Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0402.001 2004-2006 CONSTANCE R. KIRIU t+®sM WILLIAM E. SMITH County Clerk yg;~~ ~ ~ ~~~qe~ Deputy County Clerk ~Ji~ : e t ~ ~ i County of Hawai `i Office of the County Clerk ' . 2J Aupuni Street Hiln, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 961-8255 Facsimile: (808) 961-8912 September 6, 2005 The Honorable Stacy Riga, Chair And Member of the Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Aloha Council Members, Attached, please find the following Addendum to the Report titled Evaluation of the Department of Environmental Management's Implementation of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. The 80% report was transmitted to the Council on August 15, 2005. 1. Updated Report Summary 2. Inclusion (Report Summary and Questions) August 15, 2005 correspondence from Barbara Bell, Director of the Department of Environmental Management, to Councilwoman Virginia Isbell regarding written answers to questions posed by the Councilwoman's July 19, 2005 request for answers. 3. Update and Errata 4. Inclusion - (Chapter III -Status of the Hilo Landfill Closure) DEM spreadsheet for cover material volume in FY04 5. Chapter IV (New Chapter) Status of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Implementation, with attachments. Again, my thanks to the Council staff for their guidance. Please feel free to contact me for clarification on any part of the report. a rence E. Ca e las, P.E. a achments Yc: County Clerk Deputy County Clerk Cornvn. No.~' Ref. To: - R~.f. it a+~ S ~ ~~J Hawaii Counl)~ Is An Equal Opportunity Provider And Employer ~~~~1~~ V TO THE EVALUATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTEGRATF;D SOLID V6jASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN September 6, 2005 • Report Summary Ramseyered revisions, clarifications, and corrections and additions • Report Summary and Questions Inclusion -August 15, 2005 correspondence from Barbara Bell, Director of Environmental Management to Council woman Virginia Isbell regarding written answers to questions posed by the Councilwoman's July 19, 2005 request for answers. • Chapter I Update and corrections • Chapter III Inclusion -map of Island wide Transfer Stations and Landfills Inclusions -Spreadsheet for cover material volume in FY04 • Chapter IV New Chapter with attachments REPORT SUMMARY ADD~NDUll~ (9/06/QS) Note: [Deleted items in brackets]; revisions underlined and in italics. 1. The Kea'au Federal ~ unded demonstration project, also known as the Kea'au Recycle and Reuse Center (KRRC), claimed 920 tons of commodities diverted from the Hilo Landfill in the first 9 months of operation. This could not be matched with Hilo Land rll (clarification of ~rording) scale tickets. The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) in the following 18 months of operation could not reconcile selected monthly (cla~-ifieatinn of wording) tormage tickets from the Hilo Scale with claimed commodity tonnage handled by Recycle Hawaii at KRRC. Tonnage, except for reuse items, zvas later r°econciled nom wei ht tickets from three different scales. (Resuli of receiving more information frofln DElO~I) 2. The first nine months of the demonstration project was funded with a Federal Grant. The County was the grantee with financial responsibility and financial assurance. The Hawaii Island Economic Development Board {HIEDB) got paid by the County to manage the project. I-IIEDB sub-contracted with Recycle Hawaii to operate the project and Recycle Hawaii subcontracted to Business Services Hawaii to haul away collected commodities from Kea'au. It is not clear whether federal requirements regarding competitive bidding for contracts were followed. 3. Approximately 123 tons of used household items were claimed to have been diverted at the reuse facility. The tonnage claim was weighed on a bathroom type scale. There was [no way] a handwritten log (Result of receiving snore information from DE1VI) to track these claimed reuse items by Recycle Hawaii. 4. The cost of collecting; commodities at the Kea'au demonstration project was over $400 per ton. This figure was reached by dividing the total Federal grant funds, less administrative costs, by the commodity tonnage claimed to have been diverted during the KRRC demonstration project. 5. There was an actual increase of 100 tons per month in the scaled tonnage that went into the Hilo Landfill from the Kea'au transfer station trailers during the first 15 months of the KRRC project. (See Chapter 1, Part 1, attachment -graph) 6. There was no measurable diversion of refuse from the Hilo Landfill from this KRRC project, although Recycle Hawaii, the operator of the project, claimed a 20% diversion of recyclable commodities from the waste stream. 7. The final report on the demonstration project, `Strategic Plan for Sustaining and Replicating the Kea'au Recycling and Reuse Center' is misleading in its overly optimistic interpretations of accomplishments and questionable conclusions. 8. About 60% to 70% of all materials claimed to have been collected in Kea'au were l green waste and scrap metal. 9. During the County funded portion of the Kea'au demonstration project, Recycle Hawaii claimed almost twice as much tonnage collected than under the Federal funded portion of the project. 10. There was no way to clearly determine whether the [County's] Recycle Hawaii 's hauling contractor also charged the County's Diversion Credit Program for the material collected at Kea'au. This would involve getting paid for hauling the material from Kea'au and then claiming the tonnage for a diversion payment. This was against the terms of the HIEDB/Recycle Hawaii contract for the demonstration project. (See Exhibit D contract and Exhibit F spreadsheet) 11. Recycle Hawaii, anot-for-profit organization, has created afor-profit business at the KRRC on County-leased land with the County's approval. The non-profit agency has established a `donation' system for used household items brought into the reuse area and operates a `garage sale' type operation every two weeks to raise funds. In fiscal year `04-'05 the organization claimed over $20,000 in income. Copies of necessary permits for this operation could not be obtained from the Department of Environmental Management for inspection. It is not clear how the funds from donations and sales were spent by Recycle Hawaii. 12. The County has established a system of preset monthly payments to Recycle Hawaii for the continuation of the KRRC project instead of payment for work accomplished. 13. The total recycling effort by the Department of Environmental Management in FY04, not counting green waste and scrap metal, was approximately 3%. The total recycling effort by the Department of Environmental Management in the first half of FY05, not counting green waste and scrap metal, was approximately 5%. 14. The cost of the County's recycling program is determined by the DEM as the total commodity tonnage divided by the total refuse placed in the island's landfills. Because the vast majority of the claimed recycled tonnage is green waste and scrap metal, the averaging leads to ske~,ved results. Each commodity should stand alone as far as tonnage and with its own costs. 15. The cost of diversion and recycling during [FY05] FY04 (Correction), counting green waste and scrap metal was over $2.5 million. The cost of recycling and diversion for FY05, counting green waste and scrap metal, was almost $3.27 million. 16. The proposed Sort Station identifies its first phase, and prime objective, as the recycling, reuse, educational area. This is not the prime objective. The prime objective of the centralized refuse facility should be a regional transfer station, an employee base yard and a vehicle maintenance facility. The Sort Station should be redesigned to separate the diversion/education from the scale and transfer station (reload facility). 2 17. The County has placed complete dependence on the Department of Health for approving an operational extension for the Hilo Landfill. No facilities are in place to handle the function of the Kilo Landfill, and as such, the County will be faced with hauling all East Hawaii refuse to the West Hawaii Landfill from each transfer station. It is not clear whether the existing trailers, truck tractors or the existing manpower can handle this function. Additions based on the inclusion of Chapter IV and clarifications of items covered in other chapters of this Report. 18. The County does not have the infrastructure inplace, such as enhanced transfer stations or identified commodity drop of locations for mass collections of recyclable garbage. 19. No improvements have taken place on the transfer stations sy tam for the last 2 years. This includes basic maintenance of the hard structures, the windbreaks and chutes, mud ~p de actors, fencing and gating, or `enhancing' the facilities for collected sorted commodities. As seen in the DEMBudget Spreadsheet in Chapter III, onl y about $S, 700 of the $255, 000 DEM in house budget was spent for repairs to facilities in FY03. CIP funds LRD 04-75) for Rural Transfer Station Replacement/Enhancement amounting to $900, 000 have not been touched. 