem facing most mixed MSW composting projects is the marketing of the
final product. While the Department of Health is establishing guidelines for a MSW compost
based on EPA sewage sludge compost requirements, the testing and control parameters will
establish only the minimal health and safety standards required to allow a product to be sold
for general use. The more critical issue involving MSW compost has been its "marketability"
rather than whether or not it simply meets minimal health and safety standards. A number
of nationwide studies have indicated that markets for an MSW compost are extremely
limited. Public perception, the presence of a significant amount of non-organic
r
contaminants in even the best of products, the potential for contamination by household
hazardous wastes, and the fact that higher grade "clean green" composts are available at
competitive prices have combined to significantly reduce the "marketability" of MSW
compost products. Most mainland solid waste managers recommend that when evaluating
composting alternatives that any proposal to engage in MSW composting include fillri
commitments to purchase the product from potential users.
ECONOMICS:
A prime factor, when selecting a waste processing alternative, is the required capacity and
capital equipment costs. Asa "Clean MRF" is limited to processing only that material which
has been pre-segregated, normally a clean MRF is only a quarter of the size of a mixed
waste facility. The significantly lower capacity and the reduced equipment requirements can
result in substantially lower capital and operating costs.
On the other hand a Dirty MRF must be built to handle the entire waste stream rather than
just those particular elements being targeted far diversion, resulting in higher capital and
operating costs. In addition, heavy duty equipment must be specified to handle the more
abrasive impacts of mixed waste and a mixed waste facility's maintenance costs are
substantially higher.
The high tipping fees required to support mixed waste processing and MSW composting
tend to encourage the diversion of cardboard and greenwaste to lower cost options,
resulting in the loss of a considerable portion of the projected project's revenues (up to 35%
of the total waste stream in Hawaii) and removing some of the most valuable raw materials
from the compost process. Simultaneously, the diversion of the source separated
greenwaste insures a considerable supply of a higher grade product in direct competition
with the MSW compost. Since the demand for organic soil amendments in Hawaii is limited
and can most likely be filled by maximizing the diversion of source separated organics, the
development of an MSW composting project is often self defeating.
An element in any Dirty MRF contract is the necessity of a "put or pay" agreement with the
County guaranteeing a minimum quantity of waste. What happens to the County if the
commercial sector diverts a significant segment of its waste generation (commercial
cardboard and greenwaste -some 20% of the waste streaml? The County could end up
paying the difference at a higher per ton cost under a "put or pay" agreement.
How can the County guarantee the delivery of the quantities of waste agreed to under such
a put or pay agreement? The Supreme Court has invalidated "flow control" requirements as
violations of inter-state commerce, and even without the Supreme Court decision, Hawaii
State Law specifically excludes "source separated recyclables" from control by local
governments.
WASTE DIVERSION GOALS /RECYCLING !MATERIAL PROCESSING:
Too often communities get caught up in meeting waste diversion rates and goals rather than
evaluating a project based on the quality of the material diverted, the project's overall
impact on local economics and flexibility in meeting future needs. From the standpoint of
effective solid waste management diversion goals are just that, goals, and other factors
such as long term trends in collection systems and material processing the potential for local
job creation should be considered.
It is extremely difficult to accurately compare projected diversion rates between mixed
waste processing facilities and source separated MRFs. "Dirty MRFs" often claim diversion
rates as high as 70% of the entire waste stream yet the actual diversion of recyclable
material is rarely over 15%. The balance of the proposed diversion comes from the
production of a MSW compost or a Refuse Derived Fuel. In addition, as the facility must be
designed to manage the entire waste stream, its capacity and the resulting capital cost is
often 4 to 5 times that of a source separated MRF which is sized only to process the
primary recyclables in the waste stream.
Source separated MRFs on the other hand may recover over 95% of the material entering
the facility, but only require capacity to process that material which the community has
previously segregated. This results in much lower capital and operating costs and the ability
to construct a facility in increments, sizing it to fit the community's needs over time.
Cfean MRFs are labor intensive operations, which allow a smaller scale, low tech approach,
and focus on marketing a high quality material. They can provide economic development
opportunities to the local community, and allow flexibility in meeting changing waste
management and market requirements.
