Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0402.002 2004-2006 o~+tv or y~~ IlarryKim ~ b~~'. William Takaba 7f;{r,:r l7ireclr,r - Nancy C. Crawford A ••,r°•~ Pcpun~l)vrrlur 'irk Os •M~+ ` County of Hawaii Finance Department ?i ,lupuni Strcd. Room 118 Ilila, Ilue ai'i 96P_0 (808) 961-82;1 • I'ax (80R) 961-8248 September l3, 2005 Stacy Fliga, Chairman, and _ Members of the I Iawai'i County Council Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street I Lilo, HI 96720 Suhject E~°aluation of the Department of Environmental Managements Implementation of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan At the Finance Committee meeting of August 16, 2005, 1 was asked if I had reviewed the report to the County Council entitled. "L'rulvulion nJ'(he De~uir/meet q/'Environmen/a! Manu~~emenl's /~rrplemenudion qj the Inre;i•a/ecl Rolicl Wae7e Manugemenl Plan"(August 2005). Since a copy was not furnished prior to the mceting, I did not have Use opportunity to review it before the question was posed. A copy was provided at the meeting. Subsequently, Mayor Kim requested that I review and evaluate the report and prepare a response to the Council on his behalf. This response was prepared before the addendum dated September 6. 2005 was received_ and thus the comments contained in That later report will be addressed in a subsequent document. Although the stated purpose of the evaluation report was to identity the status of the Department of {environmental Managements implementation of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, the report focused primarily on critiyuing the operations and administration of the Kea'au Recycling and Reuse Center (°KRRC•~). We understand that this report is "an 80% product,•• and that additional material was received on September 6, ?005, too late for consideration in this response. phis response corresponds to the sections contained in the Evaluation Report. It is decided into sis major sections: • The IntegratcJ Sulid Waste Management Plan ("ISWMP") provides a hroad u~ erg iew of the IS\VMP, including the steps to implement its tour major components. • "fhe Kea`au Recycling and Reuse Center/Transfer Station F,nhancement Program provides an occrvicw of the Kr:'au Recycling and Reuse Center project and responds to related sununar~ su~temm~ts. cundusions. and recommendations. az.z Comm. No. Ref. To: ~ ~ q R~ Ref. Dote < <~~=b.~.-"'_ Stacy Higa, Chairman Pace 2 September 13, ?005 • The Sort Station provides background on the Sort Station complex and responds to related summary statements and conclusions. • Hilo Landfill Operation and Closureprovidcs background on the South Hilo Landfill and the requirement for closure. It also addresses the report conclusions. • Status of the InCegrated Solid Waste Management Plan provides a recommendation for the final report. • Conclusion. THF. INTEGRATED SOLID WASTF, MANAGEMENT PLAN ("ISWMP") Ohjeclives fhe updated ISWMP outlines two major objectives: 1. Effectively manage the East Ilawai'i waste stream after the South Hilo Landfill is tilled and closed to waste disposal: and 2. Implement island-wide diversion of solid waste from the landfills by source reduction. reuse. and recycling. It identities four major components to address these objectives: • ~171e development of a waste reduction, reuse, and recycling program; • The construction of a Sort Station: • fhe construction of a waste reduction lacility: • The closure of the South I Lilo Landfill. Implementation Schedule and Acfions Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Kecycling proms. The implementation schedule of the ISWMP shows the waste reduction. reuse, and recycling program phasing in over a period of several years. Spccilic tasks include: hiring a Recycling Coordinator; increasing the budget for promotion and education; harming yard trimmings at transfer stations and landllls, upgrading transfer stations; increasing funding for waste diversion program: establishing a County policy to restrain disposal of recyclable materials: increasing tipping fees at landfills: enhancing C&D waste recovery; emphasizing recycling in dosign of Sort Station; increasing incentives f~~r diversion of clean C&D wastes; phasing-in landfill bans on recyclable C&D wastes; enhancing local markets ~i~r recyclahle materials and instituting a new fee system for waste management. Sort Station Project. The rcuonuucnded plar is to transfer the residual waste. after renewing as much as is practical. via a .Sorb .S/u~iun complex until a waste reduction facilit}~ can be procured. designed. permitted, built and brought on-line. ~I~hc Sort Station complex is the most urgent because it must be ready when the Suuth Milo Landfill Stops accepting waste. Specific testa include: obtaining ~lindin~~: selecting a consuhanC preparing an em~ironmental asscssmcnt: planning and designing thr I~icilit~: bidding and awarding the contract; permitting: constructing Stacy 11iga, Chairman Pale 3 September 13, 2005 the facility; and hauling residual East Hawaii Waste to the West Hawaii Landfill (Pu'uanahulu). Waste Reduction Technolot*_y. Implementation of a rixislc reduction technology will take the longest time. The schedule for a waste reduction facility is also the most uncertain because it will require a full EIS procedure. Specific tasks include: Developing a financing scheme: selecting a project delivery method; selecting a consultant; soliciting expressions of interest from prospective vendors; selecting a site; surveying the site; selecting, through the RFP process. a contractor; planning and designing the facility; preparing an EIS; obtaining State and County permits. constructing the facility; and operating the lacility. Closure of South Hilo Landtll. 'I~hc closa~re gf~the South Hilo Landfill depends on when the last waste is received. Design, contractor procurement. and other preparations for closure must be completed before the landfill doses because regulations require the start of closure activities within 30 days after the last waste is received and completion of closure activities within 180 days later. Specific tasks include: selecting a consultant: preparing an environmental assessment: preparing design and contract documents; and designing and constructing the closure. THE KGA`AU RECYCLING AND REUSE CENTER (CHAPTEK I, PARTS I & ll) TRANSFER STATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (CHAPTER I, PART [II) I~he Hawaii Island Economic Development Board (`I[IEDB") and the County of Hawaii were awarded a $400,000 grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (°EPA'~) in 2002 to establish and implement a community development model for upgrading solid waste transfer stations into community recycling centers. Although the County of Hawaii was a co~wardee. the HIh;DI3 was the lead agency in obtaining and carrying out the grant The grant enabled the establishment of the Kea'au Recycling and Reuse Center ("KRRC'~) at the Kea'au 'I~ransfer station. Funds were used as follows (April 2003 -December 2003): County of Hawaii (grantee) $ 10,000 Provide program and financial oversight HIED6 (project manager) 1 12,000 Implement scope of work. subcontract services, Icase equipment and coordinate stakeholders Kec_vcle Hawaii 89.550 Develop and conduct public education, operate project produce conceptual site plan hrr permanent KRRC Big Island Resource Conservation & Ucvelopment 80.000 Prepare and impro~c site. engineering cork Slaty I Iiga, Chairman Page 4 September 13, 3005 Rural Community Assistance Corporation (KCAC) 53,908 Produce strategic plan for future development Business Services Hawaii 53.450 Collection of roll-otf containers and hauling commodities away from the KRRC Miscellaneous 1,09? 