20. Based on the ISWMP and the Final EIS for the Sort_Station, the CountL's future plans for reducing re use a`rom entering the landfills is based on a diversion rate o 45% of island wide refuse by the dear 2014. This diversion is only related to recycling and reuse tonnage. The island wide recycling and reuse rate in the year 2014 (8 % years away) will be 290 tons per day, or 105,850 tons per year based on a projected population growth and a standard disposal rate per person. As a comparison, the total tonna~posited in the County's two landfills in FY05 was 225, 052 tons, or about 616 tons per derv. 21. As seen in the DEMBudget Spreadsheet in Chapter III and the written answers bathe DEM Director to questions posed by Councilwoman Isbell, the average overtime cost for the Solid Waste Division in FYO~ was approximately $38,833 per month. The Director of DEM has not investigated this SO% over bud eg t expenditure to insure that all charges were legitimate. There have been no management changes to curtail this expenditure. The overtime cost for the Solid Waste Division in July 2005 was $S1, 290. 22. While claiming success that recycling and waste diversion was saving land all space, the Department ofEnvironmental Management, Solid Waste Division pearl~ipled the amount of cover material used at the Hilo Landfill during the past two years. As seen in the DEM Spreadsheets for cover material volume in Chapter III, the cover material volume for FY041~~as 122, 000 cubic yards and for FYOS was about 116, 000 cubic ay rds. The cost was approximately $2.2 million for both years . The FY06 budget for construction material (landf ll cover material) is $1.5 million, however, this material i~pproved anay be used for the closure of the Hilo Land all. 3 ;MTY OF H4W O. .q ~ • ~ ~~~I''~~' Barbara Be? Harry Kim c• Director • Nelson Ho ,TE,OF •H''~` Deputy• Director DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Strut, Room 210 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (SOiij y6i-808s • tax (808j 36i-fs0&ti _ _ . email: cohdem(a~co.Hawaii.hi.us August 15, 20x5 Ms. Virginia Isbell, Vice Chair Hawai `i County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Vice Chair Isbell, In response to your letter of July 19, 2005, please find answers to your questions in bold print fnilowing the questions below: Sort Station and Reload Facility 1. The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) received a $1 M grant from the State in November 2002 and also received another $4 M County CIP funds in FY 03. Could you please reiterate and clarify the expenditures thus far on the design of the Sort Station? How much of those funds are left? and explain what the remaining funds are earmarked for. The main purpose of the grant money is for the planning, design and environmental assessment for the East I-Iawai`i Regional Sort Station. A total of $620,544 of the $1M state grant was spent for this purpose. To avoid lapsing the lbalance at June 30, 2004, the remaining approximately $378,000 was used (1} to analyze our current Solid Waste Management systems at the IJilo Landfill through airspace analysis, (2) landfill surveying, and (3) enhanced recycling efforts at Kea' au. Of the $4M County CIP funds, approximately $75,000 is set aside for design change orders. Please give us a timeline or critical path schedule for your implementation plan and why you prioritized as you did. See attached timeline for future actions. The three main activity areas that have been or must be performed in sequence follow. Within each of these areas the activities have been or can be performed, to a large degree, simultaneously. H~nvni'r County is my eq~~al opporhutit}' provider mrd e~rrplayer. -1- 1. Pre-construction activities - 2004 -December, 2005: Develop and secure final approval of EIS for East Hawaii Regional Sort Station and hauling (completed) East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Complex design (completed) County review and finalization of East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Complex design (in progress) East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Complex construction permits -building, NPDES, etc. (in progress) Financing provided for East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Complex construction (April 2003 bond float provided $4 Million) East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Complex construction bid issuance (as soon as funding secured, projected for tnid-Septeonber) Obtain solid waste management permit for continued S. Hilo landfill operations from DOH (in progress) Construction firm selection and contracting 2. During construction activities -November 2005 -December 2006: Equipment immobilization Construction management Obtain solid waste management permits for East I-Iawai`i Regional Sort Station Complex from DOH Road dedication 3. Start-up and operations -August -December 2006 Finalize and sign contract for recycling/redemption operations Hire/assign County workers on East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Complex Simultaneous to the activities for the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Complex , bid and contract documents will be developed for a Waste Reduction Technology Facility. These will proceed on their own timelines as rapidly as possible. l . Pre-construction activities for Waste Reduction Technology Facility -July 2005 -December 2006 Make key County decisions Develop and issue RFP Evaluate proposals and negotiate contract 2. Construction and Operation -]Begin January 2007 (Private contractor to provide timetable) Environmental Assessment Permitting Construction Training and operation -2- 2. The layout of the Sort Station Complex , as shown in the final EIS, is a concern. The main purpose of this planned complex is to functionally replace the Hilo Landfill and handle approximately 200 Tons of refuse/day until a major waste reduction facility can be brought on board. Although the main purpose of the East Ilawai`i Regional Sort Station Complex is to replace %he Kilo %>~ndfiil, relieving commercial trash haulers from. leaving to drive their waste to I~u'xaanaleulu for disposal, it also-replaces the aging and congested Ili.lo Transfer Station trash chutes. Please explain why the central focus (FEIS Summary 2/04, p.IV) on this facility is the recycling/reuse/education facilities? Shouldn't the prime focus be to immediately pursue utility work, site work and construct the reload facility? The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the East 1=lawai`i Regional Sort Station states. that the Sort Station is a central part of the County's recycling and resource recovery campaign; not that the central focus of the facility is for recycling, reuse and education, and we stand bar that statement. This does not detract from the urgency to immediately pursue site preparation, utilities and infrastructure as well as the reload building. TLeis urgency is reflected in the fact th~€t these items arc included iu the first two phases of the East Ilawai`i Regional Sort Station Con3lex that we are presently seelting to fund. The focus of our efforts is on creating an integrated facility that maximizes diversion from any landfill while providing a convenient site for commercial and residential entities to dispose of their rubbish. 't'hese two goals must be developed hand-in-han€l. Tleere is an urgeeZvy to get the reload building constructed because of the eventeeal closue?c of the Ilil€e Landfill, and that is why the CIP appropriation. bill for phase II of the Sort Station has been resubmitted for your approval. 3. Thc. present site plan, or layout, of the Sort Station Complex appears to force vehicles from the scale area directly to the recycle/reuse/educational area. Considering that residential vehicles, commercial vehicles and county transfer trailers will all be heading for the reload facility there appears to be numerous conflict points between these various motor vehicles and those that want to drop off recyclables. Understanding that some of the vehicles must return to the scale after depositing their loads at the reload facility and exit the complex, please explain: A) Why this vehicle flow pattern forces so many vehicle conflicts in order to lead all vehicles past the recycling area. The current site layout is attached. From your question, it appears you may have been Q-eferrinf; to an earlier version. There are two facilities drawn that are not a part of the Sort Station Complex funding request. The Future ~?