HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0614.001 2004-2006
~y : ~~:~f~a "t~V~~e
,'h9; "Keep4ng Hawaii Beautlful'"
~~yr
January 13, 2006
The Honorable Harry Kim
Mayor, Hawaii County
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
RE: Bioenergy Hawaii, LLC's
Proposal for the County of Hawaii
Concerning the Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste
Dear Mayor Kim:
Please find enclosed Bioenergy's proposal for a possible solution to the County of
Hawaii's solid waste problem. As you will note, copies of this proposal are being forwarded to
the County Council members. We look forward to hearing your comments regarding the same.
Please note that this Proposal is not intended as a response to the RFP recently issued.
Sincerely,
Guy i
General Manager
ec: County Council Mennbers
([Vote: Attached proposal is on file in the Clerk's Office.)
~ly•1
R~t To•N$r aae~ FMC?
~t~,:. ~a.~ JAN 1'~ 2006
.I c : z-r.~ ~a ,5~0 alapa ;tr.yr Kailua Xonp, NI ~F;nO ~90d~ 32E-d~~11 ~y^91 ?15 ~15~
PROPOSAL FOR
THE COUNTY OF HAWAII
CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL
OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Presented by
BIOENERGY HAWAII, LLC,
a Hawaii limited liability company
A PROPOSAL FOR THE COUNTY OF
HAWAII
CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL OF
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Presented by
BIOENERGY HAWAII, LLC,
a Hawaii limited liability company
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO COUNTY OF HAWAII
1. BACKGROUND: HAWAII ISLAND INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN 1-
1.1. DEVELOPMENT OF THE HAWAII ISLAND INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. - 1 -
1.2 CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN - 2 -
2. HILO LANDFH.L: HISTORIC OPERATION AND PLANNED CLOSURE 3 -
2.1. HISTORIC OPERATION - 3 -
2.2. HILO LANDFILL OPERATIONS ESTIMATED CLOSURE - 4 -
2.3. CURRENT COUNTY PLAN FOR FUNDING HILO LANDFILL CLOSURE . S -
3. BEH'S PROPOSAL 6 -
3.1 OVERVIEW OF BEH's PROPOSAL - 6 -
3.2. BEH WILL FUND AND OPERATE THE SOLID WASTE FACILITIES - 7 -
3.3. HILO LANDFILL CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE COSTS AND FUNDING - 7 -
3.4. BEH PROPOSAL OFFERS SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS TO HAWAII COUNTY - $ -
4. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PROCESSING AND RECYCLQIG FLOW DIAGRAM OF
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES 9 -
4.1. THE CHALLENGE - 10 -
4.2. THE SOLUTION - 10 -
4,3. THE PROCESS: 1~1SW SEPARATION AND RECYCLING - 10 -
4.4. THE SILVAGAS PROCESS PLANT DESCRIPTION - I 1 -
4.5. HOW THE SILVA(iAS PROCESS WORKS.........._ ...............__......................_............................-IZ-
5. ABOVE GRADE LONG TERM VIEW OF HILO LANDFILL, CLOSURE 12 -
5.1. A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCORPORATING NEW TECHNOLOGIES - 12 -
5.2. ENVISIONED HILO WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES_ - 13 -
5.3. HILO LANDFILL OPERATION AND ITS F.MPLOYEES..._... _ - 15 -
5.4. WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY - 15 -
5.5. WASTE GASIFIER, ELECTRICITY GENERATION, AND ETHANOL RECOVERY FACILITY - I $ -
5.6. CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE WASTE GASIFIER, STEAM RECOVERY TO ELECTRICITY
FACILITY, AND THE ETHANOL RECOVERY FACILfTY' - ] 5 -
6. BEH'S PROPOSAL. IS FEASIBLE, PRACTICAL, AND AFFORDABLE 16 -
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Exhibit H
i
January 2006
To the County of Hawaii:
BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC ("BEH") is a Hawaii limited liability company whose
active members include Pacific Waste, Inc., a Hawaii corporation, FERCO Enterprises,
Inc., a Georgia corporation, and Allied Energy Services LLC, a Georgia limited liability
company. Pacific Waste, Inc. is managing member of BEH. As part of its promise and
commitment to the County of Hawaii to assist in the improvement of solid waste services
to the citizens of Hawaii County, Pacific Waste, Inc. respectfully submits the attached
Proposal on behalf of BEH.
The Proposal includes the design, construction and operation of a state of the art
municipal solid waste to energy facility to be located proximate to the present Hilo
Landfill. It includes the construction of a permitted extension of the present Hilo Landfill
which would enable the present Hilo Landfill to remain in operation pending construction
of the new solid waste to energy facility. This extension would also eliminate the need
for hauling approximately 228 tons of municipal solid waste from East Hawaii to West
Hawaii on a daily basis.'
In order to make this Proposal, BEH has expended approximately $300,000 in
preparation costs and has sought the assistance and advice of some of the very best minds
and companies in the waste management industry. The resumes of BEH's municipal
waste to energy development team are attached for your inspection and consideration.
We hope that the Hawaii County Government will share our enthusiasm for the
immediate and long-term benefits this Proposal can bring to our community, including
not only real dollar savings but the attainment of a modem and sophisticated waste
management system that will serve our community for many years in the future. BEH
believes that this is truly leading edge of technology that Hawaii will be proud to model
to other communities in search of new waste management solutions.
Sincerely,
BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC, a
Hawaii limited liability company
B~~ 1 Manager
Pacific Waste, Inc., its Managing Member
~ Exhibit A, Department of Environmental Management ("DEM" spreadsheet for FYE 2005. Note that the
DEM report for FYE 2006 through October 2005 shows the daily tonnage Vending higher.
ii
A PROPOSAL FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII
CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL OF
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
The County of Hawaii is facing a landfill crisis with the impending closure of the
Hilo Landfill in Mazch 2006. The County has not set aside funds for the development of
alternatives, and its time to seek and explore these alternative strategies has just about run
out.
BEH offers to the County of Hawaii a comprehensive, state of the azt solution to a
pressing problem-a solution that Hawaii can afford, a solution it can live with, a
solution of which it can he proud.
1. BACKGROUND: HAWAII ISLAND INTEGRATED SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.1. Development of the Hawaii Island Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan
In 1981, the County of Hawaii developed its Solid Waste Management Plan.
Thereafter, in 1991, the Hawaii legislature passed into law The Solid Waste Management
A_1HRS§ 342G-1, et seq. (the "Act"). The purpose of the Act was to require the State of
Hawaii and its Counties to develop policies and procedures in making decisions to deal
with the disposition and disposal of solid waste. In February 1993, the County of Hawaii
prepazed an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan ("ISWMP") to meet the
requirements of the Act.2 The Act mandates that the ISWMP be updated every 5 yeazs.3
On this schedule, the first update of the County of Hawaii plan was required by 1998.
However, it was not until 2001 that a Solid Waste Advisory Committee
("SWAG") was established to update Hawaii County's Plano--three yeazs after the first
mandated update was due. The SWAG was composed of the Environmental
Management Commissioners appointed by the Mayor of Hawaii County. This body was
responsible for guiding the consultants toward the content and the final product of the
updated ISWMP.
In December 2002, the County's update of its Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan was adopted by the County Council and later approved by the State
Department of Health ("DOH"). It contained a revised Implementation Schedule and a
ZFinal Environmental Impact Statement, Constmction and Operation of the East Hawaii Regional Sort
Station, February 2004, (hereinafter, "Final EIS"), prepazed by County of Hawaii Department of
Environmental Management, sec. 2.2, p. 4.
}Hawaii Revised Statutes section 342G-24(a)(i)
°See, Environmental Management Commission Minutes, September 26, 2001
-1-
revised Summary of Components. The updated plan included six categories in the
Component Implementation Schedule, as followsa
1) Resource Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Programs,
2) Sort Station,
3) Waste Recovery Facility,
4) Close South Hilo Landfill,b
5) Administration, and
6) Special Waste Progam
The Executive Summary of the updated ISWMP states that the "...primary focus
of the addendum (update) is the establishment of a solid waste manaeement svstem in
East Hawaii to re 1~lace the South Hilo Landfill." (Emphasis added.)
The Solid Waste Advisory Committee adopted the following strategies to
implement the Integated Solid Waste Management Plana
1) Construct no new landfill in East Hawaii,
2) Emphasize the recovery of recyclable materials at the planned East Hawaii
Sort Station, possibly 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
have the potential to increase waste diversion significantly.
1.2 Current Implementation Status of Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan
In February, 2004, the County Department of Environmental Management
("DEM") prepared an environmental impact statement ("EIS") relative to a proposed
regional sort station.9 [n the final EIS, the Department found that implementation of
SUpdated Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, Executive Summary, Table ES-1.
~"I'he Hilo Landfill has been subject to closure since 1993, and it was originally planned for closure in 1995.
Final EIS, sec. l.l, p.
Updated ISWMP, supra, Exacu[ive Summary.
BUpdated ISWMP, supra, Executive Summary, p. 2.
Final EIS, at sec. 1.1, p. 1.
-2-
waste reduction technologies, while potentially viable solutions, "were not suitable to
solve the immediate problem of providing unintemlpted service to East Hawaii.i10
To date, the County has adhered to its ISWMP by not constructing a new landfill
in East Hawaii. Unfortunately, that is about where implementation of the ISWMP has
stopped. Recycling is limited and began with more effectiveness in 2005 after enactment
of the State's Bottle Bill. Beyond the current emphasis on the recyclable redemption
program, there has been little progress on the overall recovery of recyclables. There is no
sort station. No meaningful reduction in the stream of wastes has been achieved,tt and
there has been no progress, or even effort, in the arena of waste to energy production.
It has been widely reported that the operational capacity of the Hilo Landfill will
be reached in approximately March, 2006. The DOH permit for Hilo Landfill operation
requires its closure upon its reaching its operational capacity.12 Although Hawaii County
submitted a South Hilo Landfill Permit Amendment in December 2005, if permitted by
the DOH, the amendment will allow for continued landfill operations only until
December 2008 at best. There aze currently no approved alternative plans for
management of the post closure waste stream other than to load MSW onto trailers and
transship the same directly to the West Hawaii landfill from East Hawaii transfer stations.
No fund has been developed to finance either the closure of the Hilo Landfill or the
construction of any new landfill in East Hawaii.13
2. HILO LANDFILL: HISTORIC OPERATION AND PLANNED
CLOSURE
2.1. Historic Operation
The Hilo Landfill began operation as an official landfill in an old shallow quarry
sometime in the 1960's." Prior to that, the public and commercial refuse were dumped
along the roadways and in the open pit of an old quarry near the present location of the
Hilo Transfer Station.
With the advent of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
("RCRA") Subtitle "D" in the late 1980's, older landfills, like the Hilo site that were
constructed without an impervious bottom liner, were scheduled to cease accepfing refuse
10Final EIS, at 3.5 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed.
~ Exhibit A, attached.
12Response of Barbara Bell dated August 15, 2005, to Question No. 1 I from County Council member
Virginia Isbell concerning implementation of the updated ISWMP.
"September 13, 2005, letter from William Takaba, Director, Finance Department to Hawaii County
Council, a[ p. 20, Response No. 17 to "Informational Report on Department of Environmental
Management's Implementation of the Updated Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, dated August 15,
2005".
14Final EIS, supra, sec. 23, p 7.
-3-
no later than October 9, 1993.15 With the 1993 closure in mind, the County of Hawaii
began to develop a plan for the closure of the Hilo Landfill.
As part of its compliance plan, the County decided to construct a new lined
landfill at Pu'uanahulu and to close the old Kailua Landfill, both actions coinciding with
the 1993 RCRA closure date.lb The Kailua Landfill was already at capacity.
Although unlined, the Hilo Landfill had ample capacity in 1993.17 Therefore, the
County requested and received an operational waiver and extension from the State
Department of Health to continue its use beyond the 1993 closure date. The operation of
the Hilo Landfill then fell under the guidelines of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, Subtitle "D" regulations. Since 1994, as part of its compliance
obligations under Subtitle "D" Regulations, the County has been monitoring for
groundwater and landfill gas contamination.18 The County is presently subject to a
Consent Agreement with the Hawaii Depaztment of Health requiring the proper operation
of the Hilo Landfill under RCRA.Iv
The County platmed to close the Hilo Landfill in 1996, but that plan was not
implemented. The solid waste facility permit for the Hilo Landfill expired Mazch 1,
1996,20 and it was extended administratively. As of January 1, 2006, it has not been
renewed by the DOH.21 It is BEH's understanding that DOH will be issuing a time
extension to the County of Hawaii of its existing Hilo Landfill operating permit.
2.2. Hilo Landfill Operations Estimated Closure
The Department of Environmental Management has estimated Mazch 2006 as the
date for the closure of the Hilo Landfill, coinciding with the Landfill's expected
exhaustion of capacity.2` Notwithstanding the closure of the Hilo Landfill, the County
still has no replacement facility to handle the functions of the Hilo Landfill or a means to
haul to West Hawaii or to process the approximately 228 tons of refuse generated daily in
East Hawaii.
In fiscal year ending June 2005, the County's refuse trailers from outlying transfer
stations carried a total of 40,455 tons of waste to the Hilo Landfill. Commercial haulers
1540 CFR 258.1(e)(1)
16Final EIS, supra, sec. 2.3, p 7.
~rlbid.
~BSouth Hilo Sanitary Landfill Operating Manual, Mazch 1994, pp. 20, 25.
19See Exhibit B, Consent Agreement, attached.
20 Letter dated June 23, 2005, from Laurence K. Kau, Deputy Director, Hawaii Department of Health, to
Hon. Harry Kim, Mayor, at p.2.
Z~Update to the ISWMP, p. 24. Note that in late December, 2005, the County submitted an Application to
DOH requesting a permit for continued operation of the Hilo Landfill until approxintately December, 2008.
zzResponse of Bazbara Betl dated August 15, 2005, [o Question No. I 1 from County Council member
Virginia Isbell concerning implementation of [he updated ISWMP. But see also, fn. 12, supra.
-4-
and a small percentage of residential loads brought in another 42,683 tons to the Hilo
Landfill during the same period for a total of more than 83,000 tons for an average of 228
tons per day.23
In order for the County of Hawaii to continue the operation of the Hilo Landfill
beyond Mazch 2006, the County will have to secure permits and authority from State of
Hawaii Department of Health ("DOH"). Although the County of Hawaii Department of
Envirorunental Management may previously have been negotiating such an extension
with the DOH, to BEH's knowledge, no application for landfill modification had been
submitted to DOH prior to December, 2005. The Hilo Landfill Permit Amendment filed
in December, 2005 is currently pending technical review with the DOH 24
As of January 4, 2006, the Hilo Landfill is reported to be at an operating elevation
of 188 feet and has a remaining horizontal working area of about 3 to 4 acres. The
currently permitted maximum elevation after installation of closure material of the
landfill is 196 Feet. DEM is presently accepting about 12,50() cubic yards of refuse at the
Landfill every month and covering the refuse with approximately 9,000 cubic yards of
crushed rock.zs Knowing that the maximum permitted operating elevation is 196 feet, it
can be estimated that the remaining available air space is approximately 64,000 cubic
yards. After consideration of the volume of the required closure material, and at the
current level of use, the Hilo Landfill has less than 3 months of active life remaining.
It should be noted that although the County has been talking about modern
disposal technologies, very little has been done to bring new technology on board to
replace the function of the Hilo Landfill. It is significant that from 1998 to October 2005,
the County had not even applied to DOH for a permit extension to continue to operate
and close the Hilo Landfill. It is also important to note that the Pu'uanahulu Landfill was
dedicated as a replacement for the closed Kailua landfill in order to handle West Hawaii
waste disposal, not as a replacement or excess volume site for the East Hawaii waste
stream.
2.3. Current County Plan for Funding Hilo Landfill Closure
During the term of its operation of the Hilo Landfill, the Cotmty has chosen not to
establish aclosure/post closure fund account in preparation for the predictable and
sizeable future closure expense. Instead, the County has chosen to rely on Capital
Improvement Funding through the sale of bonds to cover this expenditure.26
The County's Six Year Capital Improvement Project program identifies the
Z~See Exhibit A, attached.
24 Permit Application submitted by County of Hawaii, DEM, dated December, 2005.
zs See Exhibit C, DEM Summary of Tonnage Reports, undated, and Exhibit D, DEM Hilo Landfill Usage
of Cover Material prepazed 12/12/2005
26See Exhibit E, attached.
-5-
County's cost for closure of the Hilo Landfill at $13 million with an estimated annual
operating expenditure of $500,000 for post closure care and maintenance.27 BEH
estimates that the current closure costs maybe more in the range of $14 to $16 million.28
3. BEH's PROPOSAL
Contrary to the discouraging view presented in the 2004 EIS, there are viable and
immediately implementable solutions to the County of Hawaii's municipal waste
management problems.
BEH's Proposal is consistent with the goals previously established by the County
of Hawaii's Solid Waste Advisory Committee-the reduction of landfill waste volume by
significant diversion of recyclable materials, the generation of by-product energy (thus
meeting both local and State goals for alternative energy creation), and no new landfill 29
Not only will the BEH Proposal meet these core goals, it will also provide other
significant benefits. The Proposal: 1) does not depend upon transshipment of waste to
other island or off island locations; 2) will not contribute to the presently growing East
Island-West Island animus raised by the specter of hauling wastes to the Pu'uanahulu
Landfill upon the impending closure of the Hilo Landfill in Mazch, 2006; 3) and perhaps
as important as any other single factor, the plan requires a minimal capital investment by
the County. In other words, it is truly affordable.
3.1 Overview of BEH's Proposal
The key elements of the BEH Proposal are the following:
1) Design, construct and operate a permitted expansion of the existing Hilo
Landfill.
2) Design, construct and operate a Waste Processing Facility ("WPF") which
will process incoming waste into: (a) Refuse Derived Fuel; and (b) recyclable
materials.
3) Conshuct and operate a Waste Biomass GasiTier which will process the non-
recyclable and otherwise appropriate wastes and produce high temperature
steam for turbine electrical generation;
n Ibid.
zs This estimate of annual post-closing costs is an approximation based on an estimate by Parsons. It is
subject to change depending on the final posbclosing requirements as approved by DOH. The estimate
offered by the September 9, 2003 report of Friesen & Associates titled "Cost Estimates for Landfill
Alternatives", Alternate 3, Table 9, attached as Appendix B to We Final EIS, and attached hereto as
Exhibit F, places the annual operating cost afrer closure a[ $819,500.
29Updated Integrated Solid W as[e Management Plan, at ES-2.
-6-
4) Construct and operate a Steam to Electricity Generation Plant;
5) Modification of the existing Hilo Landfill permit to provide for staged
closure over a period of yeazs; and
b) Construct and operate an Ethanol Recovery Facility to further reduce the
volume of wastes being landfilled.
BEH will be responsible for securing all of the permits needed for the project and
the costs of design, construction and operation. In addition, the plan will provide for an
updated master plan that will improve long term waste management and disposal
capabilities.
3.2. BEH Will Fund and Operate the Solid Waste Facilities
BEH proposes a horizontal and vertical redesign and expansion of the Hilo
Landfill in compliance with RCRA Subtitle "D" requirements in conjunction with an
engineered landfill closure plan. BEH will acquire the necessary operational permits, and
manage the Landfill operation to extend its life. During this operational time frame, BEH
will establish a Landfill Closure Trust Account by setting aside a portion of the tipping
fee for each ton of refuse received in the amount specified by DOH. Following the
future mandated closure of the Hilo Landfill, BEH will undertake both the closure of the
Hilo Landfill and provide for post closure care and monitoring. In consideration for these
services and capital improvements, BEH will receive the tipping fees for all users of the
Hilo Landfill, and as described later in this proposal, BEH will retain any revenue
generated through the production and sale of energy and fuel.
3.3. Hilo Landfill Closure and Post Closure Costs and Funding
Through acceptance of BEH's Proposal, the County of Hawaii can immediately
avoid the expenditure of more than $28 million.
By accepting the BEH proposal, the costs associated with closure of the Hilo
Landfill will be shifted to BEH. The County of Hawaii will thus avoid the presently
unfunded expenditure of at least $13 million which will be required to pay the mandated
costs associated with the compulsory closure expenses necessary to fulfill its regulatory
duties for closure of the Hilo Landfill. In addition, an estimated minimum of $500,000
per year in post closure costs, and the $15.5 million presently anticipated by the County
for the cost of a Sort and/or Transfer Station will be avoided.
DEM has estimated that $13 million will be required to close the Hilo Landfill.
BEH has been unable to determine the basis of that estimate or to locate any engineered
construction takeoffs associated with that estimate. Based on the September 9, 2003
analysis of Friesen & Associates (see footnote 26, supra), the estimated funding
requirement for the thirty (30) yeaz Post Closure Care of the Hilo Landfill is $24.6
million. In addition to providing the $13 million in required funds for landfill closure,
the County of Hawaii will have to submit an engineered plan for Closure and Post
Closure Landfill Caze. This submission by the County will require compliance with
design and funding of both DOH and RCRA Subtitle "D" statutory and regulatory
standazds. BEH understands that DEM has submitted an application for permit
amendment which is currently pending review by the DOH.
