HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0582.022 2004-2006CONSTANCE R. KIRIU
County Clerk
WILLIAM E. SMITH
Deputy County Clerk
County of Hawai `i
Office of the County Clerk
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
0
Telephone: (808) 961-8255 Facsimile: (808) 961-8912
C. T J
May 30, 2006
TO: Members of the Hawaii County Council
a
FROM: Leslie Chow �U�tccJC�tnJ
Legislative Specialist
Legislative Research Branch
THROUGH: William Smith 1-7 =— CZ`
Deputy County Clerk
SUBJECT: East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility RFP
Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice Issued
Vice Chair Virginia Isbell, Council liaison between the Council and the administration regarding
the waste reduction technology facility RFP process, asked me to attend a public meeting held on
May 17, 2006 to discuss the environmental impact statement preparation notice (EISPN) for this
facility. Pursuant to Resolution 267-06, D3, which sought to improve the council's awareness of
the progress of the waste reduction technology facility project, this memo contains an update on
the Department of Environmental Management's EISPN process.
This EISPN arises out of the Department of Environmental Management's (DEM) request for
proposal for waste reduction technologies. DEM is preparing to solicit stage -two proposals from
the three vendors who were selected from the initial proposals. At this time, DEM has
simultaneously launched the environmental impact statement (EIS) process for this effort on a
separate track. Consequently, there are two separate but related ongoing processes. One is the
RFP process and the other is the EIS process.
DEM retained consultants, Geometrician Associates (Ron Terry), DR Associates, and Rifer
Environmental to prepare the document. The completed EISPN is entitled, "Environmental
Impact Statement Preparation Notice - East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility."
Comm. No.
Ref. Toa_
Ref. Date _.
Hawaii County is An Equal Opportunity Provider And Employer
May 30, 2006
Page 2
The EISPN document considers the County's main long-term options to address the County's
municipal solid waste situation. These include: employing waste reduction technologies; taking
no action; building a new East Hawaii Landfill; and off -island disposal.
The RFP represents an attempt to promote the development of a viable waste reduction
technology option, i.e. the first option. At present, the three vendors remaining in the process all
propose to build a waste -to -energy mass burn facility. The only waste -to -energy facility in the
state is H -Power on Oahu. This facility took thirteen years to move from selection of technology
to operation. Given the limited life of the Hilo Landfill, this experience suggests that
consideration of all of the alternatives is prudent.
A copy of the EISPN document is attached for your information. All interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments to the Department of Environmental Management. Pursuant to
state law, "Any substantive comments received by the proposing agency or applicant pursuant to
this section shall be responded to in writing and as appropriate, incorporated into the draft EIS by
the proposing agency or applicant prior to the filing of the draft EIS with the approving agency
or accepting authority." (Sec. 11-200-15, Hawaii Administrative Rules.)
This document will serve as the final environmental assessment for the project. Interested
persons have until June 7 to submit comments on issues they think should be addressed in the
draft EIS and to request to be a consulted party. Comments should be submitted to: Barbara
Bell, Department of Environmental Management.
Attached are copies of the EISPN, the PowerPoint presentation from the May 17, 2006 public
meeting, and a page from the Office of Environmental Quality Control's monthly newsletter,
"The Monthly Notice," which discusses the EISPN.
Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility
Waiakea, South Hilo District, Hawai'i Island, State of Hawai i
TMK (3rd): 2-1-013: various
Prepared for:
Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management
Prepared by:
Geometrician Associates
DR Associates
and
Rifer Environmental
April 2006
This document is prepared pursuant to the Hawaii Environmental Protection Act,
Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), and
Title 11, Chapter 200, Hawaii Department of Health Administrative Rules (HAR).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................ .......
1
1.1
Municipal Solid Waste on the Big Island: Background ...................................
1
1.2
Alternative Formulation...................................................................................
4
1.3
Alternatives......................................................................................................
7
1.3.1 Waste Reduction Technologies............................................................
7
1.3.1.1 Waste -to -Energy (Combustion) .............................................
7
1.3.1.2 Thermal Gasification.............................................................
10
1.3.1.3 Anaerobic Digestion...............................................................
13
1.3.1.4 Aerobic Composting..............................................................
15
1.3.1.5 Bio -Refining ..........................................................................
17
1.3.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................
19
1.3.3 New East Hawaii Landfill...................................................................
19
1.3.4 Off -Island Disposal..............................................................................
26
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS INTRODUCTION .........
30
2.1
Proposing Agency and Accepting Authority ....................................................
30
2.2
Environmental Impact Statement Process........................................................
30
2.3
Consultation of Agencies and Organizations...................................................
31
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ......
33
3.1
Geology and Soils.............................................................................................
33
3.2
Hydrology and Water Quality..........................................................................
34
3.2.1 Floodplains..........................................................................................
34
3.2.2 Surface Water Features........................................................................
35
3.2.3 Groundwater.........................................................................................
36
3.3
Biological Resources........................................................................................
38
3.4
Air Quality and Climate...................................................................................
40
3.5
Visual Character..............................................................................................
43
3.6
Noise..............................................................................................................