~'RT (Waste Reduction Facility) and the lO~Iaintenance Facility are placed to show there is ample space for both. facilities. It is possible for either facility to be placed in either location. -3- The vehicle flow pattern gives residential vehicles their own lane, separated from the commercial and County vehicles after the scale house. Commercial and County vehicles bypass the Recycling Center while residential vehicles may elect to proceed directly to the reload building, or may go to the recycling .:enter and then to the reload building. Residential traffic may also go only to the recycling center. We believe, with ample signage, this affords the besi mix of convenience and safety. Routing of the residential vehicles through the recycling area is done for the convenience of residential vehicles with recyclable waste. As public avs=a~-eness end educati€~n is increased, it is projected that the anajority of residential vehicles visiting the Sort Station Complex would have some fora of recyclable Ynaterial. B) Why you are sacrificing vehicle safety and convenience in favor of recycling education and reuse, knowing this is not the major function of the complex. The vehicle routing helps separate residential vehicles from Large commercial and County vehicles in order to enhance safety by not mixing incompatible traffic and ley keeping many residential vehicles away from operational activities. Tl~e IDepartBnent does not feel that safety is sacrificed in favor of recycling education and re-€~se. Landfill diversion is a key component of the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Complex and the department is confident that vehicle safety is more than adequate in the current plan. 4. Please explain why this (Sort Station Complex) was not placed together with the major functional facilities: We are unsure exactly what you are requesting but we offer the following: The complex was designed with the following constraints in mind: (A) The Brownflelds sites. flaring the design process, the Brownfields areas were identified through soil sampling. This necessitated accommodations to the design. (B) Old quarry sites are prevalent in the area, The grade differences were taken into account to keep costs of cut and fill to a minimum. A) The scale; The scale is placed at the entrance for control of revenues. The scale and reload facility works together and should become operational at the same time. -4- B) The Reload Facility; It was placed between the quarries because it vvas the best location for the function of all the other components of the complex. C) The Transfer Station; it remains at its present location. D) A set-a-side area for the Waste Reduction Facility; Per the most recent Waste Reduction Technology Request For Proposals, an area adjacent to the East I-Iawai`i Regional Sort Station Complex was offered to prospective vendors. The area identified is located between the Kilo Landfill an:d the Sort Station Cogx~plex and is currently being leased by I~iyosaki Tractors, Inc. another possible site is the large I3rovvnfields area, closer to tl~~ existing SW baseyard and to the left of the chutes as you enter the existing site. E) The Vehicle Maintenance Facility; The Equipment 1"~Iaintenance Facility, while a part of the Sort Station Complex, is a separate Capital project and is identified in the CIP budget for a f~~ture year. Division needs can be facilitated by having the Equipment Maintenance Facility in close proximity to the reload building. F) Employee Baseyard Facility. Depending on needs identified in the future, the existing baseyard could stay in the same location or nsove closer to the other elements of the Sort Station Complex. ?it is ira~possible to place the bulls of the Sort Station Complex next to the existing baseyard because identified 13rownfields areas are adjacent to the existing baseyard. 5. Could you explain why the education commodity collection/reuse area, the green waste collection area and-the scrap metal processing area were not all placed together away from the prime functionir._g facilities? These are critical elements to our landfill diversion programs. They are placed conveniently for the public's use. With so many perceived flaws in the Sort Station Complex layout, is there any reason why it cannot be r~-designed before any site work is started? We have not identified flaws in the current design. The current design provides for cammercial trash haulers to enter at the scale house and proceed directly to the reload building. .esidential customers have a bypass lane at the scale, have the option of driving tlgrougl~. the recycling area to conveniently drop off their recyclable items or proceeding directly to the reload building to dispose of their -5- trash. The traffic pattern balances convenience with safety, and will facilitate the overall operations of the complex. The Department considers construction of the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Complex as an u~-l;ent critical necessity to minimize the impact to traffic on the island since in the event of closure of the >i][ilo Landfill, as indicated in the Final Environmental Iropact Statement, approximately 90 round trips (Section 4.4.1.6) could be required-from East pias~~ai`i to the "vest I-Iawai`i Landfill whereas a rxFax~mum of 17 round trips (Section 4.4.1.3.1) would be required with the Sort Station Coardplex. Who did the design work on the Complex layout? URS Corporation, Engineering consultants, specializing in municipal public works projects. 6. Please explain your rp ocess for placing all of the enexgy and resources together to: A) Bring utilities to the site; B) Commencing site work at the Complex; C) Installing the scale; and D) Constructing the Reload Station or Transfer Station. All of these services will be performed by the construction contractor, and overseen by the County's construction management team. They are included within the construction bid document's scope of work. You are welcome to review the Bid Specifications at our office. 7. The Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary mentions that the (Sort Station Complex) will provide continuous, convenient and cost effective service on an interim basis. The same document also mentions that the Sort Station Complex would provide a central processing .facility for the County's island-wide recycling efforts. Please explain these statements. One of the primary functions of the Sort Station Complex is to initially provide an iatcrim method for disposal of waste for East 1=lawai'i residents between the tirt~e the I'lilo Landfill closes and a waste reduction technology facility is opened, if there is such an interim period. Another function i~, to provide space for private recycling contractors to process and ship recyclable materials collected from all parts of the island. Also, being able to pull out recyclables from rich loads directly off of the tipping floor at the reload building supports island-wide recycling efforts. Though it is expected that a waste reduction technology facility will modify the initial function, the reload building will continue to be in use. Depending on the technology selecteel, modifications could include mechanical equiprtc~ent such as magnets to pull ferrous rraetal, air blowers for paper, screens to let specifically sized items fall through, and conveyor belts to move the items. The design of the reload building is simple and generic enough that such modifications could be made without major d€fficulties. The community recycling center will stay in place. -6- 8. If additional funds were to be appropriated for the Sort Station Complex, please explain how these funds will be spent and a time line or schedule for having the scale and Reload facility in operation. Please provide a schedule for design, contract award, equipment ordering and construction. See attached timeline for future actions. Hilo Land-fill Closure 9. Based on your latest statement that the Hilo Landfill date of closure is March 2006 (8 months from now), please explain your plan for disposing of approximately 200 tons of refuse presently being deposited in the Hilo Landfill, assuming that the scale and Reload Facility are not completed within that 8-month time frame. As of June 2004, the need became obvious for a back up plan in case current planning efforts were not realized. We are working on a contingency plan to transport trash in existing lower-capacity transfer trailers to Pu'uanahulu. This way, existing commercial haulers will not have to haul to West I-Iawai`i. While this will help the corrr~nercial haulers, it will not mitigate the traffic impacts of long hauling the way having au operational reload building could. The Solid Waste I3ivision is currently in the process of preparing a permit application for a limited vertical expansion of the IJilo Landfill. The draft engineering assessBnent of this action indicates it is feasible on the technical issues. Slope stability and seismic issues have been satist'actortly addressed to allow the proposed expansion. Frown the County's Update to the Integrated Solid Waste Ma~aagernent Plan and Envirouax~ental Impact Statement for the East Hawai' i Ia;egional Sort Station, upon closure of the lFlilo Landfill and in the absence of a reload building (or other permitted solid waste management facility), all waste currently being received at the IJilo Landfill will be diverted to the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill. 10. Referring to the CIP Budget under South Hilo Sanitary Landfill Closure, what is the status of the $750,000 prior year funding for Design/Survey? This project has not been funded as of yet and therefore no expenditures have been made. l 1. The Final Environmental Impact Study (p. 7) states that discussions with the DOH indicate that the Hilo Landfill maybe kept in operation for another 2 or 3 years. Testimony by the Administration on June 29, 2005 claimed that the use of the Hilo Landfill could be extended for 2 % years. The West Hawaii Today's article on