As contract operator of the Hilo Landfill, through its Landfill Closure and Post
Closure Plan, BEH expects to extend the operating life of the Hilo Landfill while it
begins construction of the expanded facilities. Concurrently, BEH will begin funding of
the Landfill Closure and Post Closure Care Trust Account. As part of the proposed
Landfill Operating Contract, BEH proposes to accomplish the Closure and Post Closure
Care requirements on behalf of the County by performing the following:
• Prepaze and submit (with the approval of the County) a Closure and Post
Closure Plan to the DOH;
• Document the timeline, construction and cost for closing the Hilo Landfill in
accordance with the DOH approved Closure and Post Closure funding
mechanism;
• Through its engineering design and funding plan, demonstrate the ability to
satisfy the required closure and minimum thirty (30) year Post Closure Care
expenses.
• Establish a trust account for the costs associated with the closure and post
closure expenses for the Hilo Landfill.
3.4. BEH Proposal Offers Significant Savings to Hawaii County
By contracting with BEH for the redesign and operation of the Hilo Landfill and
the concurrent establishment and utilization of Waste Reduction and Waste to Energy
Technology, the County will benefit from:
• not less than $13 million in avoided costs for the closure of the Hilo Landfill
• $15.5 million ($6.2 million immediately) in avoided costs for the currently
proposed East Hawaii Regional Sort Station.30
~OSee, Exhibit E, attached.
-8-
Additional annual savings for the County maybe experienced by eliminating the cost of:
• acquisition of additional equipment that will be required to transship
approximately 111 tons of MSW daily from East Hawaii transfer stations to West
Hawaii by the County
• additional labor required to transship 111 tons of MSW within the 10
hour timetable needed to meet County union work schedules;
• additional fuel and other operational expenditures needed by the numerous solid
waste transport vehicles to be operated daily between East and West Hawaii;
• payment of additional tipping fees to Waste Management, Inc. at the West
Hawaii landfill; and
• the additional cost of road maintenance caused by increased traffic between East
and West Hawaii.
It bears emphasizing that in the event the Hilo Landfill waste volume is
transshipped to the West Hawaii landfill, the County will face increased expenses
including:
• the purchase of additional transfer trailers
• the purchase of additional heavy tractors
• payroll expense for additional employees
• increased vehicle and equipment operating costs (fuel, replacement parts, repairs
costs)
• the loss of an estimated $3 million in annual landfill revenue31
• the payment of an estimated $3 million to Waste Management for the diverted
waste32
The additional cost of lawsuits against the County in connection with inevitable
traffic mishaps is also a potential cost to be avoided but is highly speculative in nature.
BEH envisions its proposal can generate an additional annual avoided cost to the County
by eliminating miscellaneous contract services and costs currently associated with its
Landfill operations of approximately $2.2 million.
4. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PROCESSING AND
RECYCLING FLOW DIAGRAM OF WASTE-TO-ENERGY
FACILITIES
"This estimate is based on FY2005 tonnage from commercial haulers at $70/ton.
32This estimate is calculated as follows: $37.04/ton fee times the FY2005 tonnage of 83,200 which will be
diverted under a transshipment model.
-9-
4.1. The Challenge
The disposal of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is an increasingly serious problem
throughout the world. With MSW generation rates in the U.S. of approximately 4.5
pounds per person per day, even modest sized cities face potentially serious disposal
problems. In Hawaii, the estimated MSW generation rate is approximately 6.2 pounds
per person per day.33
Cun-ently, the majority of all MSW is disposed of in landfills. A small percentage
goes to mass burn facilities for incineration. However, due to the negative environmental
impact of existing mass burn facilities, new facilities aze becoming increasingly difficult
to permit. Landfills take up enormous tracts of land, aze often responsible for wide
spread contamination of ground water and uncontrolled air emissions from the
decomposition of wastes, and evoke extensive community opposition associated with
landfill and incineration operations. Therefore, BEH has chosen a gasification process to
avoid the negative impacts of incineration
4.2. The Solution
The combination of recycling and gasification using the FERCO SilvaGas34
process provides a solution for MSW disposal that offers significant advantages over
landfilling and mass burn technology by producing usable products and energy from
waste materials in an environmentally sensitive manner. FERCO Enterprises Inc.
(FERCO) has developed and demonstrated its SilvaGas Biomass Gasification Process
with major support from the US Department of Energy.35 FERCO has identified the
disposal of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) as a key market for the technology. The
FERCO SilvaGas process plant is very compact typically requiring a footprint of about
50' x 50'. The SilvaGas process is also capable of producing a gas fuel product, thermal
load (hot water or steam), and/or electricity.
4.3. The Process: MSW Separation and Recycling
When MSW is delivered to the facility, the first step involves the removal of
recyclable materials in a Waste Processing Facility (WPF). Typically raw MSW contains
many recyclable materials such as glass and metals that have marketable value and do not
provide any fuel value for energy recovery. The unprocessed MSW is then run through
a series of systems including magnets, eddy current separators, and air classifiers that will
separate the various components of the waste into distinct streams of recyclable metals,
glass and higher density aggregate or rock. After recyclables aze removed, the remaining
municipal solid waste is coazsely chopped and prepared into a Refuse Derived Fuel
~3Fina1 EIS, Waste Projections, sec. 2.4, p. 13
34Si1vaGas is the federally registered name of a proprietary process held by FERCO.
'SU S Department of Energy (DOE) cooperative agreement with FERCO, Federal Grant #DE-FC36-
94G010032, for the construction of the Vermont Gasification Project, for which DOE provided funds in
excess of $37 million.
-10-
(RDF) suitable for gasification. With the higher density recyclable materials removed,
the remaining portions of the waste stream consist primarily of food wastes, biomass,
light plastics and other organic materials that are collectively referred to as RDF. As a
general guideline, sorting requirements should meet at least the ASTM classification of
RDF-3 which is as follows: Shredded fuel derived from MSW processed for the removal
of metal, glass, and other entrained inorganics; particle size of this material is such that
95% by weight passes through a 2-inch-squaze mesh screen.36 The Hilo Landfill WPF's
design will process the MSW to provide a RDF suitable for the Waste to Energy Gasifier.
The combination of the WPF and WTE facilities will cause a reduction of the landfill raw
municipal solid waste stream by approximately 90% by weight.
4.4. The SilvaGas Process Plant Description
Biomass Gasification is the process by which biomass is converted into a gaseous
fuel. The resulting product gas, a mixture of cazbon monoxide (CO), cazbon dioxide
(COZ), hydrogen (HZ), methane (CHq), ethylene (CZH4), ethane (CZH6), and water vapor
(HzO), can be used in industrial applications, directly replacing natural gas or fuel oil.
The products of the gasification process aze gas, ash, flue gas and wastewater.
The ash composition is dependent on the biomass fuel; however, in contrast to
combustion based systems, the ash from the SilvaGas process contains no unburned
carbon. The air emissions from the flue gas and combustion of the product gas are
signit3cantly lower than those from a similar combustion or incineration based systems.
Unlike combustion-based systems, the process conditions within the SilvaGas process
avoid the production ol~ dioxin, one of the most toxic chemicals known to man. In
addition to being identified as a Class 1 cazcinogen, dioxin can also cause severe
reproductive and developmental problems (at levels 100 times lower than those
associated with its cancer causing effects).
The FERCO Silva Gas gasification process uses atwo-stage system, consisting of
a gasification reactor and a combustor. The traditional process of direct gasification with
air produces a low Btu gas (150 Btu/scf37). Traditional gasification processes can use
pure oxygen to produce a medium Btu gas (290 Btu/sef), but pure oxygen is prohibitively
expensive. In contrast to traditional gasification, the FERCO SilvaGas process is based
on hot sand used to wnvert the biomass without contact with air (oxygen), reducing the
amount of byproducts such as COZ and N2, and generating a medium Btu gas of about
450-500 Btu/scf.
The product gas and steam produced in the SilvaGas process will initially be used
for the generation of electricity in a steam cycle power island. In follow-up project
phases, it is anticipated that a slipstream of gas will be used for the generation of
cellulosic biomass ethanol.
t6American Society of Testing Materials, Evaluation of Scientific Issues Related to Municipal Waste
Combustion Appendix D, ASTM Classification of RDFs. See Exhibit G, attached..
37Btu/scf is an abbreviation for British thermal unit/standazd cubic feet. Additional detail about the ash
residue from the SilvaGas process can be found at Exhibit H.
-11-
4.5. How the SilvaGas Process Works.
1) Refuse Derived Fuel ("RDF") or other biomass materials aze fed into the
gasifier.
2) In the gasifier, the RDF is mixed with hot sand (1,800 F), fuming it into
Medium-Btu gas and residual char. A small amount of steam and the product
gas produced convey the solids through the reactor.
3) The residual char and cooled sand (1,500 ° F) aze sepazated from the product
gas by a cyclone separator, and the char and sand aze conveyed to the
combustor.
4) The sand is reheated in the combustor by adding air to consume the residual
chaz. The reheated sand is separated from the combustor flue gas by a cyclone
separator and returned to the gasifier.
5) The product gas is cleaned and can be used as a substitute for natural gas in a
variety of applications such as direct use in gas turbines, boilers, fuel cells or
the production of chemicals.
6) The flue gas is a valuable source ofheat that can be recovered for uses such as
biomass drying, steam production or direct heating.
5. ABOVE GRADE LONG TERM VIEW OF HILO LANDFILL
CLOSURE
5.1. A Comprehensive Plan Incorporating New Technologies
BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC ("BEH") and its environmental and landfill design
consultants will develop a Landfill Closure and Post Closure Plan that will provide
continued use of the Hilo Landfill. The BEH Site Operating Plan ("SOP") will be based
on the Hilo Landfill SOP, while extending beyond the current County of Hawaii's
Department of Environmental Management ("DEM") plans. The BEH Site Operating
Plan will provide:
•A site development plan, a site operating plan, a site closure and post-closure
care plan, all in compliance with Subtitle "D" regulations
•Additional disposal capacity for use pending construction of the new and
expanded waste handling facilities
-12-
•1'he development and implementation of a trust account, compliant with
Hawaii Departrnent of Health requirements, for a mutually managed Landfill
Closure and Post Closure Fund Account
5.2. Envisioned Hilo Waste Disposal Facilities
BioEnergy Hawaii, LLC, at its expense and as a part of Landfill Operating
Agreement ("LOA"), wilL•
•Design, permit, construct, and operate the Hilo Landfill under an updated
Master Plan
•Design, permit, construct and operate the Waste Recovery Facility
•Design, permit, construct and operate the Waste Gasifier, Steam Recovery to
Electricity Facility, and the Ethanol Recovery Facility
•Implement closure of the Hilo Landfill upon the depletion of all of its disposal
capacity
-13-
MEb~uM-B1v
5
J ST~~IIaE
FEED SAN
STEAM AIR
Figure 4.1 Gasification Process
-14-
5.3. Hilo Landfill Operation and Its Employees
BEH recognizes the value of the skilled and trained County employees working at
the Hilo Landfill. BEH will honor the existing Union Agreement with the County and
will continue to employ the United Public Workers Union ("UPW") members at the Hilo
Landfill.
5.4. Waste Processing Facility
As the County's Hilo Landfill Operator, BEH, at its expense, will design, permit,
construct and operate the Waste Processing Facility ("WPF"). The WPF will be designed
to accommodate the waste processing needs of the Waste Gasifier by the sorting out the
materials inappropriate for processing through the Waste Gasifier. The sorted materials
(i.e. glass, metals, etc) will be reclaimed and sold. BEH has conceptualized two possible
locations for the WPF. BEH will work with the County to determine the most suitable
location for the WPF at the Hilo Landfill.
5.5. Waste Gasifier, Electricity Generation, and Ethanol Recovery Facility
An integral element of the BEH proposal is the construction and operation of a
Waste Gasifier. Processed, wastes from the WPF will be used to generate high
temperature steam for conversion into electricity. The electricity will then be inserted
into the regional electrical grid. Additionally, as the technology and economics of
Ethanol recovery matures, BEH plans to strip volumes of the Gasifier flue gas for
conversion into ethanol.
5.6. Continued Operation of the Waste Gasifier, Steam Recovery to
Electricity Facility, and the Ethanol Recovery Facility
After the Closure of the Hilo Landfill, BEH will continue to operate the WPF,
Waste Gasifier, Steam Recovery to Electricity and Ethanol Recovery facilities. As part
of those operations, BEH, at its expense will site, design, permit, construct and operate a
permitted landfill expansion to manage the disposal of Gasifier residues and by-pass
materials. By continuing operation of the WPF and WTE facilities, the County is ensured
of effective management of its municipal solid waste stream well into the future.
In consideration for these services and capital improvements, BEH will receive
the tipping fees for all users of the Hilo Landfill and Waste Processing Facility. BEH
will also retain any revenue generated through the production and sale of energy and fuel.
-15-
6. BEH's PROPOSAL IS FEASIBLE, PRACTICAL, AND
AFFORDABLE.
It isn't every day that a private company presents a community with a proposal
that will immediately save the community expenses in excess of $28 million. But that is
exactly the opportunity presently offered by BEH to the County of Hawaii.
In this comprehensive proposal, BEH offers to take on the responsibility for the
handling and disposition of the County's East Hawaii waste stream, the Hilo Landfill
closure and post-closure monitoring, and the development of a state of the art facility to
accomplish not only waste handling, but power generation-all without raiding the
community's pocketbook.
BEH, through its managing member, Pacific Waste, Inc., makes this Proposal to
the County of Hawaii not merely out of a profit motive, but out of its perception that such
a proposal is desperately needed at the present time in order to maintain and provide for
the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Hawaii County. As the lazgest
commercial trash hauler in Hawaii County, Pacific Waste is well positioned to
understand the complexities of the growing municipal solid waste crisis with the
technological and financial assistance and cooperation of FERCO Enterprises, Inc. and
Allied Energy Services I,LC, whose backgrounds and reference materials are attached as
Appendix 1. In making this proposal, BEH, has relied upon the independent validation of
the gasification technology provided by the internationally recognized solid waste
engineering firm, Pazsons Technology, Inc.
As the General Manager of Pacific Waste, and as a resident whose family has
lived in Hawaii during the known history of this land, I sincerely hope that this
Administration will seriously consider BEH's Proposal. Although it may appeaz to some
that BEH is taking a considerable risk in spending an estimated $40,000,000 to finance
this Proposal, I believe that this approach is desperately needed at this time to avoid both
a health and financial crisis of unprecedented proportion. Should this Administration
choose to reject BEH's Proposal, BEH hopes that the County will do so solely because it
has developed and approved a better solution and not because of some fear of technology
new to this island. We understand that skeptics often view new technology as "Pie in the
Sky." However, when sophisticated and experienced solid waste corporations and
experts are willing to invest an amount as large as $40,000, 000, where they are prepazed
to put their money where their mouths aze, such proposals deserve serious consideration
and should not be ignored without careful study. This is particulazly so where the only
alternative appeazs to require the transshipment of municipal solid waste from East to
West Hawaii and closing of the Hilo Landfill at a cost to residents of well over
$30,000,000.
Regardless of whether the County of Hawaii decides to pursue this Proposal now
-16-
or in the future, BEH, Pacific Waste, FERCO and Allied all wish this Administration the
best in dealing with the problem of Municipal Solid Waste and thank you for your
consideration of our proposal.
Sincerely,
BioEnergy Hawaii, I,LC, a
Hawaii limited liability company
By: Guy iho, Ge al Manager,
Pacific Waste, Inc., its Managing Member
EXHIBITS
A Department of Environmental Management Spreadsheet for FYE 2005.
B. South Hilo Sanitary Landfill Consent Agreement.
C. Summary of Tonnage Reports from 2003-2006.
D. County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division S.
Hilo Landfill Daily/Intermediate Cover Material Used prepazed December 12, 2005.
E. County of Hawaii Amended Capital Budget and Six Yeaz Capital Improvements Program
dated January 1Q 2005.
F. Cost Estimate for Landfill Alternatives prepared by Friesen and Associates, dated
September 9, 2003.
G. American Society Testing Materials, Classifications of Standazds for Refuse Dry Fuel,
Evaluation of Scientific Issues Related to Municipal Waste Combustion Appendix D.
H. Compilations of studies regazding Incinerators, Ash Analysis from the FERCO SilvaGas
Process.
EXHIBIT A
f/! ~V~771 N !/1 41 41 !q Ul N [n Ul
DbD~Dr~DrDrr~rD-
r r r r
~~yym~~~~ymy~~~
A.A A.UA A AA A AA
~~~~~~~~8~~
g fd1 fal N N N
~~~~~~otiSgB
c~~ o 0 o a o P 51 r o Q O O A
``Nn me^'~~ Q~q`°3Z-~~fC7 fpm g me m"~p~epm~yp~(O~~k~Spy~p~OO~ -Z°c{
~S~ C 3 4 ~ ~ t! p N N ~ A~ fV.t Oe V W W JNp W fT i/~
y - ~ ~ ~T g aq' psi u {y W W y~ W
d~~ 0 J~ p~ ~ m? N N D 4 A~ A O NN m O~ N O= 3
~ O y ~ N ~O 3 m~ NfTN+(/~NN W:O Lpp mD 3
N~ ~ S N O~ d ~ bj ~ f T I m V V m O
1 1 O+ W V W W A~ z
n m3-~~ m m7c w~ri-°•'~'i~iN~OAAW o ~
n 7C° 3 N ° n zm Joo miiwoin~ -i
y w r.
O £ ~ AA
y ~ w c x ~ ~ ~ m 0 o
a ~~afC 7'S W ~W S C N3 N++~_.+++NN ZD~ ~i
m ~:~pDD ~ a' 20 m ~ v ~O Cf o am.i J:omp ~i <N D
a Q S O w b J+ O N N W m R m a~_ ~
m c
m ~ ~~~d 6~^; ~ ~Z { ~
~ ~ 8 v~~ Qmp~~ 3 ~ ~ o~ 'm~~O2'p$'~pw_pYn~!~d' ~rnc{ m
= D j N ~ Q= a ~ 0~ ~ u N W~ A V N O J O
$j 3Q 10 art N 1~ O 10
M ri ~ o» 41 ~ C{ m > > ; T N 2
d R a0 ~O ~ C F NA a AN(~(J1 O~m m10 Q"~
~p m N ~ m71 jNm ~V+ NaO:m W -+N iS Q
» ~ m ~3° a~~°v 3 Dq N<nmJ+N~~°nw w~'oim AF Z
° :s ~n ~ ~ m ~ ~ r -i ~ o
'~~p'~ g~~ 2S`~ ~ g D2 wwrnm~°J°n1pi _'8, w°~+-a- O m
3, ~ H ~ 3 ~ ~0 3 ~ r~-~ o~~'am twit ~i ~i~N~a i+o ~ N
gD~ ~ m0 w vv+Naw w =
CDC m~m udi o ~ ys ~ ~
N N C D ~~^^~~{N .Z10 O N++ W A (N~ mN N{wp Z~ N D
C O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 Y. ~ ~ (n W 1° N W m ~ CO N a ~ 47
g 3 m :o ~ d r N ~ O
~ ~ ° 4 ~ < r
m m ~ ~1 r
N ~ ~ rQ aOD fU1°~NfO1il fm° ~A N V C N
D N i
0 O~p~ O ~t~~
pppp N t~.