278.000 TOTAL $400,000 The KRRC project was organized into three components: 1 . Development of the model: 2. Operation and evaluation of the new model; and 3. Production of a strategic plan to address long-term sustainability and replicability of the project beyond the IiPA-funded demonstration. As a demonsh~ation/startup project, grant funds were budgeted for many activities not normally associated with ongoing projects. Some of these were site design and preparation, public education and outreach, ongoing task force meetings, shelters, site demobilization and cleanup, strategic planning, etc. The contract between the County of Hawaii and the HIEDB for the KRRC project was issued as a grant-in-aid to contractor. Thus, H[EDB was paid for expenses incurred, rather than on specilic performance measures (i.e., the number of tons of garbage diverted tYom the Iandlill). This is typical of demonstration projects that study feasibility and cost. In such contracts, although payments are not based on performance. performance data is collected to facilitate planning and evaluation, and to determine project success. hhe sub-contract between the IIII~;DB and Recycle Hawaii required that monthly compensation be made on invoices broken down into two components: costs relating to collection and hauling; and costs relating to the administration of site operations. No weight/quantity tickets were required to be submitted to the HIEDB. "fhe sub-contract between Rccvcle f Iawai'i and Business Services I Iawai'i for collection and hauling required that payment be based on the amount of tonnage of each commodity collected. Business Services Ilawai'i was required to submit weighl~quantity receipts along with Ihcir in~oicc. I~:ach contractor and soh-eonU'actor of the project collected necessary data and prepared requested reports. l~hrough these reports and other project data. a "Srrale~~ie Plus fnr ,SuNUinin~g and Rri~licu~in~~~ the h~eo'nr~ Xen~clin~g and Reua~e ('enter" ~~as developed b} the I III~:DB and Rural Community Assistance Corporation ("RCAC~~) in fcbruary 300-1. Stecy High, Chairman Page 5 September 13. 3005 Due to its desire to continue the KRRC pilot project beyond December 2003, the County: • Provided an additional $70A00 to extend the Recycle Hawaii contract to June 30. 2004: • Issued a new RFP for the period July l , 2004 -June 30, ?005; • Awarded a new contract for $142,648 in State funds to Recvcle Hawaii, the successful proposer: and • Issued a supplemental contract for $24,000 to Recycle Hawaii on May 26, 200 to complete site improvements at the KRRC. KRRC Project Evaluation The following responds to the Report Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the evaluation of the Kea'au Recycling and Reuse Center Project: From the Report SummrtrE~ 1. Report Summary: The Kea'au Recycling and Reuse Center claimed 920 tons of commodities diverted from the South Hilo Landfill in the first 9 months of operations. 'this could not be matched with scale tickets. The Department of Environmental Management ("Df?M") in the following 18 months of operation could not reconcile touuagc tickets from the Hilo Scale with claimed commodity tonnage handled by Recycle Hawaii at KRRC. Response: illl reyuericd ,crate tickets /rout /he KRRC have been delivered to lhc~ ('otmiy ('leak us nfAu,~ni.ci ZOOi. Although C'oUniy scales were no! used in ei~eri~ irtstetnec, cer/ified .ecale.e were Used for all rec vclahlac, depending on the clay of [he week rind nnc~r.fuc~or~e Ihul made i/ mnre pracliccrl to Use one scale over the other :Ihhnagh the ('nunlr'.e mcmurandmn ofa,~~reerncnl u~rlh the //lED6 did nor require reconciling scale lickel.e, 1/te IIIh.'DR suh-contract u~i1h Itecrcle Hairai'i rec/Hired Nt~~ main/enance of °complcle ainl accurate recoreLr. " crud the sub-cnniruc/ behreeU Rerrcle llcnrcri'i and l3u.cines,c Services ]lui~~ui'i required submi.c.eion o/~ ireighl/yuanlily~ receipt,~~. The retcee rents here /rucked u~i[h a log sheet. Therefore. Ihcre m~e itn .crate tickers for rc u,~~e i[ems. 3. Keport Bananas}: The first nine months of the demonstration project was funded with a federal grant. I he Count} was the grantee with financial responsibility and financial assurance. The IIIED[3 got paid by the County to manage the project. HII[D13 sub-contracted kith Reccclc llawai'i to operate and Recycle Hawaii suh- contracted with [fastness Services Hawaii to haul away collected commodities from Kea'au. It is not clear whether ~~deral requirements regarding competitivr hiddin~ for contracts were li~llowed. Stacy Higa, Chairman Page 6 September 13, 2005 Respunce: the sub-contracts behreen Recycle Hawaii and the HIF.DB includes HllD6's Pr~acuremew Standards ,for Federal Cranes and Contracl.r. These svandards cme based an federal grunt reyuiremenls OM6 C'ircuku~ .~-I10. Duri~rg the Jirsl nine months. Recycle Huirai'i partnered N~ith Business Serrices Huwui'i, Big Lsland Resource ('unsen~ution and Development ("6IRC&D"), and R('A(' in responding ro HLEDB's revues! ,frn° proposals. HlEDB ,folloxed all federal proctn~emenl standards' in selecting the Recycle Hutrai `i/Business ,~errfce.c llnu~ai'i/B[KC&D/XCA(' partnership. 3. Report Summary: 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. 'fhcrc was no way to track these claimed reuse items by Recvcle I [awai'i. Re.cpons~e: A.e purl n/ the demonstration, the prgjecl attemwed to ohlcrin u reasonable estimate of chat residents might offer, and take, for,free. The 123 nnas~ reported as diverted is a minimum, as funding did not allow full-lime slang to track ererv transaction. Knowing that exact data would not he generated, [he concept u~u.c tried anyway. Based on what wa.c tracked. this aspect gflhe program was a success. 4. Report Summary: "I~he cost of collecting conunodities at the Kea`au demonstration project was over $400 per ton. 'Phis figure was reached by dividing the total federal grant funds, less administrative costs. by the commodity tonnage claimed to have been diverted from the KRRC demonstration project. Response: besides admini.elrulire costs, .e/artup cos/s' (l. e.. fir site design and preparation. public education cmd outreach, consb•uclion of shelters, sh-ategir planning, etc.) shuald also lucre been reduced from the total.federcd grunt fiords before deler•mining the cosT/tan for diversion. h'urlher, as noted in laser reports, the percentage ofsolid trusle diverted /i~om the Kea'uu Transfer SYatior~ increased segue/icand}' u.e June ir~°nI on. Fur inslcmce,,fin~ the l8 monlhs.fi~llowing the end of~ the first gran) period (December 31. 