June 30, 2005 stated that: A) The DOH's projected closure date is March 2006; and B) The County of Hawai' i had not~et applied for an operation permit "Extension" for the Hilo landfill. -7- C) Has the County of Hawaii applied for an "Extension"? The State Department of Ilealth has no projected closure date. The operating permit for the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill is based on capacity. The current March 2006 estirr~ate of when that capacity will be used is based on current fill rates and periodic surveys. The estimate is updated periodically; it could change. i iae Soiia W asie i~ivision is currently in the process of preparing a permit application for a limited vertical expansion of the Hilo Landfill. The permit application requires back up data. An engineering assessment, as well as an Environmental Assessment, is required. Both documents are being prepared with the assistance of consultants and are expected by the end of the year. Upon completion of these; requirements, the application for extension will be filed with the Department of Health. Please provide us with a clarification on what the County's plan is to extend the life of the Hilo Landfill and whether or not it is even probable based on the DOH's less-than- favorable view of the County's past non-action. The County will propose a vertical expansion involving steepening the existing landfill slopes up t4 the current permitted maximum elevation. In regards to the probability of this permit application being accepted, please refer to the Larry Lau (State Department. of Ilealth) letter to Mayor Harry l~im, dated June 23, 2005. While there is no gaaarantee of state approval, the County expects that by presenting a thorough application supported by engineering and environmental studies, along with evidence of real progress on the plan they approved and a commitment to dealing responsibly with our solid waste, there is a decent chance of obtaining an extension. Diversion Goals 12. The FEIS states that the County's diversion goal has been set at 45 per cent (45%) by the year 2014. Please explain how the DEM arrived at a 45% waste stream diversion goal solely on recycling and resource recovery. This goal was set in accordance with State goals and County goals established in the Update to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP.) The Final Environmental Impact Statement actually reduces those referenced goals from 50% to a 45% diversion, given our waste disposal statistics in Hawaii County where approximately 40% of waste landfilled comes from residential transfer station trailers and the rest from commercially hauled nand commercially generated rubbish. The goal of 45% was established based on the waste composition study in the ISWMP and the feasibility of recovering recyclable paper fibers, construction & den3olition (C&D) materials, glass, plastic, e-waste, paints, and organic matter including greenwaste, biosolids, food scraps, and used cooking oil. Whether the goal is reached in five years or ten years, or some time frame in between, it is something we strive for. -8- If your conclusions are based on assumptions, what are your assumptions? A) With the present scenario of an ever-increasing island-wide waste stream, please explain how you are going to reach the diversion goal of 45% in the year 2014. We have increased our diversion rate froth less than 13% to 19.8% in FY 04- 05, in just three years. Efforts are underway to expand paper fiber recycling, bottle bill diversion, enhance residential transfer stations to provide recycling options, pursue r~nandates requiring businesses to recycle paper fibers/glass and ban tires at the landfill. Increased tip fees and the recently adopted coinrnercial greenwaste tip fee sends signals to resorts to conduct on-site composting/recovery of green and organic matter while encouraging large box stores to backhaul cardboard/plastic packaging to the mainland. Inclusion of vendor yards for processing recyclables at the East Ilawai`i Regional Sort Station Coanplex, including a Construction and Demolition debris recovery yard, could optimistically result in approaching 45% diversion by 2014. 13. Is the 45% diversion goal for the entire island's waste. stream? How many tons does this equate to in the year 2014? Yes, this diversion goal is for the entire island. If we average the growth in lan~lfilled waste tonnage over the last 2 years, we see a 14% per annum increase. Ilistorically from 1993 through 2003, the increase averaged only 4%. We can assume the current increase of the last 2 years won't continue at that rate, but likely wott't return to the previous 4% rate of increase, At a projected average of 7% anatual rate of growth, the amount of rubbish generated in 2004-fly will double by 2014-15. This provides the most likely outcome over the next 10 years given the economic indicators currently available for Ilawai`i Island (building permits, job growth, population growth etc.) With an average of 7°1° annual rate of growth over the next 10 years, the waste tonnage in FY 2014-15 will be 560,000 tons island-wide. X15% of that is 252,000 tons/year. A) The updated ISWMP indicates an 80 per cent (80%) waste stream reduction rate by the year 2014. Please explain how the County expects to reach this goal of diverting approximately 500 tons of refuse per day and where it will go. For East Ilawai`i, the pro,~ected 80% reduction is expected to be realized when a waste reduction technology facility is in operation. If a waste reduction technology facility is fast tracked, it may be operational before 2014. Bj Although we are concentrating on the solid waste problem in East Hawaii, please inform us whether similar waste reduction technologies are planned for installation at the West Hawaii Landfill to help reach the island-wide waste reduction goal of 80% in 2014. Waste reduction for greenwaste composting, scrap metal recovery, and other recyclables is already being pursued for West Hawaii. A design contract has -9- been let and meetings with Waste Management already conducted relating to development of acreage set aside for materials recovery at the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill. Funds are requested in the CIP budget. The reluctance to include trucking between East and West Hawaii has driven the focus on waste reduction technology procurement for East Hawaii at this time. In the future, we `will consider the necessity for a waste reduction technology facility in West Hawaii. 14. The FEIS states that green waste and sludge may also require transportation to West Hawaii. Why would green waste and sludge be transported to West Hawaii? Greenwaste will not be transported to West Hawaii. The current price agreement entered into with EKO Composting systems effective July 1, 2005, changes the original intention to truck greenwaste from East to West Hawai i. Only greenwaste generated ira West Hawa€ i will be composted at the proposed facility at West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill. Iiosolids, sometimes referred to as sludge, are required for the proprietary composting technology employed by EKO systems. Only the East I-Iawai i Wastewater `Treatment Plant produces appropriately treated biosolids for inclusion into compost, The amount of biosolids trucked from East to West Hawaii will require 1-2 truckloads per week, thus the overall projections of cross- island traffic generated for the EIS are overstated. Integrated Solid Waste l0'€ana~ement Plan 15. Please explain the status of the Component Implementation Schedule found in the updated ISWMP. The County has been proceeding on the great majority of the 63 line items in the implements ion schedule in Table ES-1 and on page 93. Though items have been initiated, there have been delays in completing some items. Without identifying each line item, we provide the following summary: Source Reduction, Re-use and Recycling Program: These programs have been proceeding well. Some items, such as Construction 8~ Demolition diversion programs and, in part, the transfer station redesign, are contingent upon completion of the East I;aawai`i Regional Sort Station Complex, and have been delayed accordingly. At the same time, the County's beverage container redemption system, unanticipated at the time of the Update, has proceeded. Sort Station Complex: The environmental assessment for the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Complex has been completed and the design and bidding documents have been proceeding. As you know, there have been some delays in that schedule due to the Council's direction to more rapidly implement a waste reduction technology facility and the questions about building the reload facility. The bids for construction will be issued this summer if approval of funding is given for Phase II, which includes the reload facility. Waste Reduction Facility: An initial procurement process was initiated in 2004, but unfortunately it did not result in the selection of a vendor. A second process is now being implemented. Thus this project has been delayed but is still proceeding forward. -10- Close South Milo Landfill: Through effective management ave have been able to extend the life of the landfill beyond that expected at the time of the Update. Thus the closure actions have been extended. The Department is currently working to gain additional capacity at the landfill. Administration: These items have not been addressed and are mostly long-term programs. UpcCiai ~i~:a,~tr lnrijgi nii3: >riu~rniil8 fui ~Ci'nj~ iipet:ii~ aiiii iluLU 11U11{S are being managed. Other programs such as those for household hazardous waste, cooking oil, electronic waste and tires have been proceeding. 