Jl ~ 2~ ~
~ ~:O m OJi~+mb W W N ~O <
T T
m ~p ~p O _ r f/f
N +OCJON W.OmiA ASOe V =A r
g'~~°°S~°o ~+rn~am A~ m
W N W m m
D
y_ p p~ v_ A
Omi _twp J a a Ia0 W m V~ N Q~ ~
pN +~tpJ (t~T A_i°CO O~IV CC ~
A ~+N OI OI OJNNfmJ N r
SUMMARY OF TONNAGE REPORTS
FISCAL YEAR 2004 - 2005
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-04 3,384 3,951 7,335 237 4,149 15,214 19,363 645 7,532 19,165 26,697
Aug-04 3,452 4,801 8,053 260 4,313 8,636 12,949 418 7,785 13,237 21,002
Sep-04 3,169 3,293 6,462 215 3,762 7,404 11,166 385 6,931 10,697 17,628
Oct-04 3,285 3,517 8,802 219 3,839 7,482 11,321 365 7,125 10,998 18,123
Nov-04 3,448 3,426 6,874 229 3,955 6,403 10,358 357 7,403 9,829 17,232
Dec-04 3,613 3,322 6,935 224 3,870 7,460 11,330 378 7,463 10,782 18,285
Jan-05 3,569 3,292 6,861 221 4,042 6,525 10,567 352 7,611 9,817 17,429
Feb-OS 3,096 3,256 6,351 227 3,330 6,343 9,673 345 6,425 9,599 16,024
Mar-OS 3,279 3,506 6,785 219 3,798 7,338 11,136 359 7,077 10,845 17,922
Apr•05 3,324 3,740 7,065 235 3,807 7,265 11,073 369 7,132 11,006 18,137
May-OS 3,319 3,391 6,709 216 4,033 7,059 11,092 358 7,351 10,450 17,801
Jun-05 3,518 3,388 6,905 230 3,859 8,027 11,886 396 7,376 11,415 18,791
TOTAL 40,455 42,683 63,139 228 46,757 95,156 141,913 394 87,212 137,839 225,051
For Jul 2004, 6,849 tons brought to W. HI landfill from Hilo Burrito Project
For Aug 2004, 992 tons brought to W. Hi Iand011 from Hilo Burrito Project
FISCAL YEAR 2003 - 2004
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-03 3,174 4,506 7,680 248 3,639 5,903 9,542 318 6,813 10,409 17,222
Aug-03 3,138 3,566 6,724 217 3,543 5,765 9,308 300 6,681 9,351 16,032
Sep-03 2,910 2,990 5,900 197 3,392 5,442 8,834 305 6,302 8,432 14,734
Od-03 2,931 2,797 5,728 185 3,478 6,050 9,528 307 6,409 8,847 15,256
Nov-03 3,041 2,821 5,862 195 3,485 5,536 9,021 311 6,526 8,357 14,883
Dec-03 3,403 3,066 6,470 209 3,604 6,091 9,695 323 7,007 9,157 16,165
Jan-04 3,365 2,967 6,332 204 3,879 6,648 10,527 351 7,244 9,615 16,859
Feb-04 2,928 2,772 5,700 197 3,521 7,376 10,897 376 6,449 10,148 16,597
Mar-04 3,213 3,311 6,524 210 3,948 9,131 13,079 422 7,161 12,442 19,603
Apr-04 3,147 1,921 5,068 169 3,822 7,465 11,287 389 6,969 9,386 16,355
May-04 3,230 2,999 6,229 201 4,016 6,785 10,801 360 7,248 9,785 17,030
Jun-04 3,234 3,106 6,340 211 4,192 9,742 13,934 464 7,426 12,848 20,274
TOTAL 37,715 38,843 74,557 204 44,519 81,935 126,453 352 82,233 118,776 201,011
FISCAL YEAR 2002 -2003
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TOWDAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TOWDAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-02 3,069 3,388 8,457 208 3,394 5,647 9,041 301 8,463 9,035 15,498
Aug-02 2,993 3,571 8,563 212 3,417 5,157 8,575 277 6,410 8,728 15,138
Sep-02 2,824 3,261 6,085 203 3,177 4,455 7,632 263 6,001 7,716 13,716
Oct-02 2,846 2,921 5,767 186 3,154 5,489 8,623 278 6,000 8,390 14,390
Nov-02 2,763 2,518 5,281 176 3,125 5,273 8,398 290 5,888 7,791 13,679
Dec-02 3,111 5,790 8,901 287 3,341 5,115 8,456 262 6,452 10,905 17,357
Jan-03 3,043 4,525 7,568 244 3,366 5,206 8.572 286 6,409 9,731 76,140
Feb-03 2,478 3,098 5,576 199 2,935 4,935 7,870 281 5,413 8,033 13,446
Mar-03 2,813 3,364 6,177 199 3,505 5,854 9,359 302 6,318 9,218 15,536
Apr-03 2,826 2,822 5,648 188 3,269 5,527 8,796 303 6,095 8,349 14,444
May-03 3,041 2,921 5,962 192 3,366 5,408 8,794 293 6,427 8,329 14,756
Jun-03 3,027 3,019 8,046 202 3,601 5,537 9,138 305 6,628 8,556 15,184
TOTAL 34,833 41,197 76,031 208 39,670 63,583 103,253 288 74,503 104,760 179,284
Page 1 of 4
- , ,v,na
FISCAL YEAR 2001 -2002
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TOWDAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-01 2,952 2,793 5,745 185 3,298 5,046 6,341 278 6,247 7,839 14,086
Aug-01 2,863 3,445 8,308 203 3,197 4,982 6,179 264 6,060 8,427 14,487
Sep-01 2,801 3,045 5,846 188 3,119 4,429 7,548 260 5,720 7,474 13,194
Oct-01 2,862 2,892 5,754 186 2,983 5,108 8,071 260 5,825 8,000 13,825
Nov-01 2,903 2,748 5,851 188 3,047 4,462 7,509 259 5,950 7,210 13,180
Dec-O1 3,231 3,085 6,316 204 3,360 4,233 7,593 253 6,591 7,318 13,909
Jan-02 2,897 3,333 6,230 201 3,150 4,997 8,147 272 8,047 8,330 14,377
Feb-02 2,502 2,665 5,167 185 2,794 4,466 7,260 259 5,298 7,131 12,427
Mar-02 2,989 2,848 5,817 188 3,199 4,847 8,046 288 6,168 7,895 13,863
Apr-02 2,711 3,038 5,747 192 3,015 5,165 8.180 282 5,728 8,201 13,927
May-02 2,882 3,208 8,068 198 3,244 5,776 9,020 301 8,108 8,982 15,088
Jun-02 2,926 2,937 5,863 195 3,337 5,083 8,420 281 8,263 8,020 14,283
TOTAL 34,278 38,033 70,311 193 37,721 58,593 96,314 288 71,999 94,628 188,625
FISCAL YEAR 2000.2001
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-00 2,960 2,890 5,650 182 3,132 5,488 8,620 287 6,092 8,178 14,270
Aug-00 2,744 2,730 5,474 177 2,844 4,649 7,493 242 5,588 7,379 12,967
Sep-00 2,811 2,538 5,149 t72 2,851 4,518 7,368 254 5,483 7,054 12,517
Oct-00 2,770 3,229 5,999 194 2,962 4,803 7,785 250 5,732 8,032 13,764
Nov-00 3,068 4,692 7,758 259 2,981 4,570 7,551 260 6,047 9,282 15,309
Dec-00 3,060 4,121 7,181 232 3,049 4,486 7,535 251 6,109 8,607 14,716
Jan-01 2,855 3,442 6,297 203 3,007 4,587 7,594 253 5,862 8,029 13,891
Feb-01 2,472 2,931 5,403 193 2,670 4,432 7,102 254 5,142 7,363 12,505
Mar-01 2,654 2,846 5,500 177 3,051 4,941 7,992 258 5,705 7,787 13,492
Apr-01 2,688 2,595 5,263 175 2,977 4,833 7,810 269 5,645 7,428 13,073
May-01 2,701 2,995 5,698 184 3.122 4,758 7,880 263 5,823 7,753 13,576
Jun-Ot 2,741 3,212 5,953 198 3,111 4,682 7,793 260 5,852 7,884 13,746
TOTAL 33,302 38,021 71,323 195 35,757 56,745 92,502 258 69,059 94,766 163,825
FISCAL YEAR 1999 - 2000
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-99 2,537 2,814 5,351 173 2,739 4,253 6,992 233 5,276 7,067 12,343
Aug-99 2,549 2,879 5,428 175 2,752 4,988 7,740 250 5,301 7,867 13,168
Sep-99 2,358 2,706 5,062 169 2,619 4,257 6,876 237 4,975 6,963 11,938
Oct-99 2,434 2,831 5,265 170 2,612 4,333 6,945 224 5,046 7,184 12.210
Nov-99 2,471 2,604 5,075 169 2,647 4,061 6,708 231 5,118 6,665 11,783
Dec-99 2,765 2,827 5,592 180 2,889 4,845 7,734 258 5,654 7,672 13,326
Jan-00 2,695 2,491 5,186 167 2,839 4,145 6,984 233 5,534 6,636 12,170
Feb-00 2,311 2,341 4,652 166 2,684 4,243 6,927 257 4.995 6,564 11,579
Mar-00 2,360 2,814 5,194 168 2,789 4,807 7,596 245 5,169 7,621 12,790
Apr-00 2,576 2,432 5,008 167 2,697 4,574 7,271 251 5,273 7,006 12,279
May-00 2,665 2,605 5,270 170 2,904 4,664 7,568 244 5,569 7,269 12,838
Jun-00 2,658 2,915 5,573 186 3,013 4,977 7,990 266 5,671 7,892 13.563
TOTAL 30,397 32,259 62,656 172 33.184 54,147 87,331 243 63,581 86,406 149,987
Page 2 of 4
_ , .v~.r,~ r ~nnu
FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TOWDAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-98 2,743 2,829 5,372 173 2,873 4,028 8,901 230 5,816 8,657 12,273
Aug-98 2,788 2,547 5,335 172 2,909 3,845 6,754 218 5,897 8,392 12,089
Sep-98 2,482 2,782 5,244 175 2,490 4,188 6,658 230 4,952 8,950 11,902
Oct-98 2,584 2,927 5,511 178 2,573 4,258 8,829 220 5,157 7,183 12,340
Nov-98 2,769 2,444 5,213 174 2,679 4,419 7,098 245 5,448 8,863 12,311
Dec-98 2,833 2,859 5,692 184 2,798 4,166 8,964 232 5,831 7,025 12,658
Jan-99 2,737 2,327 5,064 163 2,697 4,302 8,999 233 5,434 8,629 12,063
Feb-99 2,271 2,238 4,509 181 2,314 4,083 6,397 237 4,585 8,321 10,906
Mar-99 2,544 2,513 5,057 163 2,543 4,151 6,694 216 5,087 6,664 11,751
Apr-99 2,434 2,479 4,913 164 2,474 4,251 6,725 232 4,908 6,730 11,638
May-99 2,547 2,455 5,002 161 2,600 3,670 6,270 202 5,147 8,125 11,272
Jun-99 2,591 2,556 5,147 172 2,715 7,353 10,068 336 5,306 9,909 15,215
TOTAL 31,303 30,756 62,059 170 31,665 52,692 84,357 235 62,988 83,448 148,416
FISCAL YEAR 1997 -1998
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-97 2,907 2,754 5,681 183 2,724 3,828 6,552 218 5,631 6,582 12,213
Aug-97 2,800 2,621 5,421 175 2,809 3,729 6,538 211 5,609 6,350 11,959
Sep-97 2,567 2,674 5,241 175 2,439 3,854 8,293 217 5,008 6,528 11,534
Oct-97 2,583 3,047 5,610 181 2,424 4,478 8,902 223 4,987 7,525 12,512
Nov-97 2,591 4,294 6,885 230 2,484 3,832 6,316 218 5,075 8,128 13,201
Dec-97 2,866 2,632 5,498 177 2,677 3,844 6,521 217 5,543 6,476 12,019
Jan-98 2,701 2,529 5,230 169 2,577 4,100 8,677 223 5,278 6,629 11,907
Feb-98 2,210 2,752 4,962 177 2,242 4,718 6.960 258 4,452 7,470 11,922
Mar-98 2,478 2,346 4,824 156 2,492 3.868 8,358 205 4,970 6,212 11,182
Apr-98 2,438 2,692 5,130 171 2,500 3,940 6,440 222 4,938 6,632 11,570
May-98 2,579 2,976 5,555 179 2,587 3,752 6,339 204 5,188 6,728 11,894
Jun-98 2,643 3,399 8,042 201 2,678 3,923 8,801 220 5,321 7,322 12,843
TOTAL 31,343 34,716 66,059 181 30,633 47,864 78,497 219 61,976 82,580 144,558
FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1997
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-96 2,738 2,606 5,344 172 2,548 3,763 6,311 210 5,286 6,369 11,655
Aug-96 2,646 2,796 5,442 176 2,447 4,006 6,453 208 5,093 6,802 11.895
Sep-96 2,454 2,533 4,987 166 2,338 3,621 5,957 205 4,790 6,154 10,944
Oct-96 2,384 2,675 5,059 163 2,323 4,193 6,516 210 4,707 6,868 11,575
Nov-96 2,507 3,094 5,601 187 2,407 4,116 6,523 225 4,914 7,210 12.124
Dec-96 2,624 2,694 5,318 172 2,555 3,851 6,406 214 5,179 6,545 11,724
Jan-97 2,576 2,532 5,108 165 2,601 4,069 6,670 222 5,177 6,601 11,778
Feb-97 2,147 2,368 4,515 161 2,246 3,667 5,907 219 4,393 6,029 10,422
Mar-97 2,381 2,685 5,066 163 2,524 3,936 6,460 208 4,905 6,621 11,526
Apr-97 2,301 2,350 4,651 155 2,361 3,934 8,295 217 4,662 6,284 10,946
May-97 2,549 2,589 5,138 166 2,539 3,832 6,371 206 5,088 6,421 11,509
Jun-97 2,440 2,335 4,775 159 2,665 3,854 6,519 217 5,105 6,189 11,294
TOTAL 29,747 31,257 61,004 167 29,552 46,836 76,388 213 59,299 78,093 137,392
Page 3 of 4
FISCAL YEAR 1995 -1998
FJ~ST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-95 3,045 3,431 8,476 209 2,446 4,183 6,629 221 5,491 7,614 13,105
Aug-95 2,602 3,305 5,907 191 2,381 3,798 6,179 199 4,983 7,103 12,086
Sep-95 2,439 3,920 6,359 212 2,136 3,550 5,686 196 4,575 7,470 12,045
Oct-95 2,496 2,834 5,332 172 2,280 3,855 6,135 198 4,778 6,689 11,467
Nov-95 2,510 2,869 5,379 179 2,232 3.695 5.927 204 4,742 6,564 11,306
Dec-95 2,735 2,694 5,429 175 2,389 4,563 6,952 232 5,124 7,257 12,381
Jan-96 2,607 2,406 5,013 162 2,317 3,783 6,100 203 4,924 8,189 11,113
Feb-96 2,294 2,373 4,687 167 2,055 3,761 5,816 215 4,349 6,134 10,483
Mar-96 2,585 2,852 5,437 175 2,351 3,686 6,037 195 4,936 6,538 11,474
Apr-96 2,449 2,535 4,984 168 2,272 3,958 6,230 215 4,721 6,493 11,214
May-96 2,474 3,046 5,520 178 2,369 3,652 6,021 194 4,843 6,698 11,541
Jun-96 2,650 2,592 5,242 175 2,403 3,331 5,734 191 5,053 5,923 10,976
TOTAL 30,688 34,857 65,745 180 27,831 45,815 73,446 205 58,519 80,672 139,191
FISCAL YEAR 1994 -1995
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TOWDAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TOWDAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aug-94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sep-94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oct-94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nov-94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dec-94 2.764 3,495 6,259 202 2,396 3,422 5,818 194 5,160 6,917 12,077
Jan-95 2,156 3,211 5,367 173 2,385 3,510 5,895 197 4,541 6,721 11,262
Feb-95 2,328 2,897 5,225 187 2,029 3,716 5,745 205 4,357 6,613 10,970
Mar-95 2,514 3,035 5,549 179 2,261 4,638 6,899 223 4,775 7,673 12,448
Apr-95 2,428 2,985 5,413 180 2,126 3,636 5,762 192 4,554 6,621 11,175
May-95 3.775 5,084 8,859 286 2,339 4,150 6,489 209 8,114 9,234 15,348
Jun-95 2,608 3,821 6,429 214 2,452 4,043 6,495 217 5,060 7,864 12.924
TOTAL 18,573 24,528 43,101 203 15,988 27,115 43,103 205 34,561 51,643 86,204
LEGEND: COUNTY =WASTE TAKEN FROM COUNTY TRANSFER STATIONS TO LANDFILLS
OTHER =WASTE TAKEN BY RESIDENTS AND COMMERCIAL HAULERS DIRECTLY TO LANDFILLS.
EAST HAWAII LANDFILL OPEN 365 DAYS A YEAR
WEST HAWAII LANDFILL OPEN 359 DAYS A YEAR
NEW YEAR, EASTER, FOURTH OF JULY, LABOR DAY, THANKSGIVING, AND CHRISTMAS
REIMBURSEMENT METROLOGY TO WASTE MANAGEMENT INC FOR MANAGING WEST HAWAII LANDFILL
PAYMENT
AVG TONS PER TON °h INCR %INCR %INCR
PAR DAY YR 2 02 0.95% YR 2003 2.94% YR 2004 3~ YR 2005
200 - 249.99 $50.92 $0.48 $51.40 $1.51 $52.91 $1.77 $54.68
250 - 299.99 $43.89 $0.42 $44.31 $1.30 $45.61 $1.52 $47.13
300 -349.99 $37.82 $0.36 $37.98 $1.12 $39.10 $1.31 $40.41
350 - 399.99 $34.49 $0.33 $34.82 $1.02 $35.84 $1.20 $37.04
County of Hawaii started charging tipping fees starting In December 1994.
Page 4 of 4
~ P I~ ~ <
3 !z
qg, Y
< A p G ~l n
ii kj yy Ny yy y yy y y y iS ~ 4 m
M• ~l0 1~'O J A V~~ Y M i p i O Y:P N ±'Y N+ 0 0 0 r N V 1,Y N p N
Y Y '
~yp~ yN~ r a ry
G W 10 10 M M I I ~ d
V }a' (yp ppO Y
P ~ O~ a+ 1D H O QQ NI I r+r ' Q ~ 'S
S 8 8 8$ 8 o S o - ~ ~ o' ~ t o I .O ~ w ~
I
~ ~ I I I I '
n ~ ~ a ~ I I -
j~~j~ ~~pO ~p $j I s
10 pO yV1 (N~ INI I ~ i ~I r ~ I I ~ I ~
S O O O H C O C ~ G 1
~ C NpM {ppqO yM M I j ~ i ( I I 1~ ~ 1
~ WNfJ~ Y I I I IN. I 1 Ni 1 i I+I
a I a
g 1 g
gj 8 ~ g~ 8 8 I ( I IoI ~ I o - ~S, E
M - i ~ I ~ ~ - fA 9
pMy M M MyN~ ~ 1 I I 1 4 p~
y ~ 1Op NpW 1yyD eN~ V I 1 ~ I ~ I 'A ~ b
3 N ~ OVA pO uV qO ONE ~ 1~ I .tl , ~ ~ I I I I S QN ~ yr ~p
A(NT H 00000 ~ N I I~i' I V ~ X ~~C
7. _ Np y 1' O O I I C 1 : G . O Q Y
C~ ~ m N I I I i I f 1 1 ~ ( Y
N y
P p~ ~ j I~ i I i I I I I (j ! i i 1 N ` j z
s
ff~~11 y p pN p C I ~ b
q O O O O I 10. I o! ~
2~ i ~ 1 i
4 it III' ~ ~I II i
8 $ I~ ~1~I~ I~I~I~ III ~
$ II I il~ll I~~I ~1 I `
I i
i
aNir b" ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I • ~ m
8 8 II iI i~Ili~ 'll III I c=
I' ~ I dill 1 s~
N p e ~ i I
~ G C ~ I1 ~ ~ ; fl~
a
~ ~ I a
3 $ s N~
~ F
~ I ~
P o -
8 8 0
R
y ~
3 0 ~
g $ 8
N
J ~
~ u
N O O
1^ o g
a
d t
w Qua q <
~ q b i ~ }V~ ypN yN N + N yN yyN f~ W VV+rr u±y yN 88 pmpm+ g.