While the diversion rate (as a percentage of the total waste stream) of a source separated
MRF, is dependent upon the participation of the community, many communities have
experienced a 35% to 40% diversion rate with aggressive promotion.
Although the current proposal for a mixed waste processing facility estimates a 65%
diversion rate, the bulk of the diversion (50%) would be a low grade compost comprised of
dirt, grit, foodwaste and grass clippings and contaminated by chemicals, and plastic, glass
and metal particles. The recycled material would be glass and metal containers of low
quality, and paper and plastic contaminated with garbage & liquids. The market for small
quantities of contaminated recyclables is extremely limited, so the facility would either have
to give the material away or invest additional time and equipment in further processing.
Initially the overall diversion projected by mixed waste processors may be a strong selling
point when an instant solution to a complex problem is desired; but upon investigation of
the higher costs of construction and operation and the difficulties other communities have
faced in marketing their mixed waste compost (or the retrofiting existing boiler units to burn
a RDF), it is often found that a large part of the diverted material ends up as expensive
landfill cover.
Mixed waste processing facilities are high capital cost projects, that focus on simplistic
approach to managing a extremely heterogeneous waste stream. They have major
processing requirements, complex mechanical systems and greater problems and liabilities
regarding worker health and safety. It is often difficult to develop long term, stable markets
for their materials and they have a limited ability in adapting to changing market
requirements.
COLLECTION /SOURCE SEPARATION:
The primary, and possibly the only, advantage claimed for mixed waste processing is the
fact that it requires little or no modification in trash collection systems. For communities
with a wide variety of collection systems or with little or no control over the various haulers
mixed waste processing has often been sold as a no effort option which can meet their
waste diversion goals.
Hawaii County may find that while the concept seems attractive the actual cost to the
community over the long run may be much higher than anticipated.
As mentioned above, the implementation of a Dirty MRF usually requires some form of
control over the majority of the waste stream. As the County does not control collection of
the large majority of the island's waste stream and cannot direct delivery of source
separated material, it may be more advantageous to look to exercise some responsibility and
control over services provided by the various haulers rather than construct the equivalent of
anew landfill in a building. Selective franchising of local haulers, with stipulations
restricting any single hauler from gaining a monopoly in any one area could increase services
and reduce costs. In addition, if the haulers see a economic benefit in delivering material to
a source separated facility, they will take on some of the responsibility for promotion of
recycling.
While currently regarded as a problem or cost, the public education necessary to insure the
success of a source separated program can often be turned into a benefit by building
community awareness and encouraging residents to take responsibilities for their waste.
Most communities with source separated recycling programs have a significantly lower
incidence of litter and illegal dumping. And promoting "Source Reduction", the most
effective means of cutting disposal costs is extremely difficult without first changing the
public's perception of waste management.
PERMITTING AND THE ISWM PLAN:
The proposal does not appear to conform with Hawaii County's ISWM Plan. The project's
lack of conformance could be an issue during the local land use decision making process, or
at least require a major rewrite of the ISWM Plan. Those issues must be also addressed
within the Solid Waste Management permit application. If not adequately dealt with, there
could be significant delays in the permitting process.
As the Plan was developed by the Administration, (would think that conformance with its
goals and objectives would be an major issue that the Administration would have to
address.
EIS REQUIREMENT:
Since the project would involve a contractual guarantee by the County and use of County
land, the proposed project would be subject to the EIS process before any contractual
agreements are finalized. While a transfer station or source separated MRF could most likely
satisfy those requirements with an Environmental Assessment and a Negative Declaration,
due to the significant environmental questions involved with mixed waste processing and
the tact that the project would become the major element in the County's waste
management strategy for East Hawaii, a full EIS would most likely be required.
PRODUCTION OF A REFUSE DERIVED FUEL:
The costs related to producing a RDF greatly exceed the fuel value of the product (shredded
RDF is generally produced for on-site use, it is low density and costly to haul -for off-site
use pelletizing is often required which adds additional costs)
The utilization of the fuel in local boilers would require major modifications of emissions
control systems, and generate an ash requiring disposal in a specially designated monofill.
Politically it would be difficult and take a require a lengthy approval process to site and
operate a MSW combustion facility. If the Plan is to develop a RDF processing facility as a
Quick Fix you may find the project facing considerable delays.