16. The updated ISWMl' also mentions improvements to rural transfer stations for residential and commercial recycling, organic composting, etc. Please explain the approximate cost for transfer station enhancements, including construction, equipment, security services, and operational manpower. The major elements of the Transfer Station Repair and Enhancement plans are: A. To determine a reasonable level of service for all self-haul homeowners for trash dispos;~l as well as $ottle Bill redemption, bulky items 8~ white goods, greenwaste, reuse items for other residents, as well as traditional recyclables. 87% ofsingle-family residents self-haul to one of our 21 Transfer Stations. fi. Enhanced services to be provided were prioritized by service area population, district population, average annual tonnage, % increase/decrease in tonnage in last ~ years, and parcel size. A) Would these initial costs be a county responsibility? Yes, as long as the County continues to operate these facilities. Costs will vary depending on each transfer station. B) Would the enhanced stations be leased for operation so the County could recover some funds through lease payments? Leasing has not-been conterr~plated. If Pay-As-You-Go type programs, where residents pay to dispose of their trash, were initiated, a concession, or a lease, could work well. We would discover to what extent a vendor would pay or charge the County by going through a procurement process. C} Please explain the plan for operation of these enhanced transfer stations. See enclosed Transfer Station l[~epair Plan and Appendix E, the Transfer Station Enhancement Plan. 17. Referring to the CIP budget under Rural Transfer Stations Replacement/Enhancement, what is the status of the $900,000 prior year funding for Planning, Design/Survey? This project has not been funded as of yet, therefore no expenditures have been made against this appropriation, The County does, however, have a Community Development Block Grant for $250,000 which is being used for transfer station -11- repair and enhancement design and construction services. Part of the design is to enhance the Transfer Stations for more convenient recycling, reuse, redemption, bulky & white goods, and greenwaste at five transfer stations. $50,000 of this grant has been set aside for design and construction management services. $200,000 has been set aside for minor repairs and enhancements proposed for the Waiohinu, Glenwood, Kalapana, Pahoa and Papaikou Transfer Stations. The bid for this work is scheduled to go out this month. 18. In your March 30, 2005 written testimony to the Council Committee on Finance, you stated that you were using $250,000 of grant funds to perform maintenance and repair at five (5) Transfer Stations. Please explain: A) What Transfer Stations were repaired in FY 0~; The CDBG grant funds are allocated for the Waio`hinu, Glenwood, Kalapana, Pahoa and Papaikou transfer stations. $23,338.00 has been spent to date for design and bid documents. B) What was the cost of repairs; No funding has been spent to date on repairs. See 17. C) What was repaired; No funding has been spent to date on repairs. See 17. D) Why were grant funds used for this purpose? Transfer station repairs in these areas of the County qualified for CDI3G funding. Application was submitted for this specific purpose and approved by the funding agency. 19. Your Operating Budget included $225,000 in funds for repairs to facilities in FY 04 and another $285,000 for FY 06. Please explain how much of last year's internal budget funds were used to: A) Repair, maintain and/or enhance any of the County's 21 transfer stations; In 1±Y04-O5, $5,731.90 was spent on facility repairs of which $3,529.18 was used for transfer station repair. B) Which Transfer Stations were the recipients of such funds; llilo $1,137.13 Kealakehe $169.87 Keauhou $193.16 Paauilo $1,257.34 Papaikou $73.72 Puako $193.04 Waiea $394.30 Waimea $110.62 -12- Cj What Transfer Stations are planned for repair/enhancements in FY 06? Please refer to Transfer Station Repair Plan. Roadways and DLNR Leases 2v. vV'hat is the stains of having the necessary %~L'tvic leases for the Sort Station Complex and appurtenant facilities being turned over to the County? Are all of the present lessees aware of the County's plan to utilize their leases? All leases have been secured. We have communicated with the lessees from time to time in an informal manner. ~Ve have promised to give them as much notice as possible. 21. The FEIS shows the alignment of Leilani Street crossing the existing 40-foot deep Glover quarry. Knowing that a 6" waterline for the Sort Station Complex will be within the road alignment, please explain whether this new alignment is a logical part of the final plan. As indicated in the FEIS, a timetable for construction of the proposed roadway and funding for the project has not been determined. The final determination of the feasibility of the new alignment in relation to the East ~Iawai`i Regional Sort Station Complex project would be dependent on DLNR's efforts in establishing the proposed industrial park in the area. Recycling 22. Understanding that over $1 million in contracts have been spent over the past 10 - 12 years for recycling education/information outreach programs and, after two years of aggressive recycling with a Recycling Coordinator and an ever-increasing budget, there does not appear to Have been an effect on decreasing the island's waste stream, please explain why the present actions (with increasing expenditures directed toward recycling) are not reaching their goals. In FY 02, the diversion rate was 12.65%. In FY O5, the diversion rate was 1.9.8%. The recycling programs that operated for the previous 10 years have been revised, new programs added in the last 2 years since the hiring of the recycling coordinator, and the results are just now starting to be measured. It should also be noted that a significant portion of the recycling program dollars are from state, federal and private sector grants. All funding to develop transfer station recycling centers, redemption centers, transfer station enhancements, glass recycling, Recycling Specialist II positions, used motor oil recycling as well as some of the computer recycling has been accomplished through grants. Grant amounts received in the last 2 years are as follows: $250,000 in CDBG grant funds (for Transfer Station repair as well as recycling enhancements), $3,000 in State/EPA funds for mock redemption program, $10,000 in Dell grant funds, and $20,000 from DBEDT. In addition, we received $250,000 from the State for bottle bill implementation in Ilawai'i County iu FY 2004-OS and $750,000 for FY 2005-06. This is in addition to state glass ADF grant funds and Used Residential Motor Oil recycling grants which -13- had previously supported recycling efforts prior to the hiring of the recycling coordinator. The access of the l~ea'au project funded through an EPA grant to L1EDl3/County resulted in two additional years of funding from the EPA with which I~eafakehe transfer station recycling center was established and a community recycling center at Waimea transfer station is being pursued. 23. 1n your written testimony before the Council Committee on Finance of March 30, 2005, you identified a projected 4x,000 ton recyeie or reuse. diversion from our iandfiiis in F r O5. Please explain if the diversion figure was reached and what percentage of the total tonnage claim was scrap metal and green waste. Not counting these two commodities, then what would the island-wise recycling rate be? We have just received all the tonnage (invoices) submitted for recycling for FY 04- 05. The total recycled tonnage is 55,478 tons. roughly 15% of the recyclables tonnage is scrap metal and approximately 60% is greenwaste. 