46
3.7
Socioeconomic..................................................................................................
46
3.7.1 Land Use and Planning Designations..................................................
46
3.7.2 Social Characteristics...........................................................................
47
3.8
Cultural, Archaeological and Historic Resources ............................................
49
3.9
Economic.........................................................................................................
50
3.10
Hazardous Substances/Conditions....................................................................
51
3.11
Public Facilities and Services..........................................................................
51
3.11.1 Roads, Traffic and Transportation........................................................
51
3.11.2 Utilities.................................................................................................
58
3.12
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts..................................................................
59
3.13
Consistency with Government Plans and Policies ............................................
59
3.13.1 Hawaii State Plan ................................................................................
59
3.13.2 Hawai'i County General Plan ...............................................................
59
3.13.3 Hawaii County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan .................
61
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page i
4. DETERMINATION....................................................................................................
62
srr5.
REFERENCES............................................................................................................
63
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1
Island of Hawaii............................................................................................
2
FIGURE 2
South Hilo Landfill Vicinity............................................................................
3
FIGURE 3
View of Project Site from Puainako Extension..............................................
44
FIGURE 4
Photographs of Project Area Roadways..........................................................
53
r
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1
Initial Alternatives............................................................................................
6
r
TABLE 2
Areas of Natural Beauty in Hawaii County General Plan ...............................
45
TABLE 3
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Hawaii County and Hilo ..........................
48
TABLE 4
Unemployment Rates, State and Hawaii County, 1995-2004 .......................
50
APPENDICES
r
APPENDIX 1
Technical Memorandum (R.W. Beck)
APPENDIX 2
Public Involvement
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
IYII
East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page ii
r
rl
L�
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page iii
ACRONYMS
AAQS
Ambient air quality standards
AMSL
(Elevation) above mean sea level
BMP
Best Management Practice
BOD
Biological oxygen demand
CO
Carbon monoxide
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
DEM
County of Hawai i, Department of Environmental Management
DHHL
State of Hawai i, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
DOH
State of Hawaii, Department of Health
DPW
County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works
DWS
County ofHawai'i, Department of Water Supply
EA
Environmental Assessment
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EISPN
Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map
FONSI
Finding of No Significant Impact
HAR
Hawaii Administrative Rules
HEPA
Hawaii Environmental Policy Act
HRS
Hawaii Revised Statutes
ISWMP
Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
LCRS
Leachate collection and removal system
MCL
Maximum contaminant level
MRF
Materials recovery facility
MSW
Municipal Solid Waste
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAP
National Emission Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants
NO2
Nitrogen dioxide
NOx
Nitrogen oxide
NRCS
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
03
Ozone
OEQC
Office of Environmental Quality Control
OSWM
State of Hawai i, Department of Health Office of Solid Waste Mgmt.
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDF
Refuse -derived fuel
SFHA
Special Flood Hazard Areas
SHSL
South Hilo Sanitary Landfill
SO2
Sulfur dioxide
Tpd
Tons per day
UH
University of Hawaii
UIC
Underground Injection Control
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
VOCs
Volatile organic compounds
WHSL
West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill
WRTF
Waste Reduction Technology Facility
WTE
Waste -to -energy
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page iii
' SUMMARY
�. PROJECT NAME: Hawaii County Waste Reduction Technology Facility
r
PROPOSING AGENCY: Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management
r LOCATION: Hilo, County of Hawai i
TAX MAP KEY (3rd): 2-1-013: var. Other potential sites not yet identified.
r
LAND OWNERSHIP: Owners: State of Hawaii and Hawaii County
CLASS OF ACTION: Use of State and County lands and funding, potential
construction of waste -to -energy facility or landfill
DETERMINATION: Environmental Impact Statement required (State EIS)
PROPOSED ACTION: Construct a municipal solid waste reduction facility
r
PURPOSE AND NEED:
As the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill approaches its design capacity, the County needs to develop
new options for the ultimate disposal of its municipal solid waste. The development of a waste
reduction technology facility (WRTF) is one component of the overall long-term solid waste
management approach identified by the County in the Update to the Integrated Solid Waste
,. Management Plan (Hawaii County DEM 2002), and it is one of several solid waste management
options currently being considered by the Hawaii County Department of Environmental
Management (DEM).
As currently envisioned, the WRTF would be sited adjacent to the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill
and would provide measurable benefits to the County's overall solid waste management
approach by:
Providing reliable, cost-effective waste disposal using commercially proven
technologies.
Maximizing island self-sufficiency and sustainability by the beneficial utilization of
+r waste through energy, soil amendments and/or reused materials.
Minimizing social and environmental impacts.
w
W
it
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page iv
W
I
PERMITS REQUIRED: Federal: FAA Air Space Review.
State: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit, Underground Injection Control, State Historic
Preservation Division Chapter 6E Concurrence, Covered
Source Permit, Solid Waste Management Permit, Clean Air
Act Title 5 Covered Source Permit
County: Plan Approval, Subdivision Approval, Grading
Permit, Building Permits.
ACCEPTING AUTHORITY: Office of the Mayor, Hawaii County
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page