2003), (his project directed ?.h09 tone fi~um the Keu'ou lroncjer .en~tinn. The /b/loo in~~r is a breakdown empho.eiaing major cost fuclnr.e. his' hr~aken dutirn torn direct co.e/s (col(eclinn, hauling, and processing o/~ recrcluhles~) and indirect costs Iuddin,~~ in .cite staffing, public education and oun~euch). The breakdown also hi,~~hli,~~h[s the high per inn cus7s' to rec_7'cle ,~lu.c.e cmd the Snne's Jimding far all gki.es rec_rcling. br all cures, cut.)' moue-r spent br thr ('otuui Direr•sion (.runt pru,~,runr jiu rerrcluhh~r rullerl~~d uI k~RR(' i.r included. :Ipril?003 Deceiuher?Or)3(f'ederulh-/iindedperiod) E.rchuling Uhis~s lCecirlin,~~ /.4tuh~ binulingl • Direr[ cacrs-9nn: $89.80 tS~l.l {<<. l~~-)].3_', tuns) • Direct and indirrrt iasl,vlnn_ $175 (SlGO.60,Y'9/~/.33 tons/ Stacy Riga, Chairman Page 7 September 13, 2005 Including Glus.c Rec.~xding (Stine Funding) • Direc! cns7s~/ton: $/10.59 (~101,66d.-F7/919.321ons) • Direct and indirect cu.cis/lora: $208 (5191,21-{/919.321ons) Jcrrn~ary 200-1- Derernber 200) (Cntmly-funded) Exchuling Glass Recycling (,titnte Finding • Direct cost.e/ton: $88.64 (SS13~,6>2.32/1~30.371ons) • Direct and inrlirerl rosla~/ton: $160 ($276, 9R0/173-1.3? tons) Including G/ass Rec.~~cling (.Slate Fundrng) • Direct costs/ton: $99.30 (Sl ~2.21~.32 /173-1.371ons) • Uirecl and indirect cn.et.r/ton: _ X181 (5313.513/173-1.37 Ionsy January 2001-./tme 200 /Coanry-fimc~led) L.YCluding Glass ]Zec.ycling (.S/a/e Funding • Direct co.el.c/Ion. includin; ul/ County Diin~rsion Grnnl funding: $91.46 ~3.83~.32/80'. l 9 Ions') • Direct and indirect cosl.e/(on. including ull County Diversion Grant funding. and Public ech~cu~ion: $166 /SI-FJ,153/87-J.S tons) Inrlading Gla.r.c Reca~rling (S(a[e Funding) • Direct costs//on, including all County Diversion Urunt funding: $96Jh B8-1.6-13 /b'7~.8 ion.~~l • Direct and indirerl ro.cls/inn, including all County Diversion Circrn! Ji[nding, Puhliceduculion: $178(SI»,9iIB?-l.Blons') 5. Report Summary: 'T'here was an actual increase of 100 tons per month in the scaled ronnaac that went into the South Hilo Landfill ti~om the Kea'au Transfer Station trailers during the first 1 ~ months of the KRRC project. Response: This phenonrenon ran he a[h•ibu~ed to a number of factors: • Afore rubhish bring generated b}' a grotring popululion • .4 hoonrin; econontr • People li-orn olhrr' urea.e ;oin; to the Keu'ua %7~un.cJer Slalian !o dispose o/~ [bete rahbi.ela n, iukr u~hanluge oflhe recyclingh~cuse center. Conrpuring .-lpril 2003 [hrough December 31, 200-1. (The lederu/lv-fi~ndcd grunt period) !o Juruuu_r 1. 200-1 ihroti~rh .lone 30, 20115. ~dlhoii;h the Keu'uu lran.e/cr .eut/ion .chaired a increu,~e /10(I /on~eJ iu the ,Sou/!r /lilo Lund~l/. Nte tu'n clu.ces! rural n~unsfer s[a~ion.c, Puhnu curd (!]rnirnnd. ro.ee hr !5°~, cold l~'%, reepeclirejr. The II~U you orerull ricr u/ Acu'un relleci.~ dnu Nx~ Puna region i.r growing rei_r yriirkh~ compcn~ed /u a~hrr cu~eue of the i.alund, and the ~l% inrrectre, as' opposed (o the 1~`% and nlliro nei;rhhoein,~~ h~ans~er s~u~ionc..chou~.e ~luu the h7tKC projrr! Stacy I liga, Chairman Page 8 September 13, ?005 is making a difference Due to the KRRC' project, the Kea'au Irun.rfer staliorr is al.ca receiving mare volume of hush overall. People who rwrmally visit other harsfer s7alions are notir goin,~~ /o the Kea'un h~ansfer .elation to recycle and dump (heir lra.eh. 6. Report Summary: There was no measurable diversion of refuse fiom the South 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. Response: The goal of the pilot project wcrs m measure diversion al a rural Transfer station. The Ken'cur Transfer .claliorr uccoun~s for no more Than 3% of al/hash going [o the .Soidh Hilo Lcmdfi//. h shoald not he concluded Thal as increase of overcdl unmuge al the South Hilu Landfill negates real gain.e in diversion crI the Kea'at horsier s7alion. 7. Report Summary: 'The final report on the demonstration project, "Strategic Plan for Sustaining and Re~hicatine the Kea'au Recyclingand Reuse Center' is misleading iu its overly optimistic interpretations of accomplishments and questionable conclusions. Reepon.ce: The Shalegic Plat eras prepared by the HIEDB through the RCAC. Thor°e are rum}' wa}~s of looking cu the costs of the KRRC. To gauge hotir a similar profec( might impact Ike DEM's budge/, the costs r(irecll}~ athibutah7e Io collection al and haulin ~ fi~om the Keu'au hcrnsfer-.claion .tile 10 the pre-exi.c~ing Hrlo .cite here meu.eured. Costs to the Cuurtty'.e rai.ciinggreen wa.~7e and scretp meta! vendors were not added becuu.ee those conhucLe mere price-terra agreements bused on the vendor proce.esing all incoming materials al cr set fee per ton. The report conclude,+' Iha/ /he overage cos( fnr• materials dicerled from the South Hi/o Lcmdfrfl eras S-~.61i per Ion. Using the some criteria and adding in Counlj~ processing cos Lc fnr ,~~reenu~a.c[e and .coup metal (rur l)irereion (ircm( funding aced), we arrive a[ a per ion ru.rl uf5/10..50 dm~in~=the initial phase of~Ihe pilot projerl. K. Report Summary: shout 60% - 70% of all materials claimed to have been collected in Kaiau were Green ~+aste and scrap metal. Kespun.ce: l)ue in tic cunreniencr, it can he cunchtdec! Ihul green u'u.e[e and scrap mewl were hcin~~ dropped off at dre IiRIZC rather !hart in Hilo ur ul dre tiIZK(~ rather shun in a rucun[ luI or the side of (he rood. ll shurr/d also he Holed lira[ the nti.~~ uf.calid irer,~7e /turn huacfer.c/uliorrs i,e different [has ul the landfill. la the !6'u,Ve ('antpo,crlion Snub perfrn~nx~d hr the ('u.ccudiu Cun.eullin,<, Group in :Ipril,~.tlgi' ?001. rhr,euh.cel of hunsJrr.+~ulion.c.choired 9.-% wa,cprunir;s~.e and leure~~;kruc.e. The .art/- haul loads. indiriduul uurk,c cumir~~ dirccd.r Ia the land/ill ul llihr..ehou~ed 1'%~, in Stacy Higa, Chairman Page 9 September 13, ?005 lhe.ee categories oral the overage of all !Duds mensz~red tiros 6.-F"%. ll is no( a sarprise Thal greemra.ti~Ie comprised such a high percentage of'~he KRRC rec~rlubles. 9. Report Summary: During the County-funded portion of the Kea'au demonstration project. Recycle }fawai'i claimed almost twice as much tonnage collected than under the federal-funded portion ofthe project. Res7uince: Monthly increases in umounis recycled in~ere the most dramatic rn the find nine months, but the prajec7 hu.e .ehmrn steady increases orer lime For example, in the firs/ nine months. Nye recycled amonnls averaged 102 lon.c. Hoirever. by December 2003. 1-!l Inns/mon/lr mere collected. hlonihly urernges /br 200=! here 1-l-1 tons/month and 2005 averages were 7-16 ronshnunth. While This isn't tx°ice us roach, it is signi/icantly more. Thrs should he viewed as a sign of continuing u~nununily uccepumce for the fariliiv and the Bernice it provide.e. The project is success~fid in ihi.ti~regcn•d. 10. Report Summary: 'hhere is no way to clearly determine whether the County's hauling contractor also charged the County's Diversion Credit Program for the material collected at Kea'au. 