24. Since metal/automobiles are banned from the landfills, should this commodity be used in the calculations of a landfill diversion rate? All materials diverted from landfill are used to compute diversion rates as diversion includes all waste streams, not selective waste streams. The fact that automobiles are banned doesn't mean metal is entirely absent from the waste stream entering landfills. The wash composition study conducted in 2001 shows that 8.8% of the waste entering the Milo landfill was metal. Our goal in landfill management is to drive the amount of metal entering landfills to zero. To state a partial recycling rate without metal wou d not allow us to compare our metrics with other municipalities as diversion rates are based on the total waste stream. Disaster Debris 25. Considering the critical situation of the Hilo Landfill space what plans are in place for a disaster debris collection and holding area should a major flood, hurricane or tsunami occur? Refer to the "County of ;E~awai' i -Disaster Debris Action Manual", prepared by Larding ESE and dated December 18, 2001, located in the Department of Environmental Managerrient Office, Room 210. Special Waste 26. What provisions, if any, are being made for special waste (presently being deposited into the Hilo Landfill, i.e,, dead animals, animal and fish renderings, confidential documents, outdated merchandise disposal, old drug evidence, etc.) when the Sort Station Complex is up and running? -14- Special waste (such as dead animals and fish renderings) and special handling waste (such as confidential documents and old drug evidence) will not be accepted at the East Elawai`i Regional Sort Station Complex. According to our last waste composition analysis these materials represent less than 1 % of commercial loads. These materials dv-ill continue to be accepted at the West Ilawai'i Sanitary Landfill. ivianaaement of tsud~et 27. In your March 30, 2005 written testimony before the Council Committee on Finance you identified an increasing waste stream, traffic congestion, staff shortages, employee absences, etc., as the main reasons for an exorbitant amount of Solid Waste Division overtime. Please explain what management techniques you have used to cut your overtime costs. In response to the increased tonnage and associated workload, the Division has requested additional personnel (refer to 2006 organizational chart). In FY 05-06 Council approved a combined total of 10 new positions for Kona and Kohala. Each baseyard received three new Equipment Operator IIIs and two Transfer Station Attendants. 28. In your same testimony, you were aware of increasing solid waste tonnage being generated in West Hawaii over three years ago and the possible need for additional employees to handle the waste. Please explain how many vacant positions and how many new positions have been filled in FY OS in West Hawaii to handle the increased solid waste in that area. For West 1lawai`i Landfill in FY 04-05, two new Equipment Operator IIIs and two nevv 'T`ransfer Station Attendant positions were established. The two SW Transfer Station Attendant positions were filled. Two existing staff were placed on temporary assignments to perform the Equipment Operator III duties. An internal recruitment is scheduled for October '05 to permanently fill the two new Equipment Operator III positions. In FY 04-05, there was only one vacancy at the West Ilawai'i Landfill It was a Scale Attendant position and it was filled. 29. Explain approximately how much money was used during FY OS in overtime charges island wide and more specifically in West Hawaii and East Hawaii. In FY04-05 $466,000 was spent on overtime. because the Solid Waste Division must operate 365 days a year, it is important to note that a certain portion of this expense is uncontrollable due to the overtime rates that apply to those employees who are required to work on the holidays. The breakdown of overtime paid by baseyard with the absolute minimum amount of required Holiday pay split out is as follows: -15- Baseyard Overtime I-€oliday Page Total Overtime #~m~loyees IEIiIo $1X,945 $31,704 $203,649 30 Kohala 77,350 21,686 99,036 11 Kona 75,055 18,130 93,185 11 Ka' u 9,885 2,800 12,685 2 Pubuanahulu 49,059 8,386 57445 10 i uT~i,S $383,2y4 $82, i06 $466,000 64 30. Please comment on whether the overtime costs of approximately $35,000 per month for the Solid Waste Division in FY OS is a result of increased tonnage and traffic congestion (as mentioned) or a reflection of a more serious problem within the ranks of the employees. We believe increased tonnages, traffic congestion as well as some issues beyond our control such as union contract requirements regarding "baseyard seniority" and. tlac high cost of living ire West ~awai'i for the baseyard errgployees are all contributing factors in the Division's overtime costs. ~t the Kona baseyard, only one employee lives in Kona, 1Vlost live inn 1-ionol~a'a or even farther away, so when they are called out to work io Kona, theh• work ~~y and travel tines are mandated by the ~ar~ion contract is greaten- -than if they lived in closer proximity to their place of work. Kohala has been providing support to the Kona baseyard when they are short staffed. Has an investigation into the overtime charges been made to determine if fraudulent claims are evident? Supervisors assiga~ .overtime as necessary and are responsible for monitoring overtime activities. Daily logs are prepared for each baseyard certifying the nuynber of hours ~~~orked by each employee. If no investigation has been made, how do you determine that all overtime claims are legitimate? See above. How are you managing this critical expenditure? The Solid't~Jaste Division rnana~es its labor in order to ensure public and worker health and <afety and to comply avith DOI;; permits for each solid waste rxrarnagerneta.t facili~. l~Ianagerraeart coordinates €hanges in field conditions and labor short~~es in order ter naai~ntair€ mgnirnum levels of service. additional personnel will be rneeded in order to match. the increases in tonnages and traffic. -16- I hope this answers your questions sufficiently. Please advise if you need further clarification. ~~o. Barbara ~-ell iJ11~Gt, i Vt~ enclosures cc: Harry Kim, Mayor Stacy Higa, Council Chair Dora Beck, TS Section Chief Michael Dworsky, SWD Chief Eileen O~Hora-Weir, Recycling Programs Coordinator -17- C~-IAP'~'~~2 I AI)DEI'~1DU1~11(9/06/Q5) 1. UPA.TE -Please t-cfer to commodity tonnage claimed by the Keaau Recycle and Reuse Center (KKRC) during the 9 month Federal funded demonstration project. Approximately 795 tons of commodities were claimed, not counting the reuse items, and the I~epaa-tment of Environmental Management-could not reconcile the claimed tonnage with the Kilo Scale tickets. On or about August I5, 2005, the Department of Environmental Management provided copies of scale tickets covering the pei°iod in question. Weigh tickets were provided from thf°ee difj`erent scales: the Kilo Landfill, Yamada and Sons, and Puna Rock. Efforts to reconcile the KRRC spreadsheet tonnage with the scale tickets provided resulted in either exact or a close match. All tonnage claimed, for the KKRC demonstration project are considered reconciled except_for the reused items which were covered by a hand written log. The amount ($400, 000) of the grant divided by the reconciled tonnage resulted in a cost of $~03 per ton for collected commodities, 62% of which was green waste and waste metal. Using all claimed tonnage including the reuse items to find a cost per ton resulted in a cost per ton to the grant of $436. 2. ERRATA - Diversios:r Credit Program - 4`h paragraph, 4`h line, the tonnage noted as 45,678 should be 45.678. 3. CL~ RIFICATION -Chapter I, Part I, Page 7, first paragraph -Reference to Exhibit G is deleted and replaced with (See Attachment to this chapter) 4. CLARIFICATION -Chapter I, Part I, Page 7 Conclusions #2 -References to Exhibits F and G is deleted and replaced with (See _Attachments to this chapter) CLARIFICATION -Chapter I, Part I, Page 8 Conclusions #3 -Reference to Exhibit F is deleted and replaced with (See Attachment to this Chapter) N I' HA~~ i MAHLJICONA ~ ~a tthu{'E~: t%•" - HONOKAA Wai {fiaf'" PAAUILO .•a~q~~p~ ' Paatiilo (T/SJ i r,•• L,AUPAHOEHOE AAJLO ~,j ' •I.aup,~fiaQ~roetT(,S iouua~ahulu Landfill ~ ~ < r' Wa' of a ~{IS) - i• ;~r,...•r HAKALAU ~ (J . - - P~F~O 1• _ - ~ Hilo Landfill ~i~aa~~~/S) / _ _ Hilo (TIS) ~ATSHOU '1Caat~~ioa'~1-!S) 1 ~ ' ~ • -•~-'/N•' 1it:.r9N~'~LU.11v A. ~~e~i pY~~+) +,Y lean ~T/S):= ~ Pao ,;7I ~APOHO 'valaie~ {T!S) ~ (~pan'a,(7/Sf KALAPANA -r '1': MILOLI~ ~eolu-~~) ~ °pah~4°a;(~;IS);. ~ Landfill /Transfer Station (T/S) (Existing) an ~ ` Landfill I Transfer Station (T/S) (Proposed; r`I , NAAI~HIJ PUBLIC FACILITIES - LANDFILLS / TI~ANSFEIZ STATIONS seur~« County of Hawaii, Department of Pub(i c Wocl:s, Solid lvastc Division 0 10 20 30 d0 50 60 70 80 Miles SOCRCE. H.4~1'AII COUNTY, HA0.'AII LANDFILL -SOLID WASTE FACILITIES FAS'i HA~'?All REGIONAL SORT STATION HA~VA,tI COUNTY APRIL 2003 HiLO, HA~'Al[ ,ter Prepared for County of Hawaii -Department of F ~~ironmentai Management, Solid Waste Division South Hilo Sanitary Landfill Daily l lntermedia> 'r fiNaterial Provided for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 .,Ut)iC YdS 1 Delivery - Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 feb-04 tJlar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Year 1 ~ 351.0 486.0 162.0 40_5.0 567.0 540.0 288.0 2,799.0 - 2 - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - 702.0 396.0 594.0 405.0 135.0 405.0 540.0 540.0 324.0 4,041.0 3: 600.0 450.0 783.0 324.0 405.0 540.0 405.0 378.0 675.0 86AA 360.0 5,784.0 4: 312.0 189.0 360.0 405.0 270.0 72.0 243.0 405.0 270.0 162.0 864.0 3,552.0 5: 336.0 702.0 360.0 405.0 432.0 270.0 540.0 189.0 3,234.0 - - - 6 : 405 283 270 405 35'I 405 _ X132 $4t0 567 198 234 4,095 - 7: 240 432 351 405 - ~ - 297 540 297 180 2,742 8: 312 135 306 648 567 324 162 486 486 540. 270 4,236 9: 384 648 306 567 378 675 270' 810 675 270 4,983 90: 630 540 405 270 540 378 405. 5d0 270 324 4,302 11: 624' 198 513 270 270 351 459 288 324 3,297 92: 360. 540 513 _384 270 540 37$ 378 288 540 4,191 13 : 513 405 _ 27Ci S~~tG 594 _ 432 675. 