~ N O OSN O~N~O ~OWOVO~000~X{U~O tSU 04PiO~ONN'00 N~'
G O O O O,O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O10 O O O~G O O O O
_ . ,v.no
avmmHrcr ur t UNNAGE REPORTS
FISCAL YEAR 2005 - 2008
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-05 3,677 3,235 6,913 223 4,126 7,620 11,746 379 7,803 10,855 18,659
Aug-05 3,549 4,282 7,831 253 4,088 8,039 12,127 391 7,637 12,321 19,958
Sep-05 3,191 3,558 8,747 225 3,758 7,046 10,802 372 6,947 10,602 17,549
Oct-05 3,550 3,713 7,283 234 3,796 7,896 11,692 377 7,346 11,609 18,955
Nov-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dec-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jan-O6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Feb-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mar-O6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Apr-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
May-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jun-O6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 13,967 14,786 28,754 234 15,766 30,601 48,367 380 29,733 45,387 75,120
~SCAL YEAR 2004 - 2005
1 EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
I COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-04 3,384 3,951 7,335 237 4,149 15,214 19,363 845 7,532 19,185 26,697
Aug-04 3,452 4,601 8,053 260 4,313 8,636 12,948 418 7,765 13,237 21,002
Sep-04 3,189 3,293 6,462 215 3,762 7,404 11,168 385 6,931 10,697 17,628
Oct-04 3,285 3,517 6,802 219 3,839 7,482 11,321 365 7,125 10,998 18,123
Nov-04 3,448 3,426 8,874 229 3,955 6,403 10,358 357 7,403 9,829 17,232
Dec-04 3,613 3,322 8,935 224 3,870 7,460 11,330 378 7,483 10,782 18,265
Jan-05 3,569 3,292 6,861 221 4,042 6,525 10,567 352 7,611 9,817 17,429
Feb-OS 3,096 3,256 6,351 227 3,330 6,343 9,873 345 6,425 9,599 16,024
i Mar-05 3,279 3,506 6,785 219 3,798 7,338 11,136 359 7,077 10,845 17,922
Apr-05 3,324 3,740 7,065 235 3,807 7,285 11,073 369 7,132 11,006 18,137
May-05 3,319 3,391 6,709 218 4,033 7,059 11,092 358 7,351 10,450 17,801
Jun-05 3,518 3,388 6,905 230 3,859 8,027 11,886 396 7,378 11,415 18,791
TOTAL 40,455 42,683 83,139 228 46,757 95,156 141,913 394 87,212 137,839 225,051
For Jul 2004, 6,8491ons brought to W. Hi landfill from Hib Burrito Project
For Aug 2004, 992 tons brought to W. Hi landfill from Hito Burrito Project
FISCAL YEAR 2003 - 2004
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TOWDAY COUNTY OTHER 70TAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-03 3,174 4,508 7,680 248 3,639 5,903 9,542 318 6,813 10,409 17,222
Aug-03 3.138 3,566 6,724 217 3,543 5,765 9,308 300 6,681 9,351 16,032
Sep-03 2,910 2,990 5,900 197 3,392 5,442 8,834 305 6,302 8,432 14,734
Oct-03 2,931 2,797 5,728 185 3,478 6,050 9,528 307 6.409 8,847 15,256
Nov-03 3,041 2,821 5,882 195 3,485 5,536 9,021 311 6,526 8,357 14,883
Dec-03 3,403 3,066 6,470 209 3,604 6,091 9.695 323 7,007 9,157 16,165
Jan-04 3,365 2,967 6,332 204 3,879 6,648 10,527 351 7,244 9,615 16,859
Feb-04 2,928 2,772 5,700 197 3,521 7,378 10,897 376 6,449 10,148 16,597
Mar-04 3,213 3.311 6.524 210 3,948 9,131 13,079 422 7,161 12,442 19,603
Apr-04 3,147 1,921 5,068 169 3,822 7,465 11,287 389 6,969 9,386 16,355
May-04 3,230 2,999 6,229 201 4,016 6.785 10,801 360 7,246 9,785 17,030
Jun-04 3,234 3,106 6,340 211 4,192 9,742 13,934 464 7,426 12,848 20,274
TOTAL 37,715 36,843 74,557 204 44,519 81,935 126,453 352 82,233 118,778 201,011
Page 1 of 5
a~ o o $ m 3~;
q g I
G O C~ g o~
i ~ y • m <
! ~ + O N P V O u 1 M N+ O b u V A N~ Y N J O b P V W u P G i N ~ ~{'1 aa
NU N M M_ N N I~ I I n N ~ ~
~yNp ~N) f~f~DD Oi [pO~D~ O I ( ,Cl~
j pN Cpj W <y N V ppp~~ + N N ~ + + F. ~ b
O 8 N N 0 0 00 ~ UI b A O ro
t M M Nq M M ~ I
N f0 A SOP~p T - ~ g
I W W N N N ~ +I + ~ +
p ~
tJll N O O O W V. i •N I O I ~ A' '
yy~~ I I I
I CO N Np N N I ! I i ~ ~ '
I AN Np1 oO I ~ V I I I
{O~i V (O N~ ~O ~ Ni j NI ~ I N I N
O N O O U N I I ~ I I ~ INI ' ~ I •q ~NI
N 1 pOp
j ~ N N a a a v ~+I I I I I I I I
! N ~O tmp ~O V V Il ~ I ~ S V
S N r ~ ~ O N I N i I i N. - •N. ~ ~ d
Oi N pp (!N(f~~ OC O a CI ~!~1 I I 1 I N O, I i I~pp r~
N S O O U S ~ iWI I O 'A~ ! ~ IUI A' J Q
~ N~ m~ o I~ I ~ I I I l l i l l l l ~ p ~
fU.l OWi ,CIWI r U ~ N i I I+ I ~ . ~ I N I I I I N I d. J
O N N U N 0p+p ~ - I ice' ' I I m ~ I I .mI I t I I I ~ O
N' 1 ~ ~ ~ I i I I I+ f j
w N V+1 N ran N I ~ I~ I I I ~ I I ! I ~ I I~ m
pNp V tD W O I ! ~ I i
O j N I I ~ 3 N
' Of N i V N b ~ ~ N~ I I I NI ~ I ! 'N' ~ I ! INI j ~ ~ ~ N' ~ ~ c:
. g u uJi d o g ~ ~ <°.i. I I~ I I I ! I ! I ~~m 1 I mI I N p
pq I ~
I N N N N N a I I I I ~ ~ I! I 1' Q~ d
~D p N+ W I 1 1 I I I I I I I l 1 ~ a
' pA pV QO N !O 'NI I INI I I+I ~ I I ~ IW i ~ " J
O O O O O ~ W INI ~ AI I I I OI I I ~ i ~NI I . CI ~
I I
N
N w N N N [j ' ~ I ~ I i I I I i ~ j
~ 1N.1 tNJ N AN N ~ I ~ ~1 <
~ g ~ N I II I Isl ~ 1 'i.l ~I I I ICI ~ ~ n 3
S 8$ 8 8 ro b° I I 'g' rn 3
o ~
N N N (M(~ M ~ I I - ~ ~ ' T d
O ~D 01 lJ 1p ~ 3 y
I N ttypp N N [V[~~ _i, ~ N I + ' N: N~ /Atl. ~ d
V A b P O ~ y OI iv U, O S
S {(/J~1 }1{
' O S O O O ~ R d N N b N~
YYYX N N
N N N N N ~ F I I ~
m ~Np O! 10 pV ~O ~ ~ _ P ~ J
p8 pO (b~ (J~ pN lVJ N l.~ 1C1~~i ~1 ~ I (G(~O~tt {t.~~ YN A
O
O O O O O O O1 OI ~ N ~ O1 P O~
o Ca
N N N N~ a~ ~ <
o N m to u ;
b A CD P~ N~ V N + ~ b N
T N Of 6
S O O O O N Y pNj t9 V u N
j {OyH~O OO O M 0 OWi .00 p
~ N 1~ +N ~ N S 3 N
(t~0 61 (l1 CO + V i ~ 0
~ A t~J ~ t~l~ (NJf R ~ A W QUO ~ QA+1 + NN N J
J O O O O O p V N > ' V 10 N
b b
j N Y
O N Qs . ((yy ya pp~~ ff~~ y 1~
n ~ ~ 0 Y ? N~OINJ ODIA'tOl(Ni1!O'.TIT'4UDIOC~01 N'01W N•gqWlj l~!+IJ Iyw•W(ll I<nIP W + O e~ a
CO p aICO WI+IN O+ V WI+~N ~ V V,
S • W.O N U fD N O N +''01 O V 01 W «I•f0'O Of V rtl 10 P+ U N+ 0 U O CO
EXHIBIT B
M
mww~~.s~w...r or~t ~ v
~xri a.
STATE OF HAWAN
OEPAR7MENT OF HEALTtt
ENtnRONMENTAL hUN11tiEME1R WV1410N ••n....+•
SOLD Aiq 11A?/di00lK MM4TE EAA/IGH ~
t~~wwwo~w~atw.rn:
Hp~oW W. w~rw ru
Telephony No. (BOB) 586-4228
Faceknlls No. (808) 588.7509
FACSIMILE REQUEST AND COVER SHEET
(Use Btedt or Blue Ink Only)
DATE: ~ f ~ I o3 No. d papas (Md. cover stwet) t o
TO: earb~ra Bell
OII'~eJpttonerMaNSfop; NAx: (tl0e) Y61-8066
Steven Chnne
Otfk~lPhonelMatl Slop:
SUBJECT/MESSAGE:
Smith f!Siy Sanitary !.+ndf111 ConFOet A`rccsant
SIGNATURE OF SENDER:
NOTE: H this tn3nemittal was Incomplete a iNeplbly, please caB the sentlere
offk:a. Rev. 11/95
~ ~ cmour ~ nwwo. r.o.
,IKCKII~X M.(„1
sraTt: of Hawau
nEPARTMENt' OF MEAITM •w.r...wc
/A.tiotb7~ ~alww
NONOLVLV, Nl,WN Gfil01•a7!
March 5, 2003 502t7AB
CERTtF1ED MAIL tJO.7002 0480 0001 3898 9545
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Barbara 8611, Director
Department of Environmental Management
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street, Room 208
Hilo, Hawed !38720 Fde: South H{lo Sanitary Landlidl
Dear Ms. BeN:
SUBJECT: South Hdo Santlary Lendlll Consent Agreement
Enclosed is an executed copy of the South Hib Sanitary LarWfiil Consent Agreement. As
stated in Part V, Penalty, Rem numbers 14 erxt 15, the penalty tine in the amount of
$43,087.50 shad be due end owing within 90 days, end a detailed Supplemerttfll
Ernwonmental Project (SEP) proposal shall be submitted within six months of the signing o1
the agreement.
To address the storm water management vloietion, the department is prepared to assist the
county in daritying the solid waste and the federal rules regarding this issue. The
department w proposing to conduct a workshop at your s)te in July 2003, which will indude
flwalk-through at the IandliN end a classroom sessbn. We hope that this workshop wid
dardy any misirnerpretatbn of any applir~bie rules regarding the storm water management
system.
From your list of possible SEPs in yow correspondence dated January 27, 2003,
`Educatlonhreining for transfer station guards (private contractor)' and `Public Education on
illegal Dumping" are the two prof acts that we would consider approving. In addition, we
recommend that you consider expending your recycling programs at the convenfence
centers to increase waste dNereion. Examples include (1) the indusfon of recycling bins at
additional convenience centers, (2) recyclable materiels (i.e. electronics) croNectlotl events,
and (3) backyard green waste composting workshops. These SEP ideas cannot be tally
approved until a detailed proposal is submitted.
Ms. Barbara BBII
March 5, 2003
Page 2
The propoad shall irx:ktde, Dui not linked t0 the fdbwing:
• detsAed deacriplbn d the proJact
• implementation schedule
• estimaN of expenaef
• copy d printed malarial that will distributed to the public
Atl projects shut be reviewed and approved by the deoanment prior to commencement. The
tleparlment also requires the county to slate b aN printed material or presentation that the
project b being urxMrtaken as pen o1 the setuement d en enforcement actkxt with the
Department d HeaIM.
The oouny strait submk • report within Thirty days upon the completion of the projed(e).
TM report anal ktduds the Iollowing:
• prajsdpsrftmnsd
• start and end date
• record and or receipts of expenses
• project svalUelk>n
• copies d dlsl?Swted material
• sign-k1 st?set o? Intl d parsorvtet participated in the project.
As stated in the t?greament, k the county chooses to provide in-kind support to carry out the
SEP, this support sites riot be corwuaed wah stall resourt~a That ere dr»rwise proviokp
nomtal services for tM sdid waste management wkttM Ste ootxay. Also, the project shah
trot include any aabns that wtk msrety correct the vidatbn anti bdng nonoomptier:t issues
back into compiartcs with legal requirements.
Please addrea all otatespondenoe to Steven Y.K. Chang. P.E., Cftiet, Sdki aril Hazardous
Waste &artch, Environmental Management DNiaion, HewaA Stets Department d Health,
919 Ala Moans Botdward, Room 212. HonolWu. Hawaii 96814. Sttorrld ytw have arty
questkuts, pisses caM~lerts ichkroteubo or Apaea BentW d the Sped and Hazardous Waste
Branch at (80~ 666.4226.
Sincerely,
STEVEN I ANG~ F:l'-~~(Ef
Sd'W and Hazardous last ra
Er?eloat;-ras: Consent Agreemern
c: MeyM Harry Khn. County d HawaB
tCat teen Ho, Deputy Altorrey Oener9l
COUNTY OF HAWAII
CONFIRMING PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION
PURCHASING DIVISION
iwt: QEM-Soled Wasle Division 1563SW
(USING AGENCY) REQUISITION NUMBER
SSE AUTHORIZE PAYMENT TO THIS VENDOR PER ATTACHED INVOICE(S). ICI ~ ~ ate)
"DOR
STATE OF HI. DOH SOLID WASTE MGT
919 ALA MOANA BLVD.. ROOM 210
HONOLULU, HI 98814
DescR)PnoN AMOUNT
Y None 3/5!03 RECD 3/5/03 Penalties to be paid the State of Hawaii, DepaM)ent of Health far 43,087.50
~tians at the S. Hilo landfll.
GATE CONTROL NO. VENDOR NO. ACCOUNT NUMBER TOTAL AMOUN
FUND DEPT. BA~SUB-EL OBJECT
5/23103 Cis 710 6 6 003196 085 601 5604.02 115 43,087.50
:e/ay Ihat the aCOVe SM'~Caa W supplils ara ner<ssary In usa In Ih4 tlapaNnenl aM
ai there are suMiaem lama appropriale0, aNata3C, amf wteapenaad to pay ro. ma REFERENCE BID NO.
--.IwnalaE amount aooe sat IoM
APPROVED'
DEPARTMENT HEAD OR PERSON AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ell! GRAY. PURCHASING AGEM
DEPARTM~.+T OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
108 RAILROAD ST
HILO, HAWAII 96720
Date: May 27, 2003
PAYABLE TO: Hawaii State Department of Health
Environmental Management Division
Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch
919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 210
Honolulu, Hawaii 96814
FOR: South Hilo Sanitary Landfill Penalties for violations
of Section 11-58.1-01, Hawaii Administrative Rule
{HAR) assessed to the Department of
Environmental Management, County of Hawaii by
the Hawaii State Department of Health.
i
Consent Agreement between the Department of Health, State of
Hawaii (DOH) and the County of Hawaii, Department of
Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division (County) to pay
penalties for violations of Section 11-58,1-01, Hawaii Administrative
Rules.
County of Hawaii will undertake supplemental environmental projects
as outlined in Paragraph 15, Section V.
The reduced fine owed to the State is $43,087.50.
TOTAL DUE $43,087.50
Account No.: 085-601-5604.02-115
Req No: 1563SW
C.P.A. No: C-71066 ~ovEo
CONSENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND THE COUNTY OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT,
SOlld WASTE DIVISION
This Is a Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Department of Health, State of
Hawall (DOH) and the County of Hawail, Department of Environmental Management,
Solid Waste Dlvlafon (County), to ensure the Implementation of corrective acifon
regarding current and prior operational Issues for the South Hifo Sanitary Landfill,
and to quantify the county's responsibility relating to the payment of penalties and
the Implementation of supplemental envlronmantal eethrltles.
t. pARTfES BOUND
This Agreement shall apply to arxi ba binding upon the State and the County, its aperus,
successors, assigned officers, d'uedors, and principals. The cotaslly is rasponslbie for
carrying out all actions required by this Agreement. The tdgnatorles to this Agreement
certAy that they are authorized to execute and legally bind the parties they represent to this
Agreement. The county shall give notice o1 this Agreement to any successors in interest
before transfer of ownership and to any contractor perlorrnfrtg aclNllies contemplated by
this Agreement and shah sutxnit a copy of each such notice b the DOH. No change in
ownership or status o`• South Hiio Sanitary Landl@ shah enter the count's responsibilities
under this Agreement v~ithout written consent by the DOH.
11. $TI~UI_ATED FACTS AND FINDING
It is agreed that:
1. Secticn 11-58.1.01, Hawaii Administrative Rula (HAR), provides: The purp0.se of
this chapter is to eStabl~.sh minimum standards govemirlg the design, construction,
installalton, operation, and maintenance of solid waste disposal, rocyGing,
reclamation, and transfer systems. Such standards are intended to:
(f) Prevost pollution o! the drinlting water supply of Haters of the stare;
(2) Prevent air pollution;
(3) Prevent fhe spread of disease and the creation of nuisances;
(4) Protect the public heaah and selety,•
(5) Conserve natural resources; and
(6) Presence ertd enhance the beauty and quality of the environment.
2. On April 26, 2001, staff item DOH's Office of Solid Waste Management (OSWM)
conducted a compliance inspection at the South Hib Sanitary LandtiN. Tho
observations made by OSWM staff are listed in an inspeMlon report dated
June 8, 2001. (FxhrtNt 1).
3. Based on the observations made during the inspection, OSWM identified several
operational deticienCies. We found that the facility itad been noncompliant in several
major operational areas:
Cu,swi Apromon
a. Failure to provide storm water management contrd (tun-oNrun-oft control
system). This is a violation of HAR 1 ]-58.1-t5(g), As stated In EPA's
tectitrtlCal guidance manual, storm water that contacts waste, including areas
that have received daay cover and have contacted waste rnateriNs, becomes
leachate and must be managed as leachate. Run~otf txtntrd systems should
be designed to odlect aril control this rtat-oH from the lendit7l. Our inspection
revealed heavy Ilagging and exposed waste, and surface water wihin the
waste lootprlnt W the IandtAl. The evidence d pending within the tarxlfiU,
where heavy flagging and exposed waste were observed, suggested that
leadtate was generated. However, surface water run-dl controls for the
cdlectitxt and management of this leachate were not observed.
The purpose of a run-on contrd system is to collect and redirect surace
waters to minlmlze the arttotmt W 9uAaCe water from Corttirtg onto the landfill
end minimize leachate generatkm. Pontiing was found al the base of the
IandlAl (within itte IarxflH footprint) without irttorcepting dttcites, swages,
berms, or other ways ~ red'trttd the water to storm water txxtlyd structures.
b. Lade of dalylntertnediate Dover. This is a vitiation d HAR 11-58.1-15(b) erd
Permit Corciittort Part 11, Speelal Conditions 6. Inspection revealed heavy
stagging and exposed waste in the inactive areas.
c. Failure to control wirb-blown Ntter tfvough aradequate Cover of the worktace,
either dad or more Ireouently as rterWed. This is a violation W
HAA 17-58.1-15(b)(1). Utter was found outside the tandiill boundary. There
was no litter control near and/or around the workfare.
d. Lack of ftazardous waste screening d the worktaee and/or at the scale
house. This is a viotatiart W fiAii 11-58.1-15(a), Permit Condition Part il,
Special Cottdilion 11(C)(2), and the 1etUily's Operatbns Manual. Inspection
revealed unmanned dumping at the workfare.
4. On August 7, 2001, a warning letter was sent to Mr. Laurence Cepelies, Chlot of the
SMid Waste Division, Department W Erwironmentel Management, County of Hawa:,
specllyirtg the violations and requesting a written response within thirty (30) calendar
days tram the receipt d the letter.
5. On September 17, 2001, the county responded to DOH's warning letter dated
August 7, 2007. 'Rte letter ;ncluded itte county's response b each violation stated in
ttte DOH wamSng letter.
6. On October 25, 2001, DOH responded to the county's terror of September 6. 2001.
addressing stormwater management. Add'Aionaily, the letter asked whether the
county wanted to address the violations through a consent agreement or a notice of
violation.
7. On November t 5, 2001, the county responded to DOH's letter dated October 25, 2001.
In the lever the county requested a meeting to discuss the alleged violation regarding
stormwatsr run-of( and run-on at the South Hilo LandtiL'.
r:OnSM~ A(pcP-w,A ~Y~
8. On January 28, 2002, a meeting was held between DOH and Hawaii County. The
county agreed to enter into a negotiated cortseM agreement to address the violations.
9. A follow-up inspeuion was conducted on February 13, 2002. The inspection revealed
multiple days worth of workfaces wrth heavy flagging end exposed waste (no cover).
(Exhibit 2).
10. On March 25, 2002, a cortitied vrammg letter was sent to Mr. Galen Kuba, Acting
D'uector for the Department of Ernironmerttat Management, County of Hawaii. The
worming lever stated that violation of the ladt d dailytintermediate oovor which w•as a
violation of HAR t1-58.t•15(b) and Permll Condition Part It, Special Conditions 6; and
that the violation was a repast violation and wip be addetl to violations citetl in our
Apri12001 inspection.
ill. CQ$RECTIVE ACTIONti
The county shaA provide corrective actions for the following:
a. Storm water management requirements (run•oNrun-oil control system);
b. Cover material requivements;
o. Control of wind-bloom Iluer. end
d Hazarcbus waste screening requirements.
In rider to assist the county in achieving compllartce, the following documents described
In Paragraphs 11 through 15 shall be provided within slily (60) calendar days of the
signing of tats Agreement. The documents shalt become part of the South Hflo
Sanitary L.endfill Operations Manual alter review end xceptance by the pOH. At which
time, the accepted procedures shall De Putty Implemented Immediately.
11. Provide DOH with the fdlowing information based on daily and intormediale cover
planning:
a. AN workshoets of past and future waste tonnage esllmates and daily;
intermediate cover needs with the planning tune scale the county office used
from 1998 to this fiscal year (2001.2002).
b. A11 planning documents for total waste in place, remaining waste capacity, and
the rate of consumption at the South Hpo Sanitary Landlul Irom 1998 to the
estimated cbsure date. Provide the information in tabular and graphical
format.
12. Provide DOH with aN operat'~ons documents and a description or drawing o1 hogs the
county operates its vrorklace. The document, at a minimturt, shall include items such
as how the receipt of waste is eortralled at the workforce, the placement of waste into
the workforce, Cell size determination for dally incoming waste, commercieVresidential
waste management, and positioning of dailyhnlenncdiate cover material.
COTeW,I no,ax,nem .3
NUVVG r.UL
shall include pre-manileslalion as neer:ed for certain categories, and
procedures for managing disrovered special waste. The county shall kierniy
the special waste categories. The county shall identity ttta person(s) at the
County solid waste division who will be krawledgeabie of special waste, its
management, and be responsible for plan implemontation. Explain ttow
teChntCet knowledge wip be provided to the designated technical person(s).
D. Waste Diversion Activities. Expansion of your existing recycling programs to
increase waste daereion. Examples would include the inclusion of recycing
bins ai addltlonat corwenience centers, recyGable materials (i.e. electronics)
cdiections events, backyard greertwaste composting workshops.
c. Other environmental projects within the County of Hawaii, as approved by
DOH.
The countys submission of the proposed SEP shall be within six (6) months of the signing of
this Agreement. The completbn of one or more of the above SEPs snaA be within e
reasonable periori of time as agreetl to in rtes proposed SEP. It the county chooses to
provide in-kitxf support to carry out the SEP, this support shalt not be conducted with stall
resources that are otherwiso providing normal services fw solid waste management within the
county. The project also steal{ not irx:iude any actions that will merely correct the violation end
bring noncompliant issues back Into compliance with legal requirements.
VI. FORM OP PAYMENT
Tne penalty payable under section III (Stipulated Panatelas) or section V (Penalty) shah be
paid by cashiers check, made payable to the State Department of Hsatth, arvf shad be
recoived at the DOH as set forth in section IX (Notification).
VII. QELAYS Oq IMPEDIMENTS TO COMPLIANCE
The oounry shall nobly the DOH oraity, as soon as ieasibie, end in writing within ten (10) days
of any delay or anticipated delay which does or may arras compliance with ine Agreement.
The notice shall descrbe, in delay, the anticipated length of the delay, the precise cause(s) of
the delay, the measures taken and to be taken try the county to prevent or minimize the
delay, the time table by which those measures wyi be implemented, end the expected eflecl
on the environment of the delay. The county shalt take al! reasonable moasures to avokl or
mirNmizo any such delay. The burden of providing that any delay Is caused by circumstances
entirely be~rord iha control of the county shall rest wah the county.
VIII. ENTRY AND INSPECTIO~f
Any authorized representative of the DOH, upon presentation el credentials, may enter the
premises and/or inspect the records of South Hilo Sanitary LandtiN at any time for the
purpose o! monitoring compliance with the provisions o1 this Agreement. This provision shat;
not De doomed to IimN any authority rtes DOH otherwise has to enter and inspect.
Consent Ra•aar,m~ ~s
Mµe U,.,,-, lp:a5 vo.U05 F.tO
l U • 7257' 7U'!
XV.COSTS
Each party shell bear its own costs and attorneys" 'ees.
DATED: Nonolulu, Hswai'i, ~_5 ~
STATE OF HAWA4'I
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
____5~"'
CNIY0f1L' S' , M. D.
DIRT;.,""P()R Of' 11y~,L•TN
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: COUNTY OF HAWAI'1
BARBARA BELL, Director HeFry~-Klnv pua~ >ct¢rsu ~-^~r
Department of Envlmnmental Management i~f4eyer µenaplnp 6r~aa •rr~t
County of Hawe7i
APPRO.,V~ED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Deputy r ora Counsel
I:.DUr!ty Of Hawaii
t t t
015 015 015
PUBLIC NOTICE
COUNTY OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SOLID WASTE DMSION
As of July 1", 2005 EKO Compost has assumed the operations of the Count' of
Hawaii's green waste drop oft and pick up area at the Hilo and Kailua-Kona Trans-
fer Stations. bebw is a list o1 materials not accented at the green waste drop-off
sites.
Not Accented
No Garbage Bags No Lumber
No Plastic No Rocks -
No Metal No Lops Greater Than 18" In Diameter
No Glass No Logs Cxeater Than 5' In Lergth
It bads do not meet this criteria, your other option will bo to dispose o1 your load
at the nearest county landfill. Green waste loads that do not meat acceptable re-
quhementa will be charged a spxial handling fee of 585/load'm addkion to the tip
fee of 565Ron IF taken to one of the two County IandPob at Hib and Pu'usnahulu.
For more information please call the County's Recycling Coordinator at 961-8942.
a
i
(230909 Hawaii Tribune-Herald: Jut' 28, 2005)
i
PUBLIC NOTICE
Department of Environmental Management
Solid Waste Division
Papaikou Transfer Station to be gated
Effective August ZZ, 2005, the county of Hawaii Solid Waste Division Papaikou Trans-
fer Station in North Hib will be gated and manned with security to ensure compliance
with operating regulations. The hours of operation will be from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
dairy.
All Big Island transfer stations are permitted to collection of household refuse onry.
Commerdal haulers and large loads must take their refuse to the South Hilo and West
Hawaii Sanitary Landfills.
(230908 Hawaii Tritwne-Herald: Juty 28. 2005)
EXHIBIT C
SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE TAKEN TO HILO AND WEST HAWAII LANDFILLS BY FISCAL YEARS C
SUMMARY OF TONNAGE REPORTS
FISCAL YEAR 2005 - 2006
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-05 3,677 3,235 6,913 223 4,126 7,620 11,746 379 7,803 10,855 18,659
Aug-OS 3,549 4,282 7,831 253 4,088 8,039 12,127 391 7,637 12,321 19,958
Sep-05 3,191 3,556 6,747 225 3,756 7,046 10,802 372 6,947 10,602 17,549
Oct-05 3,550 3,713 7,263 234 3,796 7,896 11,692 377 7,346 11,609 18,955
Nov-OS 3,398 3,503 6,901 230 3,818 8,249 12,067 416 7,216 11,752 18,968
Dec-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jan-O6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Feb-O6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mar-O6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Apr-O6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
May-O6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jun-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 17,365 18,289 35,654 233 19,584 38,850 58,434 387 36,949 57,139 94,088
FISCAL YEAR 2004.2005
EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TON/DAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TONlDAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-04 3,384 3,951 7,335 237 4,149 15,214 19,363 645 7,532 19,165 26,697
Aug-04 3,452 4,601 8,053 260 4,313 8,636 12,949 418 7,765 13,237 21,002
Sep-04 3.169 3,293 6,462 215 3,762 7,404 11,166 385 6,931 10,697 17,628
Oct-04 3,285 3,517 6,802 219 3,839 7,482 11,321 365 7,125 10,998 18,123
Nov-04 3,448 3,426 6,874 229 3,955 6,403 10,358 357 7,403 9,829 17,232
Dec-04 3,613 3,322 6,935 224 3,670 7,460 11,330 378 7,483 10,782 18,265
Jan-OS 3,589 3,292 6,861 221 4,042 6,525 10,567 352 7,611 9,817 17,429
Feb-05 3,098 3,256 6,351 227 3,330 6,343 9,673 345 6,425 9,599 16,024
Mar-05 3,279 3,506 6,785 219 3,798 7,338 11,136 359 7,077 10,845 17,922
Apr-05 3,324 3,740 7,065 235 3,807 7,265 11,073 369 7,132 11,006 18,137
May-OS 3,319 3,391 6,709 216 4,033 7,059 11,092 358 7,351 10,450 17,801
Jun-05 3,518 3,388 6,905 230 3,859 8,027 11,886 396 7,376 11,415 18,791
TOTAL 40,455 42,683 83,139 228 46,757 95,156 141,913 394 87,212 137.839 225,051
For Jul 2004, 6,649 tons brought to W. Hi landfill from Hilo Burrito Project
For Aug 2004, 992 tons brought to W. Hi landfill from Hilo Burrito Project
FISCAL YEAR 2003 - 2004
_ EAST HI WEST HI
EAST HAWAII AVG WEST HAWAII AVG TOTAL FOR ISLAND
COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TONlDAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL TONIDAY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Jul-03 3,174 4,506 7,680 248 3,639 5,903 9,542 318 6,813 10,409 17,222
Aug-03 3,138 3,586 6,724 217 3,543 5,765 9,308 300 6,681 9,351 18,032
Sep-03 2,910 2,990 5,900 197 3,392 5,442 8,834 305 6,302 8,432 14,734
Oct-03 2,931 2,797 5,728 185 3,478 6,050 9,526 307 6,409 8,847 15,256
Nov-03 3,041 2,821 5,882 195 3,485 5,536 9,021 311 6.526 8,357 14,883
Dec-03 3,403 3,066 6,470 209 3,604 6,091 9,695 323 7,007 9,157 16,165
Jan-04 3,365 2,967 6,332 204 3,879 6,648 10,527 351 7,244 9,615 16,859
Feb-04 2,928 2,772 5,700 197 3,521 7,376 10,897 376 6,449 10,148 16,597
Mar-04 3,213 3,311 6,524 210 3,948 9,131 13,079 422 7,161 12,442 19,603
Apr-04 3,147 1,921 5,068 169 3,822 7,465 11,287 389 6,969 9,386 16,355
May-04 3,230 2,999 6,229 201 4,016 6,785 10,801 360 7,246 9,785 17,030
Jun-04 3,234 3,106 6,340 211 4,192 9,742 13,934 464 7,426 12,848 20,274
TOTAL 37,715 36,843 74,557 204 44,519 81,935 126,453 352 82,233 118,778 201,011
Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT D
oo,oo,o of o•oooo~, ono o~000010'00000, 0.000000 ~
~yy N o ~ ~;cl~i ~ ~.o ~ Qlo, i Rio col o;~l
O O~1') ,b~ aYi of ail O (OI N ni O'r',, ~~^I IV Oi M N w L
8 a of ~ n N N' J' ~ ' rills , N N; rv ri ri ~ N; N- ~ f N
T ~ N Y H y b
i M
I W
S b
p b
w L
C
G b
8 ° C
O O°O
~ N N
O j m
N I U
p ' I ~ 11 ~ ~ S c
I I I~;~ 8 °
z
~ i j w 5
I I i l i t
v~ I i I i~~~ I! I I I I
p N S O
I p ~
C rv ~ i~ I I ~ 1 II w C
m ~ I ~ 1
€a ~ i ~'i~'i,~jl~ I!'I~Ij!I ill
N I R
o= w! I I I ~ I ~ ~ j it I I o ~ n
n
u~ I i I j l ~ I ~ i w
E ~ ' 0. o
I !
q v In ° I, I° 8 889, B"
= N b
C ~ ~ i &i I pN~ N 17 p N
sa ; N. ~ N ;m ~ I ge
W ~ w [O L
~ q p ~ I ~ N N N ~ b y
Z
J i w N w w
[1
~ 4 1 I 1Q°I I O• ~ j N! ; 1 ' I O V°I N Vf O N O N~
S ~ vim r o. r ~
a= ~ ~ i i I I~ I I`I ~ I I I ~~me~ 0 03'
aN ~ ~I j( dill il~jl i ~wwww w m3
~ ° l i I~ I_ ~ d~ I ~ 8 8 9i 8 9i 8 t o
o I ~ I I ~ ~ S rv vi rmbp rve O
~ I~ ~ !N - N NON n p~C
$ I I i I ~ I I i I I d~ N N a~ CJ o
uS 1 i ~ l l l 1~ 1 ~ I ~ ~ l w w w w m
I 8 9i 9i g S ba
.m ii I~; 1 'I i i o. N N ~ ~ W
I, ~ ~ I i N i .r~ i ° e ~p m r o d
_ ~ • 1 I N N b 0~ r
~ i I ' ~ i~ pn N N H b C
° O, ' ? SOOSS O ~N
~ ' O m N m O m
-Jj ' I 1 ~ P O ~+l ~ pr Oi p 7
C y ~ b w w H M fMV w Tj C
O~ ~ U I Q b
b p pp C
L a Lm ~ N N O i ~ ~ il'1 ~ ~ ~ ~~N N'1V'ry~~,N N.fNI M N'i R, .'1 O . Y
W q • , , •gggg
b
m a~$ 'R r I S Y
E .n a t > i. S c
°o a` R Eo
3 rv " s °
~n ~LL oY a z 5
N
EXHIBIT E
11/03/2005 11:29 8889618086 ENVlIROrA£NTPL MGMT PAf9= 01/04
i ~
c~c
G
0
CQC
C
(Lf
w~r+
a
a
~ ~ o
I.L.. E-- N N
o a
0
~ a o
~ N
a
U
-a
c
a
11/03/2005 11:29 8089618086 ENVIROtJr£NT'AL off
PAGE 03/04
O e
O . e.~ {y ~ O p N N N M
~ N h
3
a ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~ ~
3 ~ s
3 ~ isS s
' ~ ~
o ~ ~ ~ ~ .a
~ s
~c~~g ~ ~ ~
~ ~ s~
~
~ ~ a
G ~ ~ o
Lei p~ N
0. ji ~ .
y
~ ~ } ~.Qq~
q ~ n ~ H
tV ^ $
v~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ '~~g
~ ~ ~ a ~i
p ~3 ~
~ ~ ~M,~~
~ ~ ~g ~ e W
11/83/2005 11:29 8089618086 EM/IRpJhENTAL MGMT PgGE 04/04
4
z m y
a
~ '
~ a
. .
d
Y
0
A
.
'4'r,<
~^C ~C`r~'x
f'~: `y
I :
Ohl:" kJ'
W
1
yy 4
8 &
d $ 5 ~ pG ~i w
o .
~ ~
g~>
O ~ 1
~ ~ ~
8
~t~
8 ~
I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~a - ~R ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ s ~
.a ~ . ~ g
J 4.
G
~ :
.9
~ ~
~ .
T
t _ ~ ~ a
f~ s Op :
M
C~
.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~
- _
#
„ .r
x a
a
a
a
0
r,
s5.:<:
K~ ' Q
_..m _.mn.._.,~._.~
++ioaitnn~ il:t9 8089618086 EMIIRONr£NTAL MGMT
PAGE 02/04
~ -
~ ~
_
b ~r~ ~ ~
~ ~QQ gQQQ~8~ ~
anXe~'i ~
A
~ ~s s 8 ~
o
0.
~ ~ ~ c
g
a
~ ~ ~
h }t ^ pp~ a
~j YI
as F q,
_a
o LL
~ ~
~
wao ~b w',PO AI N tY a0 eNnh f
~.N hb 1^ MNSSr~rA~i n ~n^ ^ o
4 F^
EXHIBIT F
Cost Estimatespo
~ndix B
~bY Friesen a ~sndf~~ ~~ternatives
Associates)
A~,TERNATNE 3 -NEW SOUTH HILO LANDFILL COST MODEL
Table 1: Waste Projections Based on Population Trends
2000 149,261 166,384 188,263 163,789 70,429 93,360
2001 151,709 168,524 190,685 165,896 71,335 94,561
2002 154,794 171,311 193,838 168,639 72,515 96,124
2003 157,326 }74,113 197,009 171,398 73,701 97,b97
2004 159,900 176,962 200,232 174,202 74,907 99,295
2005 162,516 179,857 203,508 172,982 74,382 98,600
2006 165,175 182,799 206,837 165,470 71,152 94,318
2007 167,877 185,790 210,221 157,666 67,796 89,870
2008 170,624 188,829 213,660 153,835 66,149 87,686
2009 173,4)5 191,919 217,156 149,k38 64,430 85,409
2010 176,252 195,058 220,709 145,668 62,637 83,031
2011 179,(36 198,250 224,319 141,321 60,768 80,553
2012 )82,066 201,493 227,989 136,794 58,821 77,972
2013 185,045 204,789 231,719 132,080 56,794 75,286
2014 188,072 208,140 235,510 129,531 55,698 73,832
2015 191,149 211,545 239,363 131,650 56,609 75,040
2016 194,276 275,006 243,279 133,803 57,535 76,268
2017 197,455 218,523 247,259 135,992 58,477 77,516
2018 200,685 222,098 25),304 138,217 59,433 78,784
2019 203,968 225,732 255,415 140,479 6Q,406 80,073
2020 207,305 229,425 259,594 142,777 61,394 81,383
2021 210,697 233,178 263,841 145,173 62,398 82,714
2022 214,144 236,993 268,157 147,487 63,419 84,067
2023 217,647 240,870 272,545 149,899 64,457 85,443
2024 221,208 244,811 277,003 153,352 65,511 86,841
2025 224,827 248,816 281,535 154,844 66,583 88,261
2026 228,505 252,886 286,141 157,378 67,672 89,705
2027 232.243 257,024 290,822 159,952 68,779 91,173
2028 236,043 261,229 295,580 163,8119 69,905 92,664
2029 239,904 265,502 300,416 165,22.9 71,048 94,180
2030 243,829 269,846 305,331 167,932 72,211 95,721
2031 247,818 274,261 310,326 170,679 73,392 97,287
2032 251,873 278,747 315,403 173,472 74,593 98,879
2033 255,993 283,308 32Q,563 176,310 75,813 100,496
2034 260,181 287,443 325,807 179,194 77,053 102,141
Total Tons 4,570,5 l0 1,965,319 2,605,190
Avg TPY 152350 65,51 I 86,840
Avg i'PD 434 182 242
September 9, 2003
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° ° o
0 o c o 0 o ro o 0 o r o o .d o 0 0 0 0 o n o o v o 0 0 0_ m o
a
0
E
m U G tat Z
N
W
O
h V
a= O O O O V O O O O O O O O O J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O
O O v~ r1 O O O r1 ^J~ 0 0 n O O C' m O O O C O O C O O C O O m
h
Q
V C
LI a
O
Q ~
E x
~ s
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °
p o 0 0 0° o o° o c° o0 0 0 0 $ o 0 0 0 0~ o 0 0 0 °o
o 0 0 0, o o_ °o_ °o_ °o, o 0 0 0 °0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0, o o °o o_
O N W rD r. P YJ o P t~ P fV < b - b N O N rv~ W O N vi O
O O_ P T O O O O O P f _ N rv r'1 r1 m
C~
G
03
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D o c o °o
:p o °oo 0 0 0 0 0 °oo 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 °o 0 0 0.
o, o o, o 0 o q o_ o. `o 0 o S, o, o 0 0 0 0, o 0 0 0~ o, oo o
'o a~ _oP~ ~~P~ o
e:; ~ m.~ M m m M r~ M M m a 4
c
A ~
a ~
~ o 0
U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0°
o o °o0 0 0 0 °o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °oo o a o 0 0 0
p o o. o, o 0 0 0_ o. o_ o o q °c, g q o 0 0 0_ o c o g o o q o
rCQ P W Y `PO w Or P A P
i 3
Pr c°
x
N
V R
S P r 1 m
1 r0 P ~ O,^ m~ v rr~ Y C oC Pv v-~ b r P O ~ a
F t~ _ ~ F _ T ( vi _ vi m
v~ boo b r v. vi r vai r0 ~L b r0 ~D ~O `~O b b b 1~ r~ m r r t
t~.
k
_ w O- ~ C v w tT O- ~O W O~ O~ Q `n
Nj{ ~ 0 0 0O ri rl t~~ ('I rv N O O O i rl J~ rv O O N O O O
t~:~ l''
Cable 3: Cost Estimate for Initial Development of Landfill at South Hilo Landfill Sitc
Pre-Construction
Site Characterization Studies 2003-2004 LS $ 250,000
Preliminary Engineering for Pernutting 2003-2004 LS $ 200,000
Construction Plans and S ecifica[ions 2003-2004 LS $ 300,000
Total Pre-ConstTUCtion $ 750,000
Construction Costs
Support Facilities
Landfill Ottice 2004 SF' 2,000 $ 120 $240,000
70-foot Truck Sciles 2004 Bach 2 $ 80,000 $ 16Q000
Access Road 2004 LS $ 50,000
Utilities 2001 LS $ 100,000
Initial Refuse Cell Construction
Excavation and Emhankment 2004 C~ 250,000 $ 8.50 $ 2,125,000
Liner/ Leaehate Collection System 2004 Acre 8.0 $ 190,907 $ 1,527,257
Leaehate Plow Equalisation and Conveyance
Leaehate Lagoon 2004 F:ach I $ 603,500 $ 603,500
Main I,eachatc Pump Station 2004 Bach I $ 150,000 $ 150,000
6-inch Leaehate l7ansmission I,inc 2004 LP 15,000 $ 148 $2,220,000
b;nvironmcntal Monitorine
3-90 Foot Groundwater Wcll,. 2004 LF 270 $ 150 $ 40,500
Landfill Gas Probes 2004 LF 180 $ 150 $ 27,000
Subtotal $ 7,243,257
Contract Administration and CQA (I U%) 2004 $ 724,000
Conlin envies 20% 2004 $ 1,449,000
Total Initial Construction Cast $ 9,416257
Development COSts -Year 2003-04
I'rc- Conslnmtion $ 750,000
I>e6ign and ('un+truclion $ 9,416 257
Connection to Hilo Sewa ~e Traaunent Plant F 2004 LS $ 13,300.000
Total Development Costs $ 23 466.257
September 00, 2003
Table 4: Estimated Cost for Leachate Lagoon Construction at South Hilo Landfil~
Final Contouring and Grading CY 25,000 $ 8.50 $ 212,500
6-inch Soil Cushion Layer CY 2,000 $ 10.00 $ 20,000
Geomembrane for Leak Detection SF 90,000 $ 0.50 $ 45,000
Geonet SF' 90,000 $ 0.50 $ 45,000
8-oz Lower Geotextile Separating Layer SP 90,000 $ 0.15 $ 13,500
Geosynthetic Clay Liner SF 90,000 $ 0.55 $ 49,500
Geomembrane SF 90,000 $ Q50 $ 45,000
IEroz Upper Geotextile Cushion SP 90,000 $ 02U $ IR,000
12-inch Drainage Layer CY 4,000 $ 8.50 $ 34,000
8-oz Upper Geotextile Separating Layer SF 90,000 $ 0.15 $ 13,500
I2-inch Soil Protective Layer CY 4,000 $ 10.00 $ 40,000
Geomembrane Cover SP 90,000 $ 0.75 $ 67,500
Subtotal $ 603,500
Engineering and Administration (15%~) $ 90,525
Contin encies 20% $ 120,700
Estimated Cost for Lagoon $ s14,~z5
September 09. 2003
Table 5: Estimated Per Acre Cost for Refuse Cell Construction at South Hilo Landfill
Mobilization Lump Sum $150,000.00 $ 30,000
Excavation and Embankment C'Y 5,000 $S.SO $ 42,500
Liner System
6-inch Soil Cushion Layer CY 900 $10.00 $ 9,000
Geosynthetic Clay Liner S~ 50,000 $0.55 $ 27,500
Geomembrane SF 50,000 $0.50 $ 25,000
16-oz Geotexlile Cushion SF 25,000 $0.25 $ 6,250
24-inch Drainage Layer CY 3,200 $8.50 $ 27,200
Leachate Collection System
8-inch Leachate Collection Pipe LF 175 $32.00 $ 5,600
Pum Station Lum Sum $125,000.00 $ 17,857
Subtotal $ 190,907
Engineering and Administration (I s°'o) $ 28,636
Contin encies 2Q% $38,181
Estimated Per Acre I'osl $ 257.725
For LinedLeacha[e System
September 09, 2003
Table 6: Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Administrative Labor Costs
(1) Solid Waste Operations Superintendent (SR- Hour 2,080 $ 21.56 $ 44,845
(4) Equipmen[Operator ll (BC-9} Hour 8,320 $1600 $f33, L20
(2) Construction Equipmen[Mechanics (RC-11 Hour 4,160 $ 1800 $ 74,880
(3) Landfill Attendants iBC-5} Hour 6,240 $1325 $82.680
(I) Mechanical Welder {BC-10) Hour 2,080 $ IZ00 $ 35.360
Overhead Percem 4U% _ $ 148,354
Administrative Labor Subtotal $ 519 239
F,quipmen[ Owning and Operating Costs
Dozer (Cat D7) Hour 2,080 $ 50 00 $ 104,000
Compactor (Ca[ 8166) Hour 2,080 $ 50.00 $ 104,000
45-ton Dump Truck (Deere 400P) (lour 1,800 $ 55.00 $ 99 000
Front End Loader (Cat 966P) Hour 2,080 $ 31 00 $ 64 480
Water "!ruck Mdc 2,500 $400 $Ig000
Small Loader ilT 28) Hour 1,200 $ 20 00 $ 24,000
Utilit}'Trucks Mdc 15,000 $0.45 $6,750
Maintenance and O eratin Cosa Percem 5% $ 20,6
Equipment O Nz O Subtotal $ 432,842
Environmental Monitoring Costs
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Sample 12 $ 2,700 $ 32,400
Leachate Sampling a,td Analysis Sample 4 $ 3,500 $ 14,000
Landfill (ias Sampling ICvent 4 $ 2,500 $ 10,000
Annual Re orts Pach l $ 7,500 $ 7,500
Environmental Monitoring Subtotal S 67 90n
Miscellaneous
Roadway Maintenance LS $ Li,000
Rock ICxcavation and Processing CY 38,OOt1 $ 8 50 $ 321000
Office Supplies LS $ IU 001t
Insurance LS $ 100 (?III
Engineering and Legal Services LS $ 102000
Ulilines LS $ 20,000
Other LS $ I Og000
Miscellaneous Subtotal $ 668,000
Dotal Annual Operating Costs $ I F83,98U
September 09. 2003
b e e-__ e e e e m m r r N N N> e
ya _ 0 0 0 0 0o e .o h h m a m o 0 o M
~n b b b ~p P O. T T M m e'1 `O `O ~p O d 00
~O `O `O P O•~ P m b ~O ~O~ < C ^ b ~O ~D O. P P~ T ~O ~p `O ~O b ~O S R Y ~D
Q m P ~p ~O ~p M„ r r N M I fV H n m~ O C O r r r r r O N
M N1 N N N v+ N N CI _ b ~D b ~O ~O b M Y1 M `O b q
N N- - - N N N iR O
K V1 Vf V1 N Vi N Vi Vi Vl Vi V1 Vi Yi V1 Vf W M W Vi VA IR Vi M (A W 69 W Vi W Vr y
L
w `D ~p `O ~p ~p `O ~p `O ~p ~ - - ~ 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 V, M b y
Q P O P O O O O O M P P O• P„ N„ N m b P rr O O
p o o O~ r r r 0 0 0, , r ~n ~n o 0 o n n n ~n m 6'A
b ~O b p < P < V____ N N N N Q P P NI m ~O ~p ~D O y
2 ~ ~D ~ P P Q P M r N y N O O O V% ~ W S b O.6
O O~ O, r P P P g O O O O O O O O \ J
Q - - 6 6
O O O O O~ O. P Q~ ~D ^ '~O r O~ G G
P P P P _ O< O V r r O~ W of m
0 0 0 0 0 0 b~ b b V. O< V^ N^ N P, O~ P, O~ b b b Q T P Q P. Q M W 9 9 O
'O b ~O ~p r' r r r N (V N N N N N G C a
~ O_ O O O r r r ~ vrl P P rv vl m M m O O
N N N N N N N O O r
O ~pp~ p~ pp ap~ppp [1 M a
O O O Op: P g O O ~ P~ N N ^ N N N N N O y p m M qN ~ q d O vl
.~C N~ ~ N~ b~~~ W W m Q R V ~T V 'P C 4~ a 0 V~ O C O O O O O P P P O v ~
w O O O, n r O O, O O co m m w oa w m w Ov. ov. T T P v C
y _
~ _O _O II
Ol O~ P Oi VI v O O O O h O O O O P g P~ N ry r r r P
~ e b b T O\ a P N N h ~n a N O~ X 0 0 0 O~ P ~ CL O
Vj N~ N - ~ ~D ~O ~p N v~ _ O er y - N N N O P C V
O e v~ m m" rn rn u o= > o v v~ ~n a b b e ~o ~o rn a rn r ~
~ m =o e c7 0 0
r.+ _ry ry a
r O~ P P P y~j ypj y~j „ P P P% P N V R r r f~ r r r O. h F u Q
O O O O O O O O< Q rL w _ T Q P b b ~D b i0 b O O
v~ v M' O O O O m N [V m 'C V a r_ _ O
~ vl N N A
d 4' Q ~
L 01 O~ P~~ m P ~ - - n vl h vl i P P P j
H ~O ry ~O \O ry b O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O^~ - - -
N N V N r r r _ 'S C Y C C V `D ~O O O " O
~ v°, °°n °O m ~ r n ° ° ° °e ° °e a ° ° ° ~ y e < a ~r e r ~ ° v 4 U ~
~ m ~
y
'V"~ ~ b~ OJ O] PS T P N N N b ~O b ~O P P P ,T O O O N N h O (pV
f~Q A N N-~ G O O, O Q~ P O~ P m rvi M erg M r r 1` J O O T P P O O O r K
/W/ w ~o ~ e .Nt N v -t ryi v' ~ v O ~O ~o M ~ 't e -ter e -i Y O ~o ~O _
C
Q
V m
j.y O O O C E O pr rye m ~qV ry n 1 N b .O b_ ~p O O O O ~ a K
G! ^i r+i e+i ~p~ b ~O r P~ P P CJ O O N - N N - - r`
^ - il O
P P P W P T O~ P N N N N ~`(~`O ~ d b m J O O r E
~p ~O ~p m o m l/ D ~O ~D O O O O O O O O O O O C o7 N N a y
y N f`4 N N N N r, r, r - _ V C C 4 O ~O `O b C y6
~ ^ N w V~ W cO M A W ~ W W W M M N vrvi rV V t r
K r1 M Yl .p ~O b m m N ry N ry N N N N N N r'i M m [ i C=
s _
~
P o
.o - -
a
V ~ a
O O p J G O O O O O 'J G O J O O O O O< 0 0 'J O O O O O J O P
ISO O O H C O r~ W m om .D O b P P P N N b~ ry b N b r C O p.
_
h v < G
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o c o o c o 0 0° o y` E 5
V h m oo ~o o ~o 0 0 ~o d~~~~ w r ~ r r o r a
~ ~ - - - A E -
F' 2S°
v ai m p
b n w O_ m C ./i ~D ~ w p N r z O` O N vi ~p 4 O
g o o G o c O O o O O O o^ j v O G~ O C O O J M 0 0 O c o v N '.~i h
N nt ~ i N [`l N (I N 1 N fV N N ¢ j .L ~
S.. i i
_ is
Table 8: Estimated Per Acre Cost for Landfill Closure
at South Ailo Landfill
Excavation and Embankment CY 3,200 $8.50 $ 27,200
Final Cover System
24-inch Erosion Protection Layer (Riprap) CY 1,625 $12.00 $ 19,500
12-inch Geomembrane Protection Layer (1-inch minu CY fi,500 $8.50 $ 55,250
16-oz Geolex[ile Cushion SF 25,000 $0.25 $ 6,250
Geomembrane SF 50,000 $0.50 $ 25,000
Geosynthetic Clay Liner SF
50,000 $0.55 $ 27,500
12-inch Soil Cushion Layer CY 900 $70.00 $ 9,000
8-oz Geotextile Cushion SF 25,000 $0.20 $ 5,000
Landfill Gas Management System
Landfill Gas Wells Bach I $30.000 $ 30,000
Piping LP 200 $3000 $ G,000
Surface Water Mana ement S stem LS $ 1,000
Subtotal $ 217.700
Engineering and Administration (15°-0) $ 31,755
Contin eneies 20% $ 42,340
Estimated Per Acre Cost $ 285,795
September 09, 200?
Table 9: Estimated Annual Operating Costs after Closure
Environmental Monitoring
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Sample 12 $ 3,000 $ 36,000
Leachate Sampling and Analysis Sample 4 $ 4,000 $ 16,000
Landfill Gas Sampling Eivent 4 $ 2,500 $ 10,000
Annual Re orts Each I # S 10,000
Environmental Monitoring Subtotal $ 72,000
Maintenance
Final Cover System LS $ 15,000
landfill Gas Management System LS $ 20,000
Surface Water Mana ement S stem LS $ 25,000
Maintenance Subtotal $ 60,000
Leachate Management System
Leachate Conveyance System LS $ 25,000
Leachate Treatment 0 18,000 $0.100 $ 657,000
Leachate Management Subtotal $ 682,000
Miscellaneous
Utilities LS $ 3,000
Other LS $ 2,500
[vlisceLtaneous Subtotal $ 5,500
Annual Operating Cost, after Closure $ 819,500
't'otal Costs fbr ?0-year $ 24 585,000
Post-Closure Care Period
September 9, 2003
fable 10: Total Estimated Costs for Landfill Operating at South Hilo Landfill Sitf
2004 2,062,000 21,400,000 - - - - - $ 23,462,000
2005 - - 1,680,000 1,397,000 930,000 26,030 $4,033,030
2006 - - 1,680,000 1,397,000 - 890,000 24,900 $ 3,991,900
2007 - - !,680,000 1,397,000 - 848,000 16,950 $ 3,941,950
2008 1,289,000 - 1,680,000 2,270,000 - 827,000 23,150 $6,089,150
2009 - - 1,680,000 2,270,000 - 806000 22,550 $4,778,550
'2010 1,680,000 2,270,000 784,000 21,920 $ 4,755,920
2011 773,000 - 1,68Q000 1,537,000 2,286,000 760,000 21,270 $ 7,057,270
2012 - - 1,682000 1,537,000 - 736,000 20,590 $3.973,590
2013 - - 1,680,000 1,537.000 - 710,000 19,880 $ 3,946,8%0
2014 - - 1,680,000 1,537 000 - 697,000 19,490 $ 3,933,400
2015 773,000 1,680,000 1,275,000 1,429,000 708,000 19,810 $ 5,884,810
2016 - - 1,68Q000 1275,000 - 720,000 20,140 $3,695,140
2017 - - 1,680,000 1,275,000 - 732,000 2Q,470 $ 3,707,470
2018 - - 1,680,000 1,275,000 - 743,000 2(1,800 $3718,800
2019 773,000 - 1,680,000 1;327,000 857,000 756,000 21,140 $5,414,140
2020 1,682000 1,327,000 - 768,000 21,490 $3,796,490
2021 - - I,G80000 1727,D00 - 781,000 21,840 $3,809,840
2022 - - 1,682000 1327,000 - 793,000 22,200 $ 3.822,200
2023 773,000 - 1,680 000 1379,000 857,000 806,000 22,560 $ 5,517,560
2024 - - 1,682000 1,379,000 - 822000 22,930 $3.901,930
2025 - 1,680,000 1.379,000 - 833,000 23,300 $3,9 L5,300
2020 - - 1,6R2oU0 1,379,000 - 847,000 23,690 $3929,690
2027 1.03 L000 - 1682000 1,606,000 857,000 860,000 24,070 $6.058,070
2028 - - 1,682000 1,606,000 - 874,000 24,470 $4,184,470
2029 - - 1,680,000 1606,000 - 889,000 24,870 $4,199,87n
2030 1,031,000 - 1,680,000 1,676,000 1,143,000 903,000 25,270 $6,458,270
2031 - - 1,680.000 1,676,000 - 918,000 25,690 $ 4,299,690
2032 - - 1,680.000 LG76,000 - 933,000 26,110 R 4,3 U,IIU
2033 1.03 L000 - 1,680000 2375,000 - 948,000 2f~530 %6,062530
2034 - - 1682000 2,175,000 - 964,000 26,970 $ 8,045,970
2035 - - 3,144,000 $ 3,144,000
'lnlal 9.536,W0 21 A00,000 10,400,000 47,GG9.000 10.573,0110 24,584,000 681,080 $ 164,843,080
Coet pcr $ 4.85 S 10.89 X 2i 64 $ 2426 $ 5 38 $ 1251 $ 235 $ R3 88
lun
###NN#k#N#Ndk#!:
Table 11: Assumptions Utilized in Preparing South Hilo Landfill Site Analysis
Table 1
I. Resident Population is taken from projections published by DBEDT in 2002, entitled Hawaii 1015
2. Defacto Population averaged 10.67%ofthe resident population over the past 10 years.
3. Waste generated is based on a historical average of 6.2 Ibs per capita for Hawaii
4. Disposal Qty is the amount delivered to the landfill aRer recycled/reused materials are withdrawn fiom the stream
5. Hawaii County is currently diverting 13%. With the sort station the amount is projected to increase to IS%.
As recycling programs are implemented the diversion rates will increase by 5%per year in 2006 and 2007. The r
will increase by an average of 3%per year for the following 6 years until it levels off around 4$% in Year 2014.
A summary of the projected diversion rates is as follows:
Diversion Rates:
2000 - 2004 13% or below
2005 IS%
2006 20%
2007 2S°io
200A 2K%
2009 3I°A,
2010 34°i°
2011 37%
2012 40
2013 43
2014 4$%
2015 45°/
2016-2035 4S%
6. The amount disposed in 1.. I Iawaii is projec[etl to remain near 43%of the total, with S7%disposed in W. Hawaii.
Table 2
L Solid waste disposal rates are from fable I.
2. landfill density equals 1,150 Ibs of solid waste per cubic yard of gross airspace.
3. Cover: Refuse Ratio equals 30 % nn a volumetric basis.
Table 5
L Changes in regulations in the Cuture will not require a significant increase in vests in the IinerA.CRS system.
2. Cell is excavated as part oCthe daily carver borrow operations.
3. Soil cushion and drainage layer material will be manufactured from on-site soils.
Table 6
I .Annual operation and maintenance costs are based on County's curtest operating budget.
2.On-site soils are available for road building and daily~ntermediatc wver.
3. Includes sampling of 6 monitoring wells on asemi-annual basis.
Table 8
I _ The County will place rellise to the lines and grades required for closure.
2. An average of 2-feet oRnuterial is required to be moved during final wntouring of the landfill cover.
3- An active landfill gas manugemenl system will be required and be wnsmucted as part of landfill closure.
Table 9
I .Changes in regulations u ill not add significant costs over the 30 year post closure care period.
2. No major environmental problems develop over the operating and post-closure care period.
3. Post-closure care is required for 30 years alter closnre.
4_ Includes sampling ofG monitoring wells on asemi-annual basis.
relate cal
I. UUH permit tee of $0 i5 per ton kill rearain the same
Z Changes in regulations will not add significant costs over the operating period.
3- Post-cliivure care budget i~ lolly funded when the landfill is Illled to capacity.
#N#Nk#####N#11#
ALTERNATIVE 4 -WET AREA LANDFILL COST MODEL
Table 1: Waste Projections Based on Population Trends
2000 149,261 166,384 188,263 163,789 70,429 93,360
2001 151,709 168,524 190,685 165,896 71,335 94,561
2002 154,794 171,311 193,838 168,639 72,515 96,124
2003 157,326 174,113 197,009 171,398 73,701 97,697
2004 159,900 176,962 200,232 174,202 74,907 99,295
2005 162,516 179,857 203,508 172,982 74,382 98,600
2006 165,175 182,799 206,837 165,470 71,152 94,318
2007 167,877 185,790 210,221 157,666 67,796 89,870
2008 170,624 188,829 213,660 153,835 66,149 87,686
2009 173,415 191,919 217,156 149,838 64,430 85,407
2010 176,252 195,058 220,709 145,668 62,637 83,031
2011 179,136 198,250 224,319 141,321 60,768 80,553
2012 182,066 201,493 227,989 13b,794 58,821 77,972
2013 185,045 204,789 231,719 132,080 56,794 75,286
2014 188,072 208,140 235,810 129,531 55,698 73,832
2015 191,149 211,545 239,363 131,650 56,609 75,040
2016 144276 215,006 243,279 133,803 57,535 76,268
2017 197,455 218,523 247,259 135,992 58,477 77,516
2018 20Q685 222,098 251,304 138,217 59,433 78,784
20 L9 203,968 225,732 255,415 140,479 60,406 80,073
2020 207,305 229,425 259,594 142,777 61,394 81,383
2021 210,697 233,178 263,841 145,113 62,398 82,714
2022 214.144 236,993 268,157 14"7,487 63,419 84,067
2023 217,647 240,870 272,545 149,899 64,457 85,443
2024 221,208 244,811 277,003 152,352 65,511 86,841
2025 224,827 248,816 281,535 154,844 66,583 88,261
202(, 228,505 252,886 286,141 15,378 67,672 89,705
2027 232,243 257,024 290,822 159,952 68,779 91,173
2028 236,043 261,229 295,580 162,569 69,905 92,664
2029 239,904 265,502 300,416 165,229 71,048 94,180
2030 243,829 269,846 305,331 167,932 72,211 95,721
2031 247,818 274,261 310,326 17Q679 73,392 97,287
2032 251,873 278,747 315,403 173,472 74,593 98,879
2033 255,993 283,308 320,563 {76,310 75,813 100,496
2034 260,181 287,943 325,807 179,194 77,053 102,141
Total"Cons 4,570,510 1,965,319 2,605,190
.4 vg TPY 152,350 G5,51I 86,840
AvgTPD 424 182 242
September 9, 2003 _
0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g
0 0 0 o c o oa o 0 o r o o .n 0 0 0 0 0 of o 0 0 0 0
i
E
6 m U ~ u! LL T
N
q O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~
a C~ N O O vi C O rn O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en O O O R O O V O O< O O
q w
o °
a - N ~ e ~ P
Y
Q
ea`
o o - o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o
•=3 ~ooo~Gso oGOOOa~GOOGGOOGOGOOOG G
~ o 0 0 oo° °0 8 0 0, o o, o, q o 0 0 0 0, o 0 0, o r~i
Cd r
G ~
0
G O O O O v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~
O O O O O O S O O O o O OC O O O 00 00 O O O O o O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O~ O O O O O. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ O
w m m m m~ O m rn rn m m rn e1 m m n~ T R
Ci
l~ ~i
1~
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
i~ o 0 o c o 00 0- o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 o a o 0 00 0 0.
p ~ o, c c o o`. °o_ o 0 o C o 0 0, 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 .o, o -
Q) ~ m o d V r b b P N N r n h m m W~~ P P P
L t3Q N
ax
N y
d ~
w P T r .p ^ Po~ r r~ j P P P v~ ~ N P O C~ P P~ rn
_ ~D K~ 4 - P~ Y v n ~p t~ P O• fV O O m
C~ ~p ~ v c0 P O Y ~n• ~O t~ m a ~ Q
~ ~O y v~ v. ~ •n ~O .fi ~p ~D •D ~O t~ n h
i
C~ O~ C G C C O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O J O p
t`~ ~i t'~ N rl ri rl N F
~~'k:irE~~'~.'. ii:
Table 3: Cost Estimate for Initial Development of Landfill at Wet Area Landfill Site
Pre-Construction
Site Characterization Studies 2003-2004 I S $ 500,000
Preliminary Engineering for Permitting 200}-2004 LS $ 750,000
Construction Plans and S ecifica[ions 2003-2004 I_S $ 300,000
Total Pre-Construction $ 1,550,000
Construction Costs
Support facilities
Landfill Office 2004 SF 2,000 $ 120 $ 240,000
70-foot "Crock Scales 2004 Each 2 $ 80,000 $ 160,000
Access Roud 2004 LS $ 50,000
Utilities 2004 LS $ 100,000
Initial Refuse Cell Construction
Excavation snd Embankment 2004 CY 250,000 $ 8.50 $ 2,125,000
Lined Leachate Collection System 2004 Here 8 0 $ 190,907 $ 1,527,257
Leachate Flow Equalization and Conveyance
L,eacha[e Lagoon 2004 Fach I $ 603,500 $ 603,500
20[14 Lach X $ -
2004 IJ~ $ -
I'nvironmemal Monitoring
3-90 Foot Groundwater Wells 2004 LF 270 $ 150 $ 40,500
Landfill bas Probes 2004 LF 180 $ 150 $ 27,000
Subtotal $ 4,87},257
Contract Administration and CQA (10%) 2004 $ 487,000
Contin encies 20% 20114 $ 975,000
Total Initial Construction Cost $ 6,335.257
Development Costs -Year 2003-04
17e-Coiutruclion $ I,>SQ000
Design and Construction $ 6,335,257
Connection to Hilo Sewage "Preatment Plant 2004 IS $ 13,300,000
Total Development Costs $ 21.185 257
September 09, 2003
Table 4: Estimated Cost for Leachate Lagoon Construction at Wet Area Landfill
Final Contouring and Grading CY 25,000 $ 8.50 $ 212,500
6-inch Soil Cushion Layer CY 2,000 $ 10.00 $ 20,000
Geomembrane for Leak Detection SF' 9(1,000 $ 0.50 $ 45,000
Geonet SF 90,000 $ 0.50 $ 45,000
8-oz Lower Ceo[extile Separating Laver SF 90,000 $ 0.15 $ 13,500
Geosynthe[ic Clay Liner SP 90,000 $ O.SS $ 49,500
Geomembrane SP 90,000 $ 0.50 $ 45,000
16-oz Upper Geotextile Cushion SF 90,000 $ 0.2D $ 18,000
12-inch Drainage Layer CY 4,000 $ RSO $ 34,000
8-oz Upper Geotex[ile Separating Layer SF 90.000 $ OJS $ 13,500
I2-inch Soil Protective Layer CY 4,000 $ 1000 $ 40.000
Geomembrane Cover SP 90,000 $ 0.75 $ 67,SOU
Subtotal $ 603.500
Engineering and Administration (I S%i $ 90,525
Contin encies 20% $ 120,700
Estimated Cost for Lagoon $ at4,v25
September 09.2003
Table 5: Estimated Per Acre Cost for Refuse Cell Construction at Wet Area Landfill
Mobilization Lump Sum $15Q,000.00 $ 3Q,000
Excavation and Embankment CY 5,000 $8.50 $ 42,500
Liner System
6-inch Soil Cushion Layer CY 900 $10.00 $ 9,000
Geosynthetic Clay Liner SF 50.000 $0.55 $ 27,500
Geomembrane SF 50,000 $0.50 $ 25,000
16-oz Geo[extile Cushion SF 25,000 $0.25 $ 6,250
24-inch Drainage Layer CY 3,200 $S.SU $ 27,200
Leachate Collection System
8-inch Leachate Collection Pipe LF 175 $32.00 $ 5,600
Pum Station Lum Sum $125,000.00 $ 17,857
Subtotal $ 190,907
Engineering and Administration (15°~~~) $ 28,63b
Contin encies 20% $ 38,181
Estimated Per Acre Cost $ 257.725
for LinerlLeachate System
September 09, 2003
Table 6: Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Administrative Labor Costs
(1) Solid Waste Operations Superintendent (SR- Hour 2,080 $ 21.56 $ 44,845
(4) Equipment Operator ? (BC-9) Hour 8,320 $ 1600 $ 133,120
(2) Construction Equipment Mechanics (BC-t I Hour 4,160 $ 16.00 $ 74,880
(3) Landfill Attendants (BC-5) Hour 6,240 $ 13.25 $82,680
(4) Leachate transport drivers (BC-9) Hour 8,320 $ 10.00 $ 133,120
Q) Meohanical Welder (BC-10) Hour 2,(180 $ 1700 $35,360
Overhead Percent 40% $201,602
Administrative Labor SuMotal $ 705,607
Equipment Owning and Operating Costs
Dozer lCa[D7) Hour 2080 $5000 $ 104,1100
Compactor (Cat 8168) Hour 2 080 $ 50.00 $ 104,000
45-ton Dump Truck (Dcere 400 D) Hour 1,800 $ 55.00 $ 99,000
Eront End loader (Cat 966F) Hour 2,080 $ 31.00 $ 64,480
Leachate 77ansport Trucks Mile 125-650 $ 4 00 $ 502,600
Water 77uck Mfle 2,500 $ 4.00 $ 10,000
Small Loader (1T 28) Hour 1200 $ 20 00 $ 24,000
UtiliTy Trucks Mile IS,Ot10 $045 $6,750
Maintenance and O cretin Costs Percent 5 a $ 45,742
Equipment O & O Subtotal $ 960,572
Em~ironmcn[al Monitoring Costs
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Sample 12 $ 2,700 $ 32300
Leachate Sampling and Analysis, Sample 4 $ 3,500 $ 14,000
Landfill Gas Sampling Lvenr 4 $ 2,500 $ 10,[100
Annual Re orts Poch I $ 7,5(10 8 7,500
Environmental Monitoring Subtotal $ 63,900
Miscellaneous
Roadway Maintenance LS $ 15,000
Rock Excavation and processing CY 3R,o00 $ 8.50 $ 323000
Office Supplies LS $ 10,00(1
losurancc LS $ 100,(100
Engineering and Legal Services LS $ 100,0(10
Utilities LS $ 20,00(1
Other LS $ 100,000
Mlscclta,rcous Subtotal $ (>(i81100
Total Annual Operating Costs $ 2,398=078
Septcmlx;r 09, 2003
m ~o N e--- ~o ~ N e r m~ N N d d d o ~
LII W~ m W W m N ~n O O O O M rN~t m M r'1 t1 m P P P b b~ O O
v~ ~O .O ~O ~O P P P P d
b `D b^ P P Oi ~C n ~ ~D O < d d ~O BOO BOO ~O~ P P T P ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O~ V V S ~yO O
M rPt m N N N~ N N N f N m Nl eN~l m m m, m b `0 b `O m n n b b P
L N N N- - - [V N N w O
d w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ~
y pb~ ~D ,p `pO `O •p N N O O N O O O O vl N n P ^ _y
3 O O~ O O~ P P^ ~ r O O g g^ b O q~ Q P VNl vNi Vi h O O O t1 Nl n M~ m M m 4 A A
~p ~p vJ d~ V d d d d _ O^ O' N N N N U P P O $ VI
~ BOO ~~OO O' P O~ P ~'1 t~ r f~ N C d O O O d~ ~ ~ O G.
W O O O, t~ t\ q~ P Q p 0 O_ O. O O^ O O~ N
W ~ ^ 6 6
~ r ~ m
yj C O O O ~ P P P P ~ ~O - i C
P P P P~ ^ d d< d r n W m V'O p
C N` b b `D d d d~ O N N (`4 N P~ P~ P~ T 'D `O b Q T T P P P M of
/ 1 O O O O O O N' N^ r' J J r r r r r ry~ N N N N CI N N ry0 ~ p c m
Y G O O O n r h N N N N N N N N n n n N O O
C
P Q pb~ p
No O O P P P P~ N N N N N m m n m m m^ m' N ~ e N O
O
O O O^ Q~ P, P~ O, O O~ O t~ N r r N t\ N N r N vNi ~ M~ T M M ~ M U ~ O
V `O 'D d V d m `O ~O m vl n O
~O V d d d d d V d 4 d d C 0 0 0 O O O p a~ O
O. 0 0~ ~ t~ O~ O O O~ m ~ m m M M m W P P P P P P~_ ~ N
L ~ f
F ^ _ _ _ m ~ O O rn
P P P~~ m v O O O O Vi N O O O O P P P N N N r r P t`
N N ~/1
^O ~p ~p ~O P P P P N N N N N~ h h N O O O ry P P Ld E
C N N f{ ..o N_ ~ N N, a d_ d_ ~ r H rv °c c u
~ N m m °p ov a v~ N O d< d ~n N e N e e e e P rn P N e ~j C7
N ~ N N N N 6
W t` r r v1 L L?
(d r h P P P P~ vdi vdi d P P m W fd'1 dJ N N n r a ~
~ - ~
o a¢~
NNNNN "&A
P P S N~ ~ G` P P P- vi P P T N
L N N N ~ N N ry 0 0^ O O O O O O O G O d d d d d d ~0 `C b O O L
d < d^ d m d~ 7 N a O O O O O O O C O t~ t` r < d C N Q U
p ~n w m °a d d °a a d d v d C d d d d a P N
d N b
d P P P o0 0o u N N a-___ N~ N~- o 0 o m o rv
.y ~p ry N m m W o P P P N n P P P P - N m N m O
N iJ O O P P P rN'i m m m r t~ X 0 0 P P U O O O d,
fi r1 ~O L COI ~ i T R d M d m M b m N b~ rri ^ T Y Y C d 4 O L - 7
V
n~
f^ n P 1 P T d N C N O` P O. P ~ M m ~ ~ _
~ N r a g a e^ a e _ _
O O O O O O~ N f N N `O `O_ N~ b O O C. O O O O N N N N
~ A' W f C~ .N.
G) M m m N ~O ~O ~O t~ - n P P ~ Q N _
O
v
7. E
Q P P P W W T O` P P N I N J J N ~O D~ `O m `O m O O O ~
L N N N m- N~ N~ N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O N
d d~ d d~ d C `O b `G O 6 6
m N N N L L y
w q m
~ m b `NO b- m+ m m N m N N N N N N N (V ['1 N m n NI m N m C_ _G c_
l~ oo
~ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ c' _ _ tv n rv m m r. N
q N rv rv rv
F
O O O O O G T O O O 6 O O O O O O O O=] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ p
O O O O O C W w c0 m Yi m ~O ~O ~O r)S P N rI N N N ~l N O^ ~
O d
4 t
6 7
O O p O O G O 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 J O O C O~ O O J Oi 0 0 00~ ^ ~ G
W o~ m ~p .O ~ b L b N b N r) N n r r r r r 1 E N
ary ~ 4
C ~ i
Q ~ 6.
~ x o_ a ,a r m P o- N m d •n ~ N x P o- N m ~c N ~o ~ ~ ~i ~ C
O O O O G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 7 0 O O i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N ~ N f N r. °n Q E 22c,,
Fi ¢_fi.
..~4aty dxt~.Y.~.. h:`
Table 8: Estimated Per Acre Cost for Landfill Closure
at Wet Area Landfill
Excavation and Embankment CY 3,200 $8.50 $ 27,200
Final Cover System
2Q-inch Erosion Protection Layer (Riprap) CY 1,625 $12.00 $ 19,500
12-inch Geomembrane Protection Layer (1-inch minu CY 6,500 $8.50 $ 55,250
16-oz Geotextile Cushion SF 25,000 $0.25 $ 6,250
Geomembrane SP 50,000 $0.50 $ 25,000
Geosynthetic Clay Liner SF 50,000 $0.55 $ 27,500
12-inch Soil Cushion Layer C'Y 900 $10.00 $ 9,000
8-oz Geotextile Cushion SF :'5,000 $Q20 $ 5,000
Landfill Gas Management System
Landfill Gas Wells Each 1 $30,000 $ 30,000
Piping LE 200 $30.00 $ 6,000
Surface Water Mana ement S stem LS $ 1,000
Subtotal $ 211,700
Engineering and Administration (I5%) $ 31,755
Conlin encies 20% $ 42,340
Estimated Per Acre Cosl $ 285,795
September 09, 200;
Table 9: Estimated Annual Operating Costs after Closure
Environmental Monitoring
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Sample 12 $ 3,000 $ 36,000
Leachate Sampling and Analysis Sample 4 $ 4,000 $ 16,000
Landfill Gas Sampling Event 4 $ 2,500 $ 10,000
Annual Re orts Each 1 # $ IQ,000
Environmental Monitoring Subtotal $ 72,000
Maintenance
Final Cover System LS $ 15,000
Landfill Gas Management System LS $ 20,000
Surface Water Mana emen[ S stem LS $ 25,000
Maintenance Subtotal $ 60,000
Leachate Management System
Leachate Conveyance System LS 44,875 $ 4 $ 179,500
Leachate Treatment d 18.000 $0.100 $ 657,000
Leachate Management Subtotal $ 836,500
Miscellaneous
Utilities LS $ 3,000
Other LS $ 2,500
Miscellaneous Subtotal $ 5,500
Annual Operating Cocts after Closure $ 974,000
Total Costs for 30-year $ 29,220,000
Post-Closure C arc Period
September 9, 2003
Table 10: Total Estimated Costs for Landfill Operating at Wet Area Site
2004 2,062 000 19,120,000 - - - - - $ 21,182,000
2005 - 2,40Q,000 1,397,000 - 1,106,000 26,030 $4,929,030
2006 - - 2,400,000 1,397,000 - 1,058,000 24,900 $ 4,879,900
2007 - - 2,400,000 1,397,000 - 1,006,000 16,950 $ 4,821,950
2008 1,289,000 - 2,400,000 2,270,000 - 983,000 23,150 $6,965,150
2009 - - 2,404000 2,270,000 - 958,000 22,550 $ 5,650,550
2010 - 2,400,000 2,270,000 931,000 21,920 $ 5,622,920
2011 773,000 - 2,400,000 1,537,000 2,286,000 903,000 21,270 $ 7,920,270
2012 - - 2,400,000 1,537,000 - 875,000 20,590 $4,832,590
2013 - - 2,400,000 1,537,000 - 844,000 19,880 $ 4,800,880
2014 - - 2,400,000 1,537,000 - 828,000 19,490 $ 4,784,490
2015 773,000 - 2,400,000 1,275,000 1,429,000 842,000 19,810 $ 6,738,810
2016 - - 2,400,000 1,275,000 - 855,000 20,140 $4,550,140
2017 - - 2,400,000 1,275,000 - 869,000 20,470 $ 4,564,40
2018 - - 2,400.000 1,275,000 - 884,000 20,800 $ 4,579,800
20{9 773,000 - 2,40Q,000 1,327,OW 857,000 898,000 21,140 $ 6,276,140
2020 - - 2,400,000 1,327,000 - 913,000 21,490 $4,66 1,490
2021 - - 2,400,000 1,327,000 - 928,000 21,840 $ 4,676,840
2022 - - 2,40Q000 1,327,000 - 943,000 22,200 $ 4,692,2110
2023 773,000 - 2,400,000 1,379,000 857,000 95R,000 22,560 $ 6,389,560
2024 - - 2,400000 1,379,(100 - 974,000 22 930 $ 4,775 930
2025 - 2,400.000 1,379,000 - 990,000 23,300 $ 4,792,3110
2026 - - 2,400000 1,379,000 - 1006,000 23,690 $ 4,808,690
2027 1,031,000 - 2,400,000 L60ti,000 857,000 1023,000 24,070 $ 6.941,0'0
2028 - - ?,400000 1,606000 - 1,039,000 24,470 $ 5.069,4'0
2029 - - 2,400,000 1,606,000 - 1,056,000 24,870 $ 5.086,R'0
2030 1,031,000 - 2,400,000 1,676,000 1,143,000 1,074,000 25,270 $ 7,349,270
2031 - - 3,40Q000 1,676,000 - 1,091,000 25,690 $5,192,690
2032 - - 2,400.000 Ih76,000 - 1,109,000 26,110 $5,211,110
2033 1031,000 - ?,-tU0A00 X375,000 - 1,127,000 26,530 $6959,530
203-0 - - 2,100000 2,375000 - 1,14b,000 26,970 $5,947,9'0
2035 - - - 3,114,000 - - $3,144,000
Dotal 9,536,000 19,120,000 72,000000 47,669,000 10,573,0110 29,219,000 6R 1,080 $ 18R.79R,080
('usl pcr $4.85 $9.73 $3661 $2426 $838 $14.87 $035 $9606
"Ion
ttkN#####N###k##
Table 11: Assumptions Utilized in Preparing Wet Area Site Analysis
Table 1
1. Resident Population is IaAen Gom projections published by DBEDT in 2002. entitled Hawaii 2025
2. Defacto Population averaged 10.67%of the resident population over the past 10 years.
3. Waste generated is based on a historical average of 6.2 Ibs per capita for Hawaii
4. Disposal Qty is the amount delivered to the landfill after recycled/reused materials are withdrawn from the stream
5. Hawaii Counry is currently diverting 13%. W i[h the sort station the amount is projected to increase [0 15%.
As recycling programs arc implemented the diversion rates will increase by 5% per year in 2006 and 2007. The r<
will increase by an average of 3% per year for the following 6 years until it levels off around 45% in Year 2014.
A summary of the projected diversion rates is as follows:
Diversion Rates:
2000 - 2004 13% or below
2005 IS%
2006 20%
2007 25%
2008 28%
2009 31'i
2010 34%
2011 37%
2012 40%
2013 43'i
2014 45%
2015 45°/
2016 -2035 45%
6. The amount disposed in f:. Hawaii is projected to remain near 43 % of the total, with 57%disposed in W. Hawaii.
Table 2
L Solid waste disposal rates arc from Table I.
2. Landfill density equals I, 150 Ibs of solid waste per cubic yard of gross airspace.
3. Cover. Refuse Ratio equals 30°/o on a volumetric basis.
Table 5
I Changes in regulations in the future will not require a significant increase in <:osts in the liner/LCRS system.
L Cell is excavated as part of the daily cover borrow operations.
3. Soil cushion and drainage layer material will be manufactured from o?-site soils.
Table G
I .Annual operation and maintenance costs are based on County's torten[ operating budget.
2. On-site soils are available for road building and daily/intermediate cover.
3. Includes sampling of fi monitoring wells on asemi-annual basis.
Table S
I l~hc County will place refuse to the lines and grades required for closure.
2. An average of 2-feet of material is required to be moved during ?nal contouring of the landfill cover.
3 An active landfill gas management system will be required and be constructed as part of landfill closure.
Table 9
L Changes in regula[ioos will not add significant wets over the 30 year post closure care period.
2. No major environmental problems develop over the operating and Iwnt-closure care period.
3. Post-closure care is required fur 30 }'ears after closure.
4 Includes sampling of6 monitoring wells on asemi-annual basis.
Table 10
I . DOI I pennil (ce of $0.35 per Ion will remain the same.
2 Changes in regulations mill not add significant vests over the operating period.
3. Post-closure care budget is fully ILnded when the landfill is filled to capacity.
uunussudttuaaaa
ALTERNATIVE 5 -DRY AREA LANDFILL COST MODEL
Table 1: Waste Projections Based on Population Trends
2000 149,261 166,384 188,263 163,789 70,429 93,360
2001 151,709 168,524 190,685 165,896 71,335 94,561
2002 154,794 171,311 193,838 168,639 72,515 96,124
2003 157,326 174,113 197,009 171,398 73,701 97,697
2004 159,900 176,962 200,232 174,202 74,907 99,295
2005 162,516 179,857 203,508 172,982 74,382 98,600
2006 165,175 182,799 206,837 165,470 71,152 94,318
2007 167,877 185,790 210,221 157,666 67,796 89,870
2008 170,624 188,829 213,660 153,835 66,149 87,686
2009 173,415 191,919 217,156 149,838 64,430 85,407
2010 176,252 195,058 220,709 145,668 62,637 83,031
2011 179,136 198,250 224,319 141,321 60,768 80,553
2012 182,066 201,493 227,989 136,794 58,821 77,972
2013 185,045 204,789 231,719 132,080 56,794 75,286
2014 188,072 208,140 235,510 129,531 55,698 73,832
2015 191,149 211,545 239,363 131,650 56,609 75,040
2016 194,276 215,006 243,279 133,803 57,535 76,268
2017 197,455 218,523 247,259 135,992 58,477 77,516
2018 300,685 222,098 251,304 138,217 59,433 78,784
2019 203,968 225,732 255,415 140,479 60,406 80,073
2020 207,305 229,425 259,594 142,777 61,394 81,383
2021 210,697 233,178 263,841 145,113 62,398 82,714
2022 214,144 236,993 268,157 147,487 63,419 84,067
2023 217,647 240,870 272,545 149,899 64,457 85,443
2024 221,208 244,R1I 277,003 152,352 65,5 I1 86,841
2025 224,827 248,816 281,535 154,844 66,583 88,261
2026 228,505 252,886 286,141 157,378 67,672 89,705
2027 232,243 257,024 290,822 159,952 68,779 91,173
2028 236,043 261,229 295,580 162,569 69,905 92,664
2029 239,904 265,503 300,416 165,229 71,048 94,180
2030 243,829 269,846 305,331 167,932 72,211 95,721
3031 247,818 274,261 310,326 170,679 73,392 97,287
2032 251,873 278,747 315,403 173,472 74,593 98,879
2033 255,993 283,308 320,563 176,310 75,813 100,496
2034 260,181 287,943 32S,R07 179,194 77,053 102,141
"total"Ions 4,5'70,510 1,965,319 2,605,190
Avg TPY 152,350 65,511 86,840
A vg TPD -324 IR2 242
September 9, 2003
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° ° o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~n o o n o o 0 o n o o v o 0 0 0
P
Oy
L
E
u
Q. (D U C W $ n
y
W
R ~
O O O O O c o O O o O O O O O o O O o o O O O O O O O O O O O O
V] O v~ C~ O O O O O n O O m O O O C O O O O V O m
_q ~
q
L q
O
m ~ h ~ ~ a
w ~
C d
d L
L
L o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o
7 0 00 0 0 °oo °o °o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q' °o, o°, o o, o, o, o, o, o o_ o o, o, c o, o, 0 0 0_ o S_ o o °
y o Q o00 0 0 0 rn- ~o r o: - eo o rv d ~0 00
CL ~ _ _ _ - _ ' o 0 0 o O o - - _ - - - ' ' - - - - _
~ - - -
E ~
=3
~ _ °
'fl o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 °
0 0 o c o o °o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 °o 0 0 0 0 0
o o c 0 0 0 0 0 0, o 0 0, q q o, o, c o o, o 0 0 0 0 0
a
C
a C
O
,9 O
V V - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o c o 0 0 0 0°0
r ~ °o c°° °o °o ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 00 0 °o
0 0, 0 0 0, o, o o, o o, 0 0 0 0, c o o 0 °o ~ o
IQ~J Y•C~C ~ ~ P b ~ w O~ - - v~ .p m P O% r•. m v~ W~ O ~ N op. Q
1^ W m oo r ~o r r r m m a a rJ
• H
N
~ W a
ro ~ a a a ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ _ -
'=t'+ Y 1~ ~ b~ ~ v% y r m H~ P L L~ d~ O b r ~ r n r r
W
'2{ O O P - O ryP O- C
O - O~ O O O O O
fl /'I r. e'1 /'I /`I N <`i ni ~i r~ N ~i ~i N N N
{
jl i.