Based on Oahu's opposition to H-Power in the early 80's I would anticipate a land use
approval battle in excess of five years. Can Hawaii afford to wait that long for a solution to
your problem? Is there the political will to carry out this type of project through two
elections?
A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COUNTY:
Recycling is a fairly new and emerging technology and both the technical solutions and
economics are improving annually. Rural collection systems are emerging which can
overcome the remaining barrier, the inefficiencies of curbside collection in low density
communities. Fiber prices, while fluctuating from recent high levels, now make collection of
commercially generated source separated paper an economical alternative. Locking the
county into a capital intensive, inflexible option may limit the County's choices in the future.
The composting of MSW is an emerging technology which has received mixed reviews from
existing mainland programs. Many composting operators are modifying their operations to
process a select waste stream composed of source separated organics in order to minimize
the processing costs and contamination problems, insure a higher value for non-compostable
recyclables, and create a high grade product for marketing. At the same time existing Dirty
MRFs are modifying their operations to process a waste stream composed of source
separated residential recyclables and select commercial loads with a high fiber content,
while handling yardwaste and commercial greenwaste through a separate system. Such a
system can minimize the processing costs and contamination problems, insure a higher
value for the recyclables and compostables,
Nationally the trend is towards the development of multi-faceted facilities which provide
flexibility and allow the community to minimize both capital and operating Costs. For
Hawaii County this could include a source separated MRF with a capacity of roughly 50
tons/day in conjunction with a 100 ton/day transfer station to long haul the balance and
"Clean Green" processing area for delivery to a separate composting operation.
iiiiii NNiiYNNiiiii NNNiYNNiiiiiiiiiiii YNii NNNY NNNNii NNiii iiiiii
How will the County pay for this project. Will the cost of operation and hauling be
subsidized by the taxpayer? be paid? Size of facility /double haul waste I subsidize Hilo
waste /extra cost to process Kona waste
Collection:
Source Separated -Two or three waste streams, change in habits by generators,
spacial requirements among commercial generators, need for continuing education,
lack of 100% participation, significant increase in costs.
Mixed Waste -Single pick-up, no change in waste handling habits, 100%
participation, simple to administer, little change in costs.
The waste stream is heterogeneous and different solutions for different materials.
Allows smaller, low tech approach; focus material' and economic development to local
community. Flexibility /Modification based on new technology /Other rural communities
have met the challenge
A Short Term Solid Waste Implementation Plan for Hawaii County
11 Contract for the construction land operation??) of a 100 TPD Refuse Transfer Station &
25 TPD Source Separated MRF (expandable to 50 TPD) at the Hilo LF Site:
Enclosed facility under one root
Single level tip floor /Load with small rubber tired loader into Open Top-
Walking Floor trailers
Contractor to provide transfer trailers /County responsible for hauling
Include the ability to separate out high grade select loads (cardboard) from
commercial waste on TS tip floor
Initial recycling processing to focus on mixed commercial fiber & residential source
separated material from drop boxes (commingled containers and mixed paper)
Possible joint venture of local haulers/recyclers in operating the facility
2) Contract for the operation of a 50 TPD Greenwaste Composting Facility in the Hilo area:
Location -Hilo LF or site provided by contractor
Establish adrop-off site at Hilo LF /Grind and haul to site provided by contractor
Include options for sewage sludge & food waste
Operator to handle residential greenwaste land small commercial loads??) received by
County at landfill. Encourage large commercial loads to go directly to contractor's
facility.
31 Upgrade Regional Refuse Transfer Stations (Physical layout and operationsl:
Contract out rural operations to local haulers
Larger Operations Change to Open Top
Expand sites /Establish regular hours /Provide full time attendant
Restrict bidding, no more than 6 facilities to any single operator
Include conditions requiring standardized recycling drop-off
Greenwaste drop-off /Encourage regional composting when feasible
Receipt of white goods! Tires, batteries, paint
41 Franchise Waste Collection (Residential and Commercial /Residential only??) Islandwide:
Establish geographic and demographic areas
Structure bidding to limit any single hauler from gaining monopoly either islandwide
or in major urban areas
Tie rural waste shed franchises into upgrading and operation of transfer stations
Require select urban areas to provide recycling and greenwaste collection