'hhis would involve getting paid for hauling the material from Kca'au then claiming the tonnage for a diversion payment. This was against the terms of the I IIEDB/Recycle Hawaii contract for the demonstration project. Re.vponse: Bus~rne.cs~ Services Hcnraf'i. the conh~acicd hauler. submitted ul1 their collected irefghts far un~~ commodity Ihul yucrlified ji~r County Diversion Grunt fmuling. The! also identified inhere the recyclubles here collected. Ater the >LRRC atnounls N•ere verified by Recycle Hcnrui'i .clcff. Nx County stgJfthen .ruhh-acled the h"RR(~ umounLe fi•um the total and paid them uccordin,~~l~=. Terms of~ the ll/I:DB/IZecvcle Hcnrui'i canh•acI here not viololed. 11. Report Summary: Recycle Ilawai`i, anon-profit agency. has created afor-profit business at the KRRC un county-leased land with the County~s approval. 'hhc non- profit agency has established a "donation" system for used household items brought into the reuse area and operates a °garuge sale' type operation every two weeks to raise funds. In fiscal year 'U4-'US the organization claimed over $20,000 in income. Copies of necessary permits for this operation could not he obtained from the DI~.M for inspection. It is not clear how the funds I~rom donations and sales were spent h}~ Recycle Hawaii. Rc.epan.ee: ~1loner generated Ji am donations and sale of reuse item,c iru.r used ro eupport the ednculionul progrunze und.eite intproremenls al the tiRRC. 7'he Cotmtr /pus .eupported the reu,ce rewrr oa a /air-co.ei educulional ef1~»'I, hecottse i[ e.vpeciolh oln~art.r re~~identc irho ore not in ihr hohil uJ rec}r1in,~c The County ~.e permit n~ith the ,Stun' D(JIl Jar uperatiun.e cu h~eu'nn '/i~an.cJ<~r S7ation n'u.c modified to u/lair the pihu pre~~~rcun',+ eullectiau.v ~md urtiritic~. PermiCe irrre uai required of Rec_rele lknrui ~i. Stacy Higa, Chairman Pale 10 September 13, 2005 Thcv here auihori_ed to ~m~rv aui income-generatinx activities Ihr-ouxh Ihei~~ contract. In its proposal,~i~r the operation of a recycling and reuse.faci7iry. Recycle Hairai'i clearly .elated tha( ii irnuld accept donations as Hell as offer reuse stern.+~ ji~r .tale to w~pporl this program. Although ~1-1,-100 in project income was originally projected, actual collet(ions were higher. I! ti<•ould have been appropriate,for the con(rarlor to obtain written apprnrul,fi~om the DEM.for /he use fir any income in erces.r of Ihi.c amornvt if the re were plane to spend the excess. 12. Report Summary: The County has established a system of preset monthly payments to Recycle } tawai'i tier the continuation of the KRRC project instead of payment for work accomplished. Response: %~he conn~uc! rrilh Recycle HuN~ai `i .epecifies that invoices shall be hroke~t down inro tiro components: collection and hauling, and adminish•utii~e. Collection and hcmling shall he irrnniced on the basis ojsccaled ia~eigla[ tickets crud charged ut the per Ion collet(ion and hauling rates. The report correctly slated (hat precel monthly payments bare been mode (1/12 of Iota/ Bran/). phis was done in error and trill be corrected in the frrhn~e. li. Report Summary: The total recycling eltort by the DEM in PY04, not counting green waste and scrap metal, was approximately 3%. The total recycling effort by the DEM in the lust half of I~Y05, not counting green waste and scrap metal, was approximately 5%. Response: /I is rery appropriate to include greenwasle and scrap metal in amourns rec_cled and dii~erhd. /n Fl"0-l, greernras4e n~as 46.91 % and scrap mesa/ irus 3'. /8°~> of all recyckrbles for aIota/ of b'-F.09%. /n FYO.i, greemraste was 62% cmd scrap metal was LY.X`;6 Jin• a wlal of R0.8°~,. Other materfuLs recycled. then, wa.c 1~. J1 % and 19.2"/<,, rr.~peclirely. l! is Irne Iha! greenwas7e and scrap metal can impart direr.eion data. a.e Drell u.c landfill air space, significantly. 14. Report Summary: ~fhe 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 islands landfills. [3ecausc the vast majority of the daimal recycled tonnage is green waste and scrap metal. the average leads to skewed results. h;ach commodity should stand al~~ne as far as tonnage and with its oven costs. Ke.epuns~e: .Iceor~li~~~= In the DEAI Director, each connnodily is' bucked h>> irei,~~h/ and cns~. %hr.e informu~iun u'ae uh~eac/p prurided ro both the ('ouncil ('omntiNee nit Finance and the ('nrmm ('leek uu Juh~ ?t)Ih. Stacy Higa, Chairman Page 1 I September 13, 2005 15. Report Summary: 11ic cost of diversion and recycling during FY05 (FY04'?). counting green waste and scrap metal, was over $2.5 million. The cost of recycling and diversion for PY05, counting green waste and scrap metal, was almost $3?7 million. Response: Both recvrlin;/drversion c~nd landJilling {rcrve associated ros(s. Any increu.ce in Ike cost of diversion and recycling dUrir~g FY05 is related to the increase in die voh~me of mulerials~ recycled cmd diverted from the South Hilo Landfill. From the Report Conclusions • Report Conclusion: This demonstration project can best be described as a very expensive attraction when measured against claimed tonnage collected. A federal grant cost of $400,000 and a claimed collected tonnage of 920 tons resulted in a per ton cost of approximately $435. Response: .4s prerion.dy siuled, besides adrninislralire costs, startup costs (i. e, .Ji~r sire design a~td preparation, public educulion and oulrench, cons ruction of'shellers~. strategic plcrnvnng. elc.l should also /rove been redieced frorn the !olal,federcrl gra3d frmds beJin~e delerrrrining [he ~o.ct/lun.for diversion. h'urther, as no/ed in lcder reports, the diversion amount increased drumcilically as Lime ireni on. For in.c/once. /nr the !8 months fi~lloiring the end of the firs( grant period (December 31. 20031. Ibis project diverted 2,<09 tons from the KRRC. The Intel c o.c( per lo~a of diversion /i~nnt ~{~te ItKR(' tras 5!3'.20/Ion (,~3~,', 961/261/9). • Report Conclusion: The demonstration project from April 2003 to December 2003 attracted various commodities, including an excessis~e amount of green waste and scrap metal ti~om sources other than those that historically used the transfer stations in lower Puna. Response: Due !n its rnnrer~ie~rce, it can he cunt/uded ll~m/ green irasle and scrap naetul irerc heing dropped ofJ at the KRRC rather than in Hilo - or ul the KRK(' tether than in a vacarl~ lnt or the .vide nfihe road. • Report Conclusion: The project did not cause a measurable diversion of refuse from the South Milo Landfill waste stream as claimed. Records of tonnage from the Kca'au Transfer Station trailers actually sho~i•ed an increase of refuse tonnage hauled to the South Hilo Landfill during the demonstration project. Rrspoase: l~here nrr rurina~~ re~~~an,r n~lt~~ innuu,~~r /ivmi the keu'an ~l7~uu.efer,S[alinn ~railcr~v nun burr incr~u.ird dru~im~ the d<~~uuns~ru[inn period !1'r~hout ~hr project. Ihr inc~recece nwuld rrr~uin/r burr h~-en highrr. Stacy Higa. Chairman Pace IZ September 13, 2005 As .elated preciously', Ibis phenomenon can be attributed to a nnrnher o/~~Lc(ors - more rubbish being generated by a growing population, a booming economy, and that Jhc! Thal people irho,Jbrnrerly visited other [ransler sR~(ions nre noun going /o the Kea'att h~ansfer station to rervcle and dump /heir (rash. • Report Conclusion: ~I~hc DEM was not given scale tickets or tonnage reports during the demonstration project to match the invoices and payments. "hhe County as the grantee of the federal project fw~ds had financial responsibility for assurance and oversight on this federal demonstration project. There was no assurance that federal guidelines related to competitive procurement were followed. Kespons'e: 9s previou.ely a'loled, ull reyues7ed .ecule tickets and the reuse logs fi~ona the KR2C hove been delivered to the County Clerk n.r q~~Augus( 17. ?005. AIlhoi~gh The Cot+nlv's nu~morcmdum oJ~ugreemenl rrilh the H/EDl3 did not regt~irc reconciling scale licks is. the HLEDl3 .cuh-contract with Recycle Hau~ai'i redirired the maintenance of "cnmplele and uccura/e recorde.'