4?,3 3,8` 14: 552 567; 702 270 270' 540 486 621 459 198 4,66:, 15: 720 270 576 486 486 378 405 621 342 4,284 16: 405 459' 405 280 _ 351 7C+2 270 540 ~70 288 3,970 17: 216 324 81 243 270 513 405 135 648 270 234 3,339 18: 261 621 675' 540 270 _270 540 135 459 216 3,987 19 : 540 405 351 405 540 171 405. 288 _3,105 20: 243' 567 405 567 567 270 306. 729 459 4,113 21: 729 486 729 270 270 594 729 459 540 324 5,130 22: 153 342 270 540 540 270. 675 144 540 333 234 4,041 - - - - 23: 360 252 648 513 _ 351 756 162 648 234 3,924 24: 225 324 486 270 675 540 405 378 540 216 135 4,194 25: 297 162 810 567 297 1,053 405 675 189 288 4,743 26: 432 204 378 72 297 351 702 405 270 261 540 3.,912 27: 144 324 594 360 729 405 108 1,134 288 4,086 28: 297 432 216 378 351 459 540 324 216 216 3,429 29: 567 270 189 243 225 351 378 405 324 252 3,204 30: 396 540 351 405 540 378 513. 216 342 3,681 39: 837 297 567 621 405 324 3,05' d4lonthdy Year 7ota3 Totals - Cubic Yds. Cubic Yds : 8,085 9,303 10,179 12,429 8,962 11,142 11,664 9,774 10,314 12,393 9,792 7,929 121,966 Payments : $32,028.00 (FY 2002-03) $18,972.00 $21,343.50 $15,759.00 $24,556.50 $20,196.00 $15,529.50 $5,906.25 $21,498.75 $23,388.75 $25,751.25 $27,877.50 $18,900.00 $16,320.00 $19,737.00 $20,043.00 $24,403.50 $18,130.50 $17,442.00 $20,317.50. $21,971.25 $25,987.50 $22,443.75. $18,663.75 $17,167.50 $'16,218.00 $18,589.50 $21,114.00 $24,097.50 $22,261.50 $21,026.25 $24,097.50 $16,380.00 $21,735.00 $23,940.00 $13,702.50 $12,546.00 $13,158.00 $23,409.00 "$20,884.50 $13,617.00 $19,507.50 $30,948.75 $17,955.00 $25,515.00 $13,07250 $11,812.50 $20,425.50 $24,327.00 $30,982.50 $23,861.25 Year 3otal Delivery Chgs : $648.00 $11,245.50 - - - - - - - Payments - Mlonthly - , U ~ - - - Totals $116,509.50 $72,828.00 $104,652.00 $93,942.00 $74,853.00 $94,707.00 $102,060.00 $85,522.50 $65,756.25 $95,445.00 $83,553.75 $61,582.50 $'1,051,411.50 Rate : $8.50/yd. *Rate increase to $8.75/yd. CIIAPTEI~ IV ADDE1~7DiJM - 9/06/Q5 STATUS OE TIIE INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANT IMPLEMEi~7TA'I°-ION BACKGROUND The County of I~awaii developed a Solid Waste Management Plan in 1981 prior to State Act 324 `The Solid Waste Management Act'. In February 1993, the County prepared an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) to meet the requirements of Act 324 dealing with solid waste management planning. The purpose of Act 324 was to have the State and the Counties develop a guidance document to follow in making planning decisions dealing with Solid ~~Vaste. Act 324 aiso mandated the ISWMP be updated every 5 years. The ISWMP included an Implementation Schedule in the Executive Summary. There were seven categories in the Implementation Schedule as follows: 1) System Administration, 2) Source Reduction and Public Information, 3) Bioconversion and Composting, 4) Recycling, 5) Waste Collection, 5) Waste Disposal, and 7) Special Wash;. (See spreadsheets with chronology attached) A Solid Waste ~^s:dvisory Committee (SWAG) was established in 2001 and was made up of the F.;nvironmental Management Commissioners appointed by the Mayor. This body was responsible for guiding the consultants, I-Iarding ESE, toward the content and the final product of the Updated ISWMP. In December 2002, the County's Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan was updated includir:g the It~plementation Schedule and a Summary of Components. This updated plan included six categories in the Component Implementation Schedule, as follows: (See attached) 1) Resource Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Program, 2) Sort Station, 3) Waste Reduction facility, 4) Close South Kilo Landfill, 5) Administration, and; 6) Special Waste Program. The Executive Summary of the updated ISWMP states that the `...primary_focus of the addendum. (Update.,) is the establishment of a solid waste management systerr~ in East Ha~h~aii to rLplacc t~:~ Sou°h Hilo Landfill'. During several meetings with an appointed Solid ~~~aste ~'~dviso:y Committee (SWAG) solid waste issues were discussed and alternatives for solid waste management in the County were considered. The alternatives were narrowed and the SWAG chose the following amendments: 1) Construct no new landfill in East Hawaii, 2) Emphasize the recovery of recyclable materials at the planned East Hawaii Sort Station, :possibly by incorporating features of a material recovery facility (MRF) 3) Procure a waste reduction facility for the East Hawaii Waste Stream using either waste-to energy, thermal gasification, or anaerobic digestion technology; and. 4) Establish a County recycling program with a long list of elements that has the potential to decrease the waste diversion significantly. The Plan Implementation section of the ISWMP dedicates ten pages to the recycling program and four pages to the mandated closure of the Hilo Landfill and establishing a facility/technology to serve the function of the landfill after it closes. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (See Attached) The Department of Environmental Management has hired a Recycling Coordinator and thus completed one of the sub-activities identified in the ISWMP. Other sub-components of thL Plan that have been implemented are as follows: 1) Increasing the tipping fee at landfills, 2) Increasing the budget for promotion and education (Recycle Hawaii Contract), 3) Emphasizing. recycling in design of the Sort Station, and, 4) Hiring a consultant for the design of the Sort Station and complete the EIS. The remaining 60 or so activities listed in the Updated ISWMP have either not been started or have had. the anticipated date of completion extended two or three years beyond the original completion date. The Sort Station operation of hauling the East Hawaii refuse to the West Hawaii Landfill is supposed to commence in December 2005. Fringing utilities to the chosen site of £.he Sort Station and general site work has not yet- commenced. Commencement of construction of the Sort :station, depending on the availability of funding, may be six months to a year away. The date of completion of this facility and commencement of hauling refuse to the W;.st Hawaii Landfill has been pushed back to July 2007. Capital lmprove~nent Project (GIP) funding of $350,000 was identified in FY05 to complement $00,00(1 of prior funding requested for the required construction closure 2 of the Hilo Landfill. 13oth of these identified funds have not been allotted or encumbered. Another $12.25 million has been identified for the landfill closure in FY06. None of these funds have been expended. The closure construction of the Hilo Landfill was identified for completion in June 2005 but has been placed on the `to be determined' status by the Department of Environmental Management. At present, the Department of Environmental Management is relying on the State Department of Health to approve a permit extension to operate the Hilo Landfill after March 2006. The planning and design of the Waste ReductionA Facility was scheduled for 35% completion in March of 7.005 so that an EIS could be prepared. The EIS development process for the Waste Reduction Facility is scheduled to start in September 2005 but has been pushed back to Deeember 2005. (See Attached) The County Administration recently canceled a response to an earlier Request For Proposal and is now in the process of hiring a consultant firm for $500,000 to generate a new document. Two and one half years after adoption, the majority of items identified in the Updated ISWMP Implementation Schedule have had their completion dates pushed back between two to three years. (Sec .Attached) Programs related to recycling, such as emphasizing recycling in the design of the Sort Station, .increasing the budget for recycling promotion, and increasing funding for the waste diversion programs have proceeded. Implementation of the Waste Reduction Facility is still in the stage of hiring a consultant to deg.-elop a Request for Proposal (RFP). Development of a financing scheme, selection. of a project delivery method, selection of a consultant and soliciting expressions of interest fi`om prospective vendors was scheduled for completion by mid- 2003 during the approximate same timeline as developing the Sort Station. CONCLUSIONS 1. The County Council approved Updated ISWMP concentrates and depends heavily on recycling and reuse as the answer to reducing the waste stream on this island. In viewing the implementation program of the ISWMP, the Department of Environxental Prlanagement is following the emphasis on recycling. However, the vast majority of the items identified in the updated ISWMP implementation schedule have not begun and ha~re had their implementation dates pushed back by the Department of Environmental Management. (See Attached) 2. In developing the Updated Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, it appears that there was too much emphasis and energy placed on recycling and reuse recommendations. Although adopted by the Council, the updated Plan's 3 implementation and direction is being guided toward a minor part of the solid waste system. 3. Previous chapters in this report document that recycling, other than diverting the tonnage of green waste and waste metal from the landfills, results in collecting about 4% of commodities .neasured by tonnage from the entire waste stream. 