Table 3: Cost Estimate for Initial Development of Landf?11 at Dry Area Landfill Site
Pre-Construction
Site Characterization Studies 2005 -2006 LS $ 500,000
Preliminary Engineering for Permitting 2006 -2007 LS $ 750,000
Land Acquisition 2006 -2007 LS $ [,200,000
Construction Plans and SpecificaUnns 2003-2007 LS $ 300,000
Construction of Hilo Sort Station 2004 - 2005 LS $ 7,000,000
Total Pre-Construction $9,750,000
Construction Costs
Support Facilities
Landfill Office 2008 SF 2,000 $ 120 $ 240,000
70-foot Truck Scales 2008 Each 2 $ 80,000 $ 160,000
Access Road 2008 LS $ 50,000
Utilities 2008 LS $ 100,000
Initial Refuse Ccll Construction
Excavation and 8mbankmen[ 2008 CY 250,000 $ 850 $ 2,125,000
Liner/ I s;achate Collection System 2008 Acre 8.0 $ 190,907 $ 1,527,257
Leachate Flow Equalization and <bnvcyance
Leachate Lagoon 2008 finch I $ 490,000 $ 490,000
Leachate Treatment Plant-Reverse Osmosi 2008 gpd 104,000 $50 $5,200,000
Environmental Monitoring
3-90 Foot Groundwater Wells 2008 LP 270 $ 750 $ 40,500
Landfill Gas Probes 2008 LP 180 $ 150 $ 27,000
Subtotal $ 9,959,757
Contract Administration and CQA 110%) 2008 $ 996,000
Contin encics (20% 2008 $ 1,992,000
l'otal Initial Construction (bst $ 12,947,757
Development Costs - Yexr 20(13-07
F're-Construction $ 9,75Q000
Deli n and ConsWCtion $ 12,947,757
Total Development t'ocK $ 22,697,757
September 04 2003
Table 4; Estimated Cost for Leachate Lagoon Construction at Dry Area Landfill
Final Contouring and Grading CY 20,000 $ 10.00 $ 200,000
6-inch Soil Cushion Layer CY 2,000 $ 9.00 $ 18,000
Geomembrane for Leak Detection SF 60,000 $ 0.50 $ 30,000
Geonet SF 60,000 $ 0.50 $ 30,000
8-oz Lower Geotextile Separating Layer SF 60,000 $ 0.15 $ 9,000
Geosynthetic Clay Liner SF 60,000 $ 0.55 $ 33,000
Geomembrane SF 60,000 $ 0.50 $ 30,000
16-oz Upper Geotextile Cushion SF 60,000 $ 0.20 $ 12,000
12-inch Drainage Layer CY 4,000 $ R.50 $ 34,000
8-oz Upper Geotextile Separating Layer SF 60,000 $ 0.1 S S 9,000
12-inch Soil Protective Layer CY 4,000 $ 10.00 $ 40,000
Geomembrane Cover SF 60,000 $ 0.75 $ 45,000
Subtotal $ 490,000
Engineering and Administration (15°6) $ 73,500
Conlin encies 20% $ 98,000
Estimated Cost for Lagoon $ 661,500
Septcmbcr 09, 2003
Table 5: Estimated Per Acre Cost for Refuse Cell Construction at Dry Area Landfill
Mobilization Lump Sum $ISO,Ol10.00 $30,000
Excavation and Embankment CY 5,000 $8.50 $ 42,500
Liner System
!>-inch Soil Cushion Layer CY 900 $10.00 $ 9,000
Geosynthe[ic Clay Liner SF' 50,000 $0.55 $ 27,500
Geomembrane SP 50,000 $0.50 $ 25,000
16-oz Geotextile Cushion SF 25,000 $0.25 $ 6,250
24-inch Drainage Layer CY 3,200 $8.50 $ 27.200
Leachate Collection System
8-inch Leachate Collection Pipe LF 175 $32.00 $ 5,600
Pum Station Lum Sum $125,000.00 $ 17,857
Subtotal $ 190,907
Engineering and Administration t 15"'0) $ 28,636
Contin encies 20% $38,181
Estimated Per Acre Cost $ 257,725
Por LinerlLeachate System
September 09, 2003
Table 6: Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Administrative Labor Costs
(1) Solid Waste Operations Superintendent (SR- Hour 2,080 $ 21.56 $ 44,845
(4) Equipment Operator ll (BC-9) Hour 8,320 $ 1600 $ 133,120
(2) Construction Equipment Mechanics (BC-11 Hour 4,160 $ 18.00 $ 74,880
(3) Landfill Attendants (BC-5( Hour 6,240 $13.25 $82,680
(q Mechanical Welder (E3C-10} Hour 2,080 $ 1700 $35,360
(8) Hilo Sort Station Employees LS $ 262,944
(7) Long-Haul Drivers LS $ 391,464
Overhead Percent 40% $410,117
Administrative Labor Subtotal $ 1,435,410
Equipment Owning and Operating Costs
Dour (Cat D7) Hour 2,080 $ 50 00 $ 104,000
Compactor (Cat 8168) Hour 2,080 $ 50.00 $ 104,000
45-ran Dmnp'Cruck (Deere 4001)) Hour 1,800 $ 55 00 $ 99,000
Front End Loader (Ca[ 966F) Hour 2,080 $ 31.00 $ 64,480
Wastewater tanker Mile 1200 $ a 00 $ 4,800
Water Truck Mde 2,500 $400 $IQ000
Small Loader (1"f 28) (lour 1,200 $ 20 00 $ 24,000
Utility Tracks Mile 15,000 $045 $6750
Maintenance and O cretin Costs Percent 5 r $ 20,852
I?yuipmen[ O & O Subtotal $ 437,882
Hnvironmen[al Monitoring Costs
Groundwater Sampling and Anahsis Sample 12 $ 2 700 $ 32,400
Leachate Sampling and Analysi_. Sample 4 $ 3,500 $ 14,000
Landfill Gas Sampling Rvcnt 4 $ 2,500 $ Ig000
Annual Re ohs Each I $ 7,500 $ 7,500
Environmental Monitoring Subtotal $ 63,900
Miscellaneous
Sort Station Operations $ 125,000
Long-l taut Mainlenxnce $ 437,000
Roadway Maintenance LS $ 15.000
Rock Excavation and Processing CY 38,000 S K 50 $ 323,000
Office Supplies LS $ 10,000
Insurance LS $ 100,000
I?nginecring and Legal Services I,S $ 100 0110
l Ilililies L5 8 20,000
Other I,S $ IOO,Ot10
Miscellaneous Subtotal $ 1,230.000
1btal Mnual Operating Costs $ 3_167.191
~ ~ °n n °n n° o m m m- m ~ ~ ~ o 0 0 o M d ,d., M r r h rn m rn e m~ y° P
`O `D `D `O T P P~ P~ ~O b b ~O O O O~ d d d m O ~ O
C m m m e O e r ` ~n d d d d Nm N~~~ 0 0 0 r7 N
ltl t c e a ~ ~ °r~ ~ r dv a °d °d c ~
dO ~~dDO `~aOO a<< a i r ~.~0+ ~n ~n ~n m ro rv N
I.a 4 w w w w w w w w w w w» w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
~ ~ g
d a a a y v v v o- e d d v yy d .e., ydj d d v o 0
10 rv JO Q Y~ V P O. U O~ e' n d d h N b ~O ~O ~O O O O a+Nl m M d d d N ~ 6 G L
N n n N n r_ r, r N ry N "1 r r r r b vy
O O O ry~ m b~~ b N N O O O O d d d N N N T ry ry„ Nm ~-y-d
JD b ~D r1 P P P P n N N N P N ~
r r r__ m ~O ~p ~O ~D n r n n 1~ r r O. P
A 6 d
eel M t1 e1 en M r r n r r n d C C
O O O O O O O O O O N vdi vdi vdi O O O O vii vOi vii vbi 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ O O b 9 9 Q
~ J W W~ N O O d d d ry ry d~ d C G b
ld ~ n n N J N N N N nl
% O O
~ r n° n M n r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a d d d d d - ~,°f~,
`o e n a ct d. ry r r ro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M M e ° o
NK {°4 n^L n'Y rqn"! ^~4 ~ r`n iyr ~ ~ o w
0 0 o ry °j., o o` o` 0 0 0 0 0 0` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ o °o
~o ~o Jo ~^.1 e e~ e n r n r r~ ~c ~c e
r r n n n r r n h h e~ e e e
O _ _ _ _
d h h r o o n
P b P~~ N P vPi N 1 Q m fJ d y d d O O O O O O O N ~ m N tb'i a A
(W~ P~ O O O w w d d d vi vl ~D ~O i0 ~O n n n N N y N U
Q+ m m r~ r~ b tO N C~ N N N N m nt rrl d d a~ P P ~'1 m
N ~f y d m r^. N N C aT q~ ry~ o
I"O N N b b b b b b~ b N N r P P P P~ L L aG
0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m O O O O P P m O. ~ r~~ Ip ~n v1 T T M M M Nl [J
C _ P P P d d P d_ P_ d m J J
(a N N ci d d d vi N~ ~O b b O~ P P Q` ~ N W
i
N ~ :p b~ d d r~ ~ `O M N n" ~ M m~~ eNd+l M W~ m
FM m. O` P O O O P O. P P r n O
a N N N d d d f
rv rv r`i N N N N N N N C N N N N N ry eP'1 P P O N d U~
Q d n p
W
L q 00 00 P P P P P P P P P P P~ rl N C N P U P m d
d rl f tf`I ~ m O O O r n P
ry fl M _ h `D `O b C
N N - N fl -
w P P P P i0 L D O m O O O O f N N N
O C C O O O m 1 N 1 ~ - m~~~ n N d d d N
~ N~~ Nf dd y
u ~ f ~`N M..,
~dl E
I~ O O O P P P O O O C M rn e'i en e'i m b b O .p Jp JJ b ~
q P m vJ P P P d d d C d d Y d Y M M CI 1
C O O .:i O O O O O O, O O, n n r d d C O O p
N - ry ~1 - m O O O O O O O O O O O O-~---~-
V _
.O 000 °o
L o - ~ d
~ _ _ - _ _ _ ~ _ N n r~ r. of w N
h
d
O C C O O G- C O J J G O O O O O, O O O O O O O O U O O J O P d
O C C O O O x m m m b~ b-_ P P N N f
I b b b fOJ N N m a
r..l 1
1;$ q L
o c o o, o o ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0, 0 9 0 o
m_-- m m m e e a~ e e e~ e e n r n n E m
a`
- E n
c' ~ v
a`
~yry ~ ~ - P C Y ~ T v- n L n m P O ~ CI ['i d n D ip pp pOp Q.
?!M' ~h 'J C C~~ N N N r~ f N N N f O J> CI rl O N ~J O O O O ~ ~ y v 1
Y E Q Q 1
~.~_q a - ~J
Table 8: Estimated Per Acre Cost for Landfill Closure
at Dry Area Landfill
Excavation and Embankment CY 3,200 $8.50 $ 27,200
Final Cover System
24-inch Erosion Protection Layer (Riprap) CY 1,625 $12.00 $ 19,500
12-inch Geomembrane Protection Layer (1-inch minu CY 6,500 $8.50 $ 55,250
16-oz Geotextile Cushion SF ?5,000 $025 $ 6,250
Geomembrane SP SQ000 $0.50 $ 25,000
Geosynthetic Clay Liner SF 50,000 $0.55 $ 27,500
12-inch Soil Cushion Layer CY 900 $10.00 $ 9,000
8-oz Geotextile Cushion SF '5,000 $0.20 $5,000
Landfill Gas Management System
Landfill Gas Wells Each I $30,000 $ 30,000
Piping LF' 200 $30.00 $ 6,000
Surface Water Mana ement S stem I,S $ 1,000
Subtotal $ 211,700
Engineering and Administration (I5%) $ 31,755
Contin encies 20% $ 42,340
Estimated Per Acre Cost $ 285,795
September 09, 2003
Table 9: Estimated Annual Operating Costs after Closure
Environmental Monitoring
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Sample 12 $ 3,000 $ 36,000
Leachate Sampling and Analysis Sample 4 $ 4,000 $ 16,000
Landfill Gas Sampling Event 4 52,500 $ ID,000
Annual Re orts Each I # $ 10,000
Environmental Monitoring Subtotal $ 72,000
Maintenance
Final Cover System LS $ 15,000
Landfill Gas Management System LS $ 20,000
Surface Water Mana ement S stem LS $ 25,000
Maintenance Subtotal $ 60,000
Leachate Management System
Leachate Treatment d 9,OW $0.100 $ 328,500
Leachate Management Sub[o[al $ 328,500
Miscellaneous
Utilities LS $ 3.000
Other LS $ 2.500
Miscellaueous Subtotal $ 5.500
Annual Operating Costs after Closure $ 466.000
Total Costs for 30-year $ 13,980,(100
Post-Closure Care Period
September 9, 2003
Table 10: Total Estimated Costs for Landfill Operating at Dry Area Landfill Site
2004 z,o6z,ooo z464o,000 - - - _ $ zz,7oz,ooo
2005 - J,174000 489,000 529,000 26,030 $4,214,030
2006, - - 3,170,000 489,000 - 506,000 24,900 $4,189,900
2007 - - 3,170,000 489,000 - 482,000 16,950 $4,157,950
2008 1,289,000 - 3,170,000 794,000 - 471,000 23,150 $5,747,150
2009 - - 3,170,000 794,000 - 458,000 22,550 $ 4,444,550
2010 - 3,170,000 794,000 - 446,000 21,920 $4,431,920
2011 773,000 - 3,170,000 538,000 2,286,000 432,000 21,270 $7,220,270
2012 - - 3,174000 538,000 - 418,000 20,590 $4,146,590
201J - - 3,170,000 538000 - 404,000 19,%80 $4,131,880
2014 - - 3,170,000 538,000 - 396,000 19,490 $4,123,490
2015 773,000 - 3,170,000 446,000 1,429,000 403,000 19,810 $6,240,810
2016 - - 3,174000 446,000 - 409,000 20,140 $ 4,045,140
2017 - - 3,174000 446,000 - 416,000 20,470 $4,052,470
2018 - - 3,174000 446,000 - 423,000 20,800 $4,059,800
2019 773,000 - 3,174000 464,000 857,000 430,000 21,140 $5,715,140
2020 - - 3,174000 464,000 - 437,000 21,490 $4,092,490
2021 - - 3,174000 464,000 - 444,000 21,840 $4,099,840
2022 - - 3,170,000 464,(100 - 451,000 22,200 $ 4,107,200
2023 773,000 - 3,170.000 483,000 R57,01J0 459,000 22,560 $5,764,560
202-{ - - 3,174000 483,000 - 466,000 22,930 $ 4,141,930
2025 - - 3,174000 483,000 - 474,000 23,3(10 $4,150,300
2026 - - 3,174000 483,000 - 481,000 23,690 $4,157,690
2027 1031,000 - 3,170,000 562,000 857000 489,000 24,070 $6,133,070
2028 - - 1,170,000 562,000 - 497,000 24,470 $ 4,253,470
2029 - - },170,000 562,000 - 505,000 24,870 $4,261,870
2030 1,031,000 - 3,170,000 566,000 1,143,000 514,000 25,270 $6,469,270
2031 - - 7,170,000 586,000 - 522,000 25,690 $ 4,303,690
2032 - - 7,170000 sR6,000 - 531,000 26,110 $4313,110
2033 1031000 - 3,170.000 831,000 - 539,000 26,530 $5,597,530
2034 - - 3.174000 831 AUO - 548,000 26,970 $4,575970
2035 - - - - 3,144,000 - - $3,144,000
lbtal 9536,000 20.644000 95.IOOp110 16.679,000 IOj73,00U 13')80,000 6R1,080 $167,189,080
Cost per $ 4 85 10 50 $ 4839 $ 8.49 $ 5 38 $ 7.1 I 6 0.35 $ R5 07
lon
#k###kN#H##ttggN
Table 11: Assumptions Utilized in Preparing Dry Area Landfill Site Analysis
Table 1
I. Resident Population is taken from projections published by DBED1 in 2002, entitled Ffawaii 2025
2. Defac[o Population averaged 10.67%ofthe resident population over [he past 10 years.
3. Waste generated is based on a historical average of6.2 Ibs per capita for Hawaii
4. Disposal Qty is'the amount delivered to [he landfill after recycled/reused materials are withdrawn from the stream
5. Hawaii County is curten0y diverting 13%. With the sort station [he amount is projected to increase to IS%.
As recycling programs are implemented the diversion rates will increase by 5%per year in 2006 and 2007. 1'he r
will increase by an average of 3%per year for the following 6 years until it levels ott'around 45% in Year 2014.
A summary of [he projected diversion rates is as follows:
Diversion Rates:
2000-2004 13%or below
2005 IS%
2006 20%
2007 25
200R 28°i
2009 31°i
2f110 34°~0
2011 37%0
2012 40%
21113 43°i
2014 45
2015 45%
2016 -2035 45%
6. The amount disposed in I .Hawaii is projected to remain near 43%ofthe total, with 57%disposed in W. Hawaii.
Table 2
1. Solid waste disposal rate, are from Table I.
2. I,andfil l density equals L 150 Ibs of solid wash per cubic yard of gross airspacz.
3 Cover: Refuse Ratio equals 30% on a volumetric basis.
'T'able 5
L Changes in rogulations in the future will not require a significant increase in casts in the IinerA,('RS system.
2. Cell is excavated as part of the daily cover bortow opzrations.
3. Soil cushion and drainage layer material will be manufactured from on-site soils.
'Fable 6
L Mnual operation and maintenance costs are based on Counry's current operating budget.
L Omsiu: soils are available litr road building and daily/intermediate cover.
3. Includes sampling ofb monitoring wells on a szmi-annual basis.
Table R
I_ The County will place relLse to the lines and grades required for closure.
2 An average of 2-feel of material is required to be moved during final contouring of [he landfill cover.
3. M activo landfill gas management system will be required and be constructed as part of landfill closure.
Table 9
1 _ (:hanger in regulations w ill nut add significant costs over the 30 year post closure earn period.
2. No major environmenLd problems deselop over the operating and ant-closure care period.
3. Post-closure care is reyuirzd for 30 years a0er closure.
4_ Includes sampling of 6 monitoring wells on usemi-annual basis.
game to
I. U(111 permit Ice of $1131 per ton will remain the some.
Z Changes in regulations w ill not add significant costs over nc~ opemting period.
3- PosFClosure care budget i. fully funded when the landf ll is filled to capacity.
t!N##k#k#######
EXHIBIT G
Evaluation of Scientific
lasues Related to
Municipal Waste Combustion Appendix D
ASTM CLASSIFICATION OF RDFs
CLASS FORM DESCRIPTION
ROF-1 Raw Municipal solid waste with minimal processing to
remove oversize bulky waste.
RDF-2 Coarse MSW processed to coarse particle size with or
without ferrous metal separation such that 95% by
weight passes through a 6-Inch-square mesh screen.
RDF-3 Fluff Shredded fuel derived from MSW processed for
the removal of metal, glass, and other
entrained inorganics; particle size of this
material is such that 95% by weight passes
through a 2-inch-square mesh screen.
RDF-4 Powder Combustible waste fraction processed Into powdered
farm such that 95% by weight passes through a 10-
mesh screen.
RDF-5 Densified Combustible waste fraction densified (compressed)
into pellets, slugs, cubettes, briquettes, or
similar forms.
RDF-6 Liquid Combustible waste fraction processed into a liquid
fuel.
RDF-7 Gas Combustible waste fraction processed into a gaseous
fuel.
Source: Hickman, H.L., "Thermal Systems for Conversion of Municipal Solid Waste: Overview;'
Argonne National LaboratorylCNSV-Tm-120, Volume-1, May 1983.
A measured RDF particle size distributions indicated that 95 percent by weight of the RDF is smaller than
2 inches, and that over 99 percent by weight of the RDF is smaller than 2.5 inches.
EXHIBIT H
ASH FROM MASS-BURN INCINERATION
The ash derived from the incineration of MSW in conventional mass-burn facilities is more toxic
than the garbage from which it was derived. Incinerators reduce the volume, but they increase
the hazards. In addition, heating garbage in an incinerator does two things to increase the
hazards: it concentrates the toxic metals, and it produces new chemicals that weren't in the
garbage to begin with (or were there, but in smaller amounts). Dioxins and furans are examples
of chemicals cxeated inside an incinerator. In addition, the ash collected fmm mass-bum
facilities typically contains high levels of unburned carbon, metals and glass resulting in ash
production rates of 20 to 25% of the weight of the waste stream that will need to be disposed of
in a landfill.
ASH ANALYSIS FROM THE FERCO SilvsGas PROCESS
Due to the front-end recycling of MSW that takes place in the FERCO SilvaGas process, the
typical sources of heavy metals contamination that plaque mass-bum incineration plants are
avoided. The ash will be collected from the plant flue gas in either electrostatic precipitators or
by filtration in a baghouse.
The ash contains minerals similar to that of biomass, for example potassium, phosphorus,
magnesium, calcium and sodium as well as titanium dioxide, which is used in the manufacture of
certain types of paper and as a pigment in plastic products. Other minerals are the most common
in the earths crust. The presence of minerals necessary for plant growth will allow the
particulate ash to be used as a soil conditioner. Due to the front end recycling and complete
carbon wnvetsion of the SilvaGas process, ash production rates are expected to be less than 5%
of the total garbage input by weight. In addition, the disposal of this ash will create no
environmental problems.
The FERCO SilvaGas Process -Typical RDF Ash Analysis
Si02 52.0%
AI203 20.6%
Ti02 3.1%
Fe203 2.0%
Ca0 4.8%
Mg0 I.8%
K20 I.4%
Na20 5.5%
S03 2.4%
P205 1. I
Undetermined 0.4%
TOTAL 100