~ and [he soh-conlruct hetm~een Recycle Krnrai'i and Business .Scrvice.e HaN~ui'i reyulred submission of ireisrhl/yuanliir reeeip[s. None o(lhese receip~.e x~ere rer/uired to be s~en1 to the DE,l1. The sub-conn~aci be[rreen Recycle Huu~ai'i and the HIED6 inclades HIED/3 '.r Procurement ,Slandurdr fir Federal Grants and Conlrnc~s. These s7cndards nre hnsed on federal gra~rt reyuirements and u-ere folloired in the procurement of sen~icac provided by Recycle Uairai'i. • Report Conclusion: There was no way to track the claimed reuse tonnage with no scale tickets and only hand written logs. The logs were turned over for assessment two years after the claims were made. Response: There m~u.c no conh~ociaul reyulrenenl /br the fl/ED/3 or Rec~~cle Hoirni'i to submit scale [ickcl.e In the DEAD. (Please .eee ubore response.) • Report Conclusion: Glowing reports of the project accomplishments and cost can be found in the linal prgjcct report, "Strat~ic Plan ~~~r Sustaining and Replicating the Kea'au Recycli~ and Reuse Ccnter.° This report should be reviewed for accuracy. Rerponae: The rc°por~ hu.c ulreualr been reviewed and is ynile fi unk In inc~u uwrked and u~hul did nol_ I1'r recnnuncnd Ihul tipeciJic acrornpli.elmren~.c and ru.e[.c rn yu~~c[ian are pointed ou! prior ro ihe.final cruluuliun reparl.cn upprupriaie to/loir-np can he pc'r/brined. • Report Conclusion: Recycle Iluwai'i claimed almost hvice as much tonnage collected from the hRRC project in I'Y0~ than the pre~~ious year. IL is nut clear ~~hy this occurred. Stacy Higa, Chairman Pale 13 September 13, 2005 Reepons~e: As previunsly staled, there was a consi.clenl increase in collectibles every moralh during [he federally.fanded portion oflhe pilot pr~jecl. Since January 200-1 the monthly amounts have groan more modes7ly. The average monthly collet[ions have grown from to l-l6 tans. This should fie viewed as u sign of continuing community acceptance for the facility and the service ii provides, a ;rowing population and econum}', and a successful project. Again, due to the KRRC' projec/. /he Kea'nu transfer a~rulion is also receiving= more volume of tru.ch overall. People who no~mall}' >>isii other Iran.cfer s7alions cn~e nnir going to the Kea'au brans/er s7rdion ro recycle and dumb !heir tru.ch. • Report Conclusion: There was no measurable diversion from the waste stream tonnage entering the South Llilo Landfill from the phase of the KRRC project following the demonstration period. Resporae: Appurenll~, this conclusion is based on Summary .e/ntement #5 Ihcu indicated thus (here was un actual increase of 100 tons per month in the scaled lonnag~e Thal iren/ imo the South Hilo Lanz!/ill from the Kea'au Transfer Station trailers during the fir.rl months of the KRRC project As preciously slulecf, lhi.c could be ath~ibuled to a mnnber of fnclonc - rnor°e rubbish being genera[ed by u groiring populrr/ion. a booming economp, rrnd people .from o/her crreu~s being ul~racled In the keu'nu l7~unsfer Slulion by the recyclbrg and reuse center. • Report Conclusion: The operators of this project began to generate income for themselves by operating a donation and reuse sale business on County leased property. The County subsidized Recycle Hawaii and paid them a set monthly payrncnt without requiring documentation as outlined in contract 2127. The contract makes specific references to back up material required to measure monthly accomplishments. Response: 1s staled preriuu.ely, the collection of income from /his project wu.c legiliimue and accep/able, up /n ~l /,-100. Although noI illegal. income collected and spent he}'and this anunml should hove been approred in writing by /he DF.tiI first. Pct~'menLti~ to Rec~rle Ilrnrai'i on il.c con/rucl relating to RF/' #?l27 should bare been bused nn ruse reimbursement. rather (hint nn a percent o/~iatal award F~uhn~e runh~ac/ puvmem.c will he hu.ccd nn the method of rompeneatian preerribed in [he rc.vpeclire ronlruc(. • Report Conclusion: Besides the grant from the County to R~cecle Ilawai'i ibr operating the KRRC. the I~I?M also provided $24,000 for paving a portion of the site. Recede I la~sai'i generated over `20.000 in income during the post dcnumsu<~tion proi~ct period. It is not clear hoc this money was spent. Stacy I Iiga, Chairman Pale ld September I 3005 Response: T{~e 52-1,000 frees aced ro consiritc[ .cite improvements nece.csn~y= fir the sq~e operation of the jircility. The 520, 000 was used,Jor public education and further rile irnprm~ements. • Report Conclusion: As in the demonstration project. there was no way to track and confirm claimed tomiage from the reuse activity or the claimed tonnage trom newspapers. Nearly two years after the invoices were paid by the DGM, the DEM finally asked for copies of scaled weight tickets. Response: The DE.A1 relied on the reports .cabmi[ted by the contractor, cr.c required in the contract. There irus nu rc yuiremenl fir the conlructor to turn in n~eight ficket.c to the DEM. l'hese neigh[ tickets mere kept by the eontractor should verification he neces.earv. • Report Conclusion: Recycling is very expensive and cannot stand alone without a Cowrty subsidy. Recycling as we now experience it, does not create a measurable difference in reducing the County's waste stream. Response: landjilling loo cannot stand alone iri[hout a ('oun[y scd~sidy. if ire cue In compare one cos! frith the ocher, culcula/ions .rhnadd be uniformly done. 13u1 as disru.csed curlier, because [here is di.ecrgreemenl about the method to calculate the cost of recycling us hell as Nte rationale used to quantify the amount kept out oJ~the C'utmiy's' waste stream, ire certuinl~~ Luke issue milh [he cost/fieneJit analy.cec performed. Recycling, as described in the LSWAtP..rhould continue to be pursued. /I is imporicnu to Hole, hotrever. Ihul a major purpa.ce for dirersron i.c to emend the lrte of the .South Hilo Land/ill. and delay and recGtce long hauling to If'eet //uuai'i and uliimuteh~. to er[end the life gfrhe ]crncl~ill ai Pn'uanahuht. • Report Conclusion: "The Strategic Plvi for replicating the Kea'au Recvcling and Reuse Center" is very ambitious and will he very expensive to implement and operate. The finding is completely dependent on the County. Response: Arty upliun iri// be rei'i' erprneire lu intplentent ctnd operate. includinr,~ land/filling Un/il the n~i~e rase afeuch method is ohjectirely and tutifonuly ~ma/t~=ed, it uv~uld he un/iiir In rompurc Hue u~i[h [hc other. • Report Conclusion: ~I he anticipated recycling accomplishments for the planned enhanced transt~r stations are not icithin a reasonable association with the Counh s Waste Composition Suuh~. "hhe quantity of collected green waste and scrap metal at the KKRC was not t_spical of the pa~ccntagcs of those commodities deposited in the South 11i1o Landfill. Re~punse: phis uvndd hr e.cprcled hccau.ce rural areas pure diJ/creel deeds./i~om nlhrr areas a/the i.~~lunJ- .-Is preriuieah~ menliane~l. in the !['usle ('ompocition .S7udr, Stacy Higa, Chairman Page I S September 13, 2005 the .cub-set of U~an.eJer .c7alions shorn ed 9.7% m as prunings and leaves/grucs. The self-haul loads, indiriduul !rucks coining directly to the landfill aI Hilo. shoired only I in These calegorie.c and the overage of all loads measured was h.-!%. • Report Conclusion: The plans for establishing enhanced and reconfigured transfer stations throughout the island are hound in the study "Strategic Plan for Sustaining and Re hp 'catin~ the Kea'au Recycling_ and Reuse Ceuter." Based on the KRRC report, these plans are not reasonably workable or economically feasible to rate a top priority in the scope of the DEM~s implementation plan. Resj~once: 7~he KRR(' concept is jus! one purl of DEM's cornprehensii>e plan to uddres~.c solid trcrsve numugeinent concern.c_ I! is not a [op prioriry_ As more esperienre i.c gained m~i[h the KR2(' model. the i.clund-m~ide recycling programs are chungin~r fir the be![er. From the Conclusions: • Chapter I, Part III Conclusion: ''The Strategic Plan for replicatine the Kea`au Recycling and Reuse C`enter~ is very ambitious and will be very expensive to implement and operate. The funding is completely dependent on the County. Response: if the method used b}' the eva[t~a(oi~ /o culcula/e cos'//henefil is appropriate, then it Ls aii e_c~pen.cire program. Hou~erer. use disagree Ihat Iota! fzmding and Ionnuge fns ibe pilni~cfenianslra[ion phase fs cm appropriu7e may lu eruluuie eo,el/henefil. Cltapler Pnr/ 1 Reeommenr/alion 1. Recommendation: ]t is recommended that an independent compliance audit be undertaken on the County funded portion of the project. ~fhis audit should cover the time period from .lulu 2004 to .tune 2005. Re.cpuns~e: Ar~r independeii/ compliance uiidil m~oidd he rrelcunied. Clxrpler Part Recommendations I. Recommendation: Undertake an audit on the DIM's budget with the objective of identi~~~ing how manr~ contracts and how much money is being given to Kccycic I lawai'i. and most irnport. cshat is the measurable benelit to the County. R~~vponce 77tis sounds mare like a ~~ro,~>rum rrulua[ion than cm cmdi[. //u~rerer. ihi.~ i c irelrunicd ae hell. IZcamuncndation: l4~dcrtakc an impartial team assessment of the l)I?NI to: Stacy Higa, Chairman Page I6 September 13. 3005 • Im~estigate how much is being spent on recycling and what the cost to benefit ratio is. Answer the questions, a) "Why is the major emphasis of the DEM on recycling?'~ b) "Is the emphasis on recycling causing major problems with ignoring facility maintenance?" c) "Is the emphasis on recycling causing internal morale problems within the Solid Waste Division reflected in high absenteeism and excessive overtime?~~ • Investigate whether the function of the Recycle Coordinator can best be utilized to take over the contracted functions of Recycle Hawaii. • Investigate whether the Diversion Credit program can be modified or eliminated to allow recycling of selected products to pay their own way. For example, ifthc State HIS program pays 5 cents for redeeming a plastic water bottle, the County should not he involved in paying $160 or $200 per ton as a diversion credit for plastic. Response: We n~elcome un independent irnparlial asses:emenl /hot unstrera~ the fnllnN~ing c~ieesiione - u/ N~'huI is the DCM n~orking on ro address the County's solid irasve issrees, and rnc~ri role dne.c recycling play in leis Ductal[ program? h) Are there facAily rnainlenunce is.eues in (he DErLI, and if so, what is the cause ~J these issue,c and hots can ihe~~ he addressed? r) Are !here internal morale problems in she DE.t9 and iJ so, whin i.c the roast and hair cart Ihey he addressed? Regarding the Direr.eion Crcdil pr~i~~rnm cmd the S'ta~e'e~ Hh program, the diversion credit is only paid nn i~em.+' Thai are nn! entered h~. the HIJ program. Also the State re/imds five cenl.e for /he deposit trod three cents on the neighfior islundc fir proces.ti~ing/or each yaalijied rcdernp(ion container. Listing ojRecomrnendnlions I. Recommendation: Improve procedures to kccp accurate scale ticket tonnage and logs at the Landfill and ensure that no alterations are made to the tickets after weight is recorded. Response: The Dull will conlim~e In review stale ticket tonnage cmd will make improvements n~here ncres.em.v. The DErl9 uses certified s~rulec, adibruled unnuullr. u~ curb /andtill. The xo%hrure /i~r Nie scales records the u~cighl nJthe rehiclc un the ec~de. .Ilthoa,~h nnt~~aul, oltrruliona~ to the sco/ed ireighls mr~.cl be bond-u~ri~[en on the sru/c iirkel and nurnuullr rrrordcd. I4'c feel /haI Niece procedures are udcya~ur. Recommendation: Impro~c proccdure> to kccp accurate scale tonnage records for rccsclablc conunoditics_ Stacy Higa, Chufrmun Page 17 September 13, 2005 Respnn,ce: T/ae DEA4 wit/ continue to back scaled lomiage recor-efe.fi~r recyclable comrnodilies scaled a! the landfill. The DEM will review sccde ticket tonnage and lob procedures fr>r commadilie.x /hut are scaled on other cerlijied scales and mill make imprnnemenLs where nece.rscny. 3. Recommendation: Improve procedures tar monitoring Use invoice claims to continued tonnage claims for recyclable commodities. Response: the DE,Lf frill continue m require scale trcke[s or other uppropricrte docrnnenlutron for all n°eigly-hosed invoice claims Ji~r recyclable cnmmodi/ies. The DEM will inaplemenl new procedures [a ensure requirements are met. 4. Recommendation: Appropriate scale must be used to accurately record and register all tonnage for the Landlill and recyclable commodities. A bathroom scale is not an appropriate scale. Response: CeriiJied .realer are used !o record ul/ tonnage Jar the Landfill arld mos7 recrcluhle cummoditie.c which m•e subject Io weigh[-based billing ar charges to the Counlt~. A doctor's type scale Ls used u/ KRRC Jor reuse items only. The reuse pr~~g>rum is ce free program to drop and lake used items. While donations are N~elcome fin- items [uken, there are nn billi~ags~ to the °cuslorner" or charges /o the Cnunli~ based on the u=ei,g~bu of Ihe.re items. The ernle.far the reuse program i.c merel~~ In proride es(inurted ytutnlilies, us i/ would fie imprac/tent to head !here ilent,c to a cerii/fed scale. li'e fee/ Ihal this is a reusonuble medx~d oJoperalion.c. 5. Recommendation: Insure that contracted companies do not claim recycled tonnage for diversion credit. Response: ('un~enl conlrucls svrch as the one for KRRC' are fir serrices In operate the furilrty curd includes costs such us proi~iding receplucles, healing cannnudiliac, and muiniainirrg Nye rerepiurles. %~he ronb~ncled ra/es are hosed au the expecluliu~a than rectr[er.c will apply for applicable diversion gran) credits to /n-ocess she connnudi[ies. pleuae also refer [o #l0 from /he Report Rummcny regarding Ihr conh~ucl during the Federal (rani period. 6. Recommendation: Ensure that the diversion credit paid per tonnage fbr each commodity during each month is assessed according to the established rates. Re.rpaase: (7uints madr,ji~r direr~~ian ;u~ums are reriJicd with .crate licket,c or usher upproprict/e dorruneniulinn swch us shipping muni/esla~ or .rules order to and end rnurke~. and are paid in urcurdunre~ u~iih the runu~ac~ed rules. The l)FS9 frill cnmimre ~o r~°rieu~ ihe~e claims lur ductanenkuion cold uccarurr. (!'e feel ~hi,~ prorrdurr is udrquwr- Stacy Higa, Chairman Page 18 September 13, 2005 7. Recommendation: Ensure competitive bidding process is instituted on all contracted County ofHawai'ijohs. Response: Compe/i/ine hidding is fnllon~ed, excep( inhere an RFP process i.c ulloired hosed on Stole procureme~zl luir.c. 8. Recommendation: Contracted companies should not be allowed to sell items on County of Hawaii property without a contract. Recportse: all scile.e mere clone under a unlit/ conirucl. 9. Recommendation: Scrutinize the awarding of bids through the DEM so that conflict of interest question could not he made. Rea7x~nse: The h'inurrce !)epurlmcra! mill con[inae to ensure Ihcn all bids are legal and elhrcul. 10. Recommendation: Ensure that contract awards through the DEM follow proper procurement procedures. Response: The Ffnu~~re Depurlmerrl will continue to enszme ~hn( all bids are legal and L'lh7Ca~. 11. Recommendation: Revicvv grant contracts that the DGM has with other reccclers to see if the resale of reuse commodities for profit is allowable. Re.cpon.ce: Allhnttgh projer[ income is uNou~ab/e, the DE;M n~lll ensure /hut contracts reflect uccuru~c colleclion.c a~ul expenses'. 12. Recommendation: Improve on the accountability of costs relating to education workshops. site developments. hauling of various commodities and collecting of commodities for the DGM. Response: The DES/ will rerieu~ finuncicd reporting prncedttres to ens~ru~e ucrtmuct~ and uccounlubilih~ in each of[he urea,c li.cled. Cle~ler I, Parf III Recnn~nrendations I. Recommendation: The County should reevaluate the proposals for recycling tbund in the updated ISw'VIP. This evaluation should review past results of commodity collection and the cost to the County for each commodity collected. Re~y~uuse: The l)L'9/ roadr~c[x .rnrh ~m eruhiulion ue ~!uri nfiLe ongain~~~ reririr u/ the pru,Lrurn. Stacy Higa, Chairman Page 19 September 13, 3005 2. Funding for the County~s Diversion Grant Program should be evaluated and not increased, as proposed in the [SWMP. to cover the cost of collecting commodities at the transfer stations. RecPonse: The DL'M e~~uh~ale.r the ('ouniy'.r Dirersiore Grant Program as purl of nnQoinK operulio~zc. THE SONT STATION (CHAPTER 11) The South Hilo Landfill is expected to reach pennittcd capacity in March 2006. According to the (SWMP, the only feasible alternative for management of the non-recycled part of the waste stream will be disposal ut the landfill in West Hawaii. In the present collection and transportation system, waste from nine transfer stations is hauled to the South Hilo Landfill. As 70% of this waste is generated in the Hilo, Kea'au, and Pahoa areas, handling and transportation costs can be minimized with the use of a Sort Station. I'he DGM is proceeding with plans for du design and construction of a Sort Station in Hilo. 'fhe main purpose of this facility will be to receive the waste stream that now is deposited in the South Hilo landfill and consolidate it fbr truck transport to Pu`uanahulu Landfill The proposed Sort Station complex includes: • Public recycling center • Bottle bill redemption huilding • Sitc prep for these items, utilities,infiashicture, contingencies • Scale house • Reload building • DOGS (tats, oils, greases) collection • ~Ahandoned vehicle impound yard • Site prep 1hr these items, utilities, infrastructure, contingencies The proposed Sort Station complex was originally intended to be in four phases, but onl}' some of the originally planned components arc being proposed at this time. Although $4 million funding has been approved, additional Binding of $4 million has not. Sort Station Evaluation The Ibllu~~ing responds to the Report Summary and Conclusions of the evaluation of the Sort Station: •um the Keport Sumnun~~ 16. Report Snnunar~: l~he Sort Station identities its first phase, and prime objectiac, as the rec~clin reuse. educu~ional area. ~fhis is not the prime ohjecti~e. The prime objectice of Stacy Higa, Chairman Paige 20 September 13, 2005 the centralised refuse facility should be a regional transfer station, an employee base yard. and a vehicle maintenance facility. 'fhe Sort Station should be redesigned to separate the diversion/education from the scale and transfer station (reload facility). Response: The Sarl ,SYa[ion is a cenh~al part of the ('nunh°'s recycling trod resource recovery campaign. Recycling, reuse, and education is no! the prime objective ~~~lhe.facilifv. The /ocas ofotm effor/s i.c un creating an inlegruled.farilr/y' Ihal maximizes dimrsion Ji•om an~~ lund~ill while providin,,r a convenient .cite fir commercial and re.cidenlicrl entities ro dispose of /heir i°ubbish. These hn~u goals must be developed hand-in-hand. There is an urgency to ge! the reload building conshvcled becca~se of the eveniurrl closure of the Hilu Land/ill. and Thal is n try the C'/P ap~n'opria(iort bit! for an ctddilional Y-F rrtillion for the Sorl ,41ctlion ha.c been resubmirled~br poar approval. The Adrninistration i.e proposing ficonsolidate /he.fin~nter Phases L & IL inm one projec/. The reload facility mill be huih in the initial conrtruclion. Funding Ji~r the cons~alidaled projec! is estrrnaled to ros/ YX million. !Funding for Phases /I/and /G rrill not he pursued al this lime. 17. Report Swmnary°: "1'hc County has placed complete dependence on the Department of Health for approving an operational extension for the South Hilo Landfill. No facilities are in place to handle the function of the South Hilo Landfill, and as such, the Count}~ will be faced with hauling all Gast Hawaii refuse to Pri uanahulu from each transfer station. It is not clear whether the existing trailers, truck tractors or the existing manpower can handle this hmction. Reepanse: The urbninish•alion cmd the DEM hcrve placed dependence nn: diversion to expend the lfJe of the ,Coulh Hilo 1 andfill; (he development of [he ,Sort S~a[ion rumples: the implemen/ctlinrl of un appropria/e u~asle reduc/ion lechnologi; and lung hauli~lg i~~ necess~aiy in on interim period. .9ppropria[e eyt~ipmenl will be ordered, based on the nu[rome oflhe upprnpricdion reyuecl.far the ~-l million needed for the Snrl Slulion cnntplex. Front Nre Report_Corzc•lusions • Report Conclusion: ~hhe present layout of the Sorl Station facilit}~ should he revised. Sec Narrative, Chapter I. Re,cponre: l~he revised lurou[ cuuh! not be found in the narrative in ('hap~er L Hoirerer, /here urr propaced rerisia~is in ('hctp~er ll. 77iere ma}' be a~nme mi,~~rmder~~7undin~~. Please sec' ~hr l)li,1f re.vpunse !n ('uimril 17ce ('hair Lshe/]'s h°!!er doled Jtdv l9, ?OOi. Report Conclusion: l~he tact. of implementation of the ISW'N1P. in con,junetiun scith the imminent closure ~~fthe South I lilo Landlill ssithout a replacement I~uilih or technology is a Count} disaster ssaitin_~ to happen. Stacy Higa. Chairman Page 21 September 13, 2005 Ra~~ponse: 6Ve agree. and bare been doing ever}~~hing poss~ihle to gel the Sorb ~S[alinn corraplex fully /imded (up lu Phase IL). the RFP for the waste reduction iechno/ogn i.cs~red. and a suitable lrasie reduction Iechnolosy to implemen~atior~. • Report Conclusion: The possible error in interpreting the intent of the ISWMP, and its mention of intensified or aggressive recycling, may have led the DEM to follow a direction away from addressing the real problems of solid waste. Ke.eponse: 7~he ISI~',b/P articulates very clearly the components of un "intensified or aK,~re.ca~ire" rec~~cling pro,~~rum. 6~e do not believe i! bus been misinterpreted. Recvcling is only one cornpnneni of mhal the adminrstrulion has been morking to do. Clia~ler I/ Reconlmendalions 1. Recommendation: The site layout or placement of facilities in the Sort Station, should be redesigned. The layout should concentrate on placing the hard facilities such as the scale, the reload facility (transfer station), the vehicle maintenance facility, the employee base yard frcility, and a set aside area for the waste reduction facility in one nodule. Reepon.ce: We believe the luroai a.r dea~igned is efficient and effectire. Huu~erer, ire ore milling to consider these recmrunendalions. 2. Recommendation: "the site layout should gather education commodity drop off/reuse area, the green waste collection and processing area and the scrap metal collection and processing area together in an adjacent nodule. Response: Theee rccomnu~ndatiorzc iril! be considered. 3. The DEM should ask fbr the release of the FY04 $4 million presently nn hold, fbr use in facility layout redesign. contracting for bringing utilities to the site, commencing site work. and constructing the scale and roadways. Response: The pre,cenl /ierrding of S-F million and the additional reyuec/ of S-l million ore nccersarr to urhiere a /i~llr /imrtruning reload and landfill dirersionh•eclrling conrples. . HI1.0 LANDFILL OPERATION AND CLOSURE, (CHAPTER III) The Department of [Icalth permit allows the ('ounty of Hawai'ii to continue using the South flilu Landfill until ~1arch 2006_ at which time it is expected to reach permitted capacity. "this unlined landtill was established in the 1970s betbre Federal regulation, governing landfills were in place. ~hhough unlined. no significant groundwater auuamination has bcu~ ddcctcd during yuartcri}' monitoring. S[acy Higa, Chairman Pace 32 September 13, 2005 Hawaii County planned to close the South Hilo Landfill in 1996, but the plan was not implemented. As of mid-2001, the remaining air space was approximately SOOA00 cubic yards, which was estimated to be enough for less than 2 years of operation at the current rate of waste disposal. According to the ISWMP, "The County of Hawaii would be wdl advised to conserve its landfill capacity and extend the life of its existing facilities as long as possible." Hilo Land611 Operation and Closure Evaluation I~hc following responds to the Conclusions of the evaluation of the Milo I,andtill Operation and Closure: • Report Conclusion: l~he County has known of the mandated closure of all unlined landfills, including the South Hilo Landfill, since the early 1990s. Kerpon.ce: True. • The County has continued to operate the Hilo Landfill with approval of the DOI t conditioned on the promise that the County work towards establishing a facility to replace the Junction of the South Hilo Landfill. The County has not provided for any system to replace the South Hilo I,andtill. Respun.ee: This udminislrulron hu.c been working rerv hard wi[h the Cnu~th~ Coarn~d to bane a sy.v/ern In ~~/ace Ihu/ conserves InradJill ecrpaciry crud reduces irnsle yin additional S-l million a/~propriallun jr~r the ,Sort Slulron has been suhnulied ~o the C'oimril. ry~r~ j~cessec, the DER-1 will be able In j~nl ils~ ,Sort Skrlion plans or~t n, bid and consh~ucl I<aereufier: un 2NP Ji~r wu.cle rer(uclion technology i.c also being dei~eloped: and the DEA4 i.e con[imiing [he KRRC' Project u.e a model to evenlnally apgrade solid irus7e h~an.vfer .e(a/inns loin comrnm~ily reel=cling centers. • The DEM has not operated the South I lilo Landoll in a conservative manner. Total airspace used in FY05 was about 30,000 cubic yards although the Solid Waste Division reported a rate of consumption to the DOH ot~ 179,000 cubic yards in the Consent Agreement. Re,cpun.ee: hi um the i~~fLrmulion proridcd, it i.c unclear hntr the aa[hor of the report tame [u the conch~siun~~ precenled. Tkere Ls no snpporlin,~= doctmtenluliun denronsb~cuin~~ how the ratios arc compnlcd. Uu :Iprrl 3<, ?001. rhr UU// prrformed a campliance ;nsprc/fort u/ Nye ,So~nh !/ilo Lune]/ill. 7~he ('oum.r bud hero rrnti,+~~~ nn Jrnu' ntojur nperulional areu.c. %~he ('aunlr way ciie~l jot burin; inudryrvuh~ unwun/.c o/ duilr Borer, cuu.eing heart Jlu;r~~i~t,;r un~l cepu,ved irun~r. Thiw n~uc u.~eriuns riuhniort. Stacy Higa, Chairman Page 23 September 13, 2005 A follow-up iraspec~ion u~u.c performed on Febr•ucrry !3, 2002. We pare since receihed Training and irorked tiriih the DOH to correct the .ciinaiion. We believe she DEM has operated the Sonlh Hilo Lcmdfil[ in n conservative manner, lrhirh has inholred increasing the amotenl of daily cover used us' re~~uired by DOH. This is consi.cicnt w~ilh comhl}~ing m~iN~ Slate mandated reyuiremen(s re/used to ~~ealdt and cafelS. Puhlic heal/{ and safety is of alrnost importance and properly cohered m~acle is critical io heahh and .cufell~. In addition. DEM has purchased fiase course fir the landfill area irnproheme~its Iha1 here not user~l as daily saver. • The closure of the South Hilo Landfill is imminent, cannot be ignored, and will cost the County approximately $13 to $IS million in closure construction costs and continued monitored for another 30 years. 2esponse: Trae, any/ the e.c/imate of S!3 !o $1~ mi//ion may ac/ually increase Dyer lime. STATUS OF THE INTF,GRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMF,NT PLAN (CHAPTER IV) "Phis chapter consists of a Table of Implementation showing the anticipated dates of completion of each of the recommended activities in the [SWMP. The evaluator should have this table updated for the final report. CONCLUSION 11ie Erniua/ion uf~ihe Deparpneni of~Environmenlal Management's Implernen~ation of [he L.SIY"tLiP certainly indicates that comrnunication between the administration and Council needs to be improved - to clear up misunderstandings and misconceptions; and to be able to work together as a team to effectively implement the components of the updated Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. ~/l/f1u!61nU! William "f~kaba, Dir' ec~o~' ec: Barbara Bell ~uachment: Response m qucs~ions posed by Council Vice Chair Isbell..luly 19. 200. \PPRO GD: ~1 tarry I~im. N vo