4. The emphasis on recycling has had an effect on the main functions of solid waste management, such as the collection system (transfer stations), the transmission system (trucks and tY•ailers) and the depositing system (landfills). 5. Recycling is very expensive. After more than a decade and millions of dollars spent by t:he County on recycling education and commodity diversion subsidies, the results cannot be measured in a re~?uction of the County's ~,vaste stream. The County has fallen further behind and is seriously losing the race to divert more commodities from both landfills than tl_~ landfills take in. (See Exhibit G) Refuse tonnage being generated within the County is a reflection of new growth and development. There has been a noticeable increase in the island's waste stream without an accompanying measurable quantity of waste diversion. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The County Administration and the County Council should make every effort to review and possifily amend the updated ISWMP as necessary. The review effort should examine redirecting County efforts toward immediate needs related to the closure of the I-Iilo Landfill. For example, emphasis and effort of the ISWMP should be centered on implementing an East Hawaii Material Recovery/Transfer Station type faci'::ity, the closing and capping of the Hilo Landfill, and bringing a Waste Rcduction/Waste to Energy facility to East -Iawaii as soon as possible. used on past efforts and results from recycling, a secondary emphasis should be placed on diverting reusable corr~modities from the waste stream until facilities are in place to cdllect and process these commodities. 2. The County must force action to implement construction of either a Regional Refuse Transfer- Station or a combination Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) %Transfer Station in East I~awaii as soon as possible. Whatever facility is chosen should also be designed to be the front end or refuse receiving portion of the future high technology Waste Reduction Facility. 3. The County must seriously focus on bringing in the waste reduction technology as soon as possible. 4. The Department of Environmental Management should include mechanisms for greater accountability for their contracts. Establishing performance objectives 4 and measurements based on accomplishments and monitoring invoice requests should be undertaken. 5. The effort to reasonably and feasibly include rural transfer stations as collection points for recyclable commodities, and identifying points other than transfer stations sks collection points for commodities should continue being planned. Economic feasibility should be the goal in implementation. This may be easier to achieve in a fe~,~ years after a material recovery or processing facility is establisr~ed. s ' > w u A ~ n o . ~ x.. 5- kk- - -y, S r. yi ~;,5. v~ .c. ~a ~ < ; k ~ # ~ y, ~ ~ ~ ''Yi,i r1S 'ra r tl~. N {.y ' ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E.~, z w ~ ~ j S y. ' . . ~ , £ ; ~ ..y~... ~ o O M ~ ~ M M M M p ~ ~ M o ~ o Q ~ og! r7°o co ° ~ L~- N N I ~-N.. A~ N N N N O ~ s- i4.. ~ M M s ~ O M M M L1J ~ ~ ~ M N N ~ C9 :O C`O N ~ J ~ U ~ A O p w i.u ICJ ~ <n rn w ~n u> sn rn ~ O M N N N CO CO CO C ~ C C C C O C ~ O O O O 0 0 O U U U U U U U to O O .C U ~ N ~ O V) y M ~ f6 N C ~ O U i° ~ ~ o m N a o E m ~ ~ 0 E -E v, ~ y c o _ ~ ~ U v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N y ~ E m E o ~ a~ o ~ ~ m ~ U ~ ~ Q .,y m~ g o0 O ;n ~ p cv ~ 9 :n ~ O o2S fn U ~ lA ~ .m U ~ U N e U ~ ~ to °voi -a.~ ~ ~ ~ c~a N ~ ~ o~ ci3 ~ o m W U m c v > 6> O ~ °2S ~ > ~ O T U N is to C 0Y. C O N N N O ~ M o c,I ~ o o U o C~ E d-- ~ U ~ ~ :A •Ej ~s ° ~ 'S U ~ p uoi ~ E 43 y; ~ `o m o .E U U:~ o c a N o o ~ GY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •O c o otS c°~ t~ O ~ v v 3 U U ~ g p p~ N Z m u: o ~ O • fl ~ ~ VJ ~ ~ ~ N C6 N :/1 V y C ~ C fD N ~ r d U ~I ~ U N U ti C U S C O fit? ~ I t! 1 tY ~ laJ O c (Xl O I,LI W O LL 11.E p TABLE OF IMPLEMENTATION UPDATED I.S.W;M.P. OF 12/31/02 ESTIMATED dI+fTICIPA1rED DATE. DUftATtDN DE COt~PLE'1'IB~N PEf't w <.~t i" 1~q€<"'I"r:s ACTIVITY (MQS.)9 UIS1fVI~P '1r£ €3?> :~I~~€r`, ~ ~~Itif~ ~aT~' s~~a1 Sort Statsan 1 1131121103 ~i~fif~ : _ f~r~ndrn Select Consultant 3 4!36!2003 €,Ca#3tgsfAf~~ , Envircc~:rrzFntai Assessrrse,nt 6 1013q'12003 t~ f l " F~f~:~ I ~ F uu,,,n „ Plannu~y ii< Uesil~n 6 4i30~,'?C04 ~9€<4s~caP¢=c~ < r~rE~~~r>~r= #3)P u~i~~ Biit Awlrard 1 5(31/2004 ~ 51«rt 8fi~1 > 4r~#? t~~r~fs=r~i~'' €€~t'~sr1~~ _~.__s~» Pw:rrr:ttin 3 8i31(l04 f'~13YP~~'c~t"4#~#`>~?~;Fi~~~.0,~~~i`r~}£~ a~,~,y yy,,....... Construcfion 12 813112005 ~s~?a~~d~vsi~<aIs=~a;~r;:1>~t:=~'~~£€~`, Haul Residual East Hawaii Waste to Puuanahulu Landfill 28 1213112005 i r )fL zip°it~ s=}s>~'~ VYaste Redractinn Facrii f)dweic~€> Firs~~~na in~arta~:raae 1 1131/2803 cs= rsrrz Selec=~t C'ro'er;4 G~ii~ar~r ~~9ethad 1 2128J2003 ' rt~ ' Consultant SelectionlProcurement 3 513112003 r~ _ f Solrcitaiion of Expressions of Interest from Prospective Vendors ...w~..~,..w. Prepare Sohc,itation 1 613Ql2003 i"~~` Advertise 1 713'1 l2(m3 n.. Site SelectioniSurve 3 10(3112003 Rr--~ Prepar~tron cf Izequest for Proposal 3 1/31/2004 Sc1icilationfPulrlication 1 2128!2004 Pre-Submittal Meeting 1 313112004 , . ClarifiratianlModification 2 5131!2004 Recei t of Proposals 1 613012004 ; Evaluation of Proposals 1 713112004 Contract hlegotiation 1 813112f)Q4 ~ Av~~td Go¢~traet 1 913012004 ' Plannin & Desi, n 35% 6 313112005 c r, w,~.ww ; ElS EIS Pie araiion 6 0130!2005 EIS Public Review & Hearin 6 313112006 E ; EIS Revision if necessa 3 613012006 .....~~...y 1-Duration of Months from 1213112002 Since Adoption of Resa. No. 238-02 2 TAa3LE OF IMPLEMENTATION UPDATED I.S.W.M.P. OF 12/3'1/02 ESTIib~'TED AN'TtCIt~AT>~D L1AT~ auRarias~ ot" co~i~~~~rloN ~I~ ~ ~~3~ww,w~ AC71V9TY (NIQS.)1 DtS>idf~P ~`"s~ ~f ~F iF"~'I"J ~~`rK ~'k°s< fr€3 a t~J'~ ~3 DMhp~~~ 65% 4 10/31l2'~0£i ~ ' ! ! P6rrniitir~ 92 1f31;,1/~t307 Desi n 900% 6 313312008 C~~nst:ruction 12 3J31C2t3t39 3' Clasp Ss~~~th Ntlo t.atadfitl C€>.,>~z~l>a;3t 5;1:a.,tiwtt P:GGWG{a1'f:E%n# 3 3131)2fl03 ~'~r?xiztr=r~ z Environmental Assessment 6 y13012003 „ 1~'s rs~~~~s~,~ Desi n, Contract Documents Pre aration 6 313112004 ' la~sa~~s Contract ~'rocurerr~erit 3 613012004 : ~ ~ ~~sr Closure Construction 12 &!3012005 E. m 1 - Duration of Months from 12!31!2002 Since Adoption ofi Reso. No. 238-02 3 ~ _ b~t~ppti ~~pp~ ~~5b~~ b~~,~~~" ~{,~pp~` ~~pp5 t~pp5 9AY LEA9ENTATONISCHEDULEANAGEMENTPLAN ~~G ~~C~~ ~~G~' CJO~~~~ ~IgUf@ Estimated Months after adoption of Plan ACTIVITY Duration months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~2 13 14 15 16 17 18 1Ei .;J 21 22 23 ~4 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 6 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 +~5 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Waste R~, action, Reuse, and Rccvclin Pro ram :;a:y.,k,Y;:. Hir Coun Re in r inator 3 e c 1 Coo d •s•.o:•>:. tY Yc 9 ~~~:!Hi/,fin r; `M:~ ...!!!•w.: \'•ii• `CN::~:: ?..~vmm!^... ~ Incrl:a:,e'3uu .t for Promo,on and EducaEion continuous ` . ~ ..r `.D? , h••'::;'?~?~~,`"•h~..`~>t's• . ` , , Ban Yard''nmmings atTransfer Stations and landfills continuous Establish Drop-0ff Centers of Transfer Stations 12 Establish Drop-0ff Centers at Shopping Centers, Community Centers, Schools 24 • " ' • ~ " x• ~ ~ " Reconfigure Trans~er Stal3ons to f_mphasize Recycling 24 Increase Funding for Waste Diversion Program continuous Estabish C~1 n 9 Policy to Restrain Disposal of Recyclable Materials continuous r• Increase Ti Jin, Fees at Landfills 6 Enhance C8D Waste Recarery continuous Emptaasiae RacycE:ng in De sign of Sort Station 6 _ _E increase Incentives for Diversion of Clean C&D Wasles continuous Phase-in Landf;! Bans on Recyclable C&D Wastes continuous -3 Enhance Loral Markets for Recyclable Materials continuous Institute New Fee System for Waste Management 6 Sad Station a c Funding 1 is o Select consultant 3 aN Environmental Assessment 6 ~ ~ Planning and Design 6 m rn Bid and Award 1 m o Permitting 3 ConstrrJhfion 12 Haut Rnsidual Easl Hawaii Waste to Pu uanahulu Landfill 28 Woa1e R:edzat;Yil;ri F3cdBpY Devebp Financing Scheme 1 n Setsct Project Delivory Method 1 ' ' ~ Consultant Selection ! Procurement 3 ~ Solicitation of Expressions of Interest from Prospective Vendors ~ Prepare Solicitation 1 ~ Advedise 1 Site Selection I Survey 3 ~ rq RFP ~ rJ11 Preparation of Request for Proposal 3 -0 SoIPofta4lon I Pufalication 1 z w >'ra~Subir~ltal °v9eeting 1 o Cladficationr~lodiflcaGon 2 co Receipt 6f Proposals 1 Evaluation of Proposals 1 v Contract 4JegotiaEion 1 LL Award Contract 1 0 Planning and Design 3590 6 EIS ~ EIS Preparation 6 ~ EIS Public Review & Hearing 6 EIS Revision (if necessary) 3 ~ Design 65~a 4 0 Permitting 12 0 Design 100% 6 Constmction 12 _ a 0 CBose South Hiio Landfll3' Consultant Selection, Procurement 3 m Environmental Assessment 6 Design, Contract Documents Preparation 6 Contract Procurement 3 C:osura Ccnstruc4on 12 1 This schedule for closure assumes South Hilo Landfill will receive its last deposit of solid waste 18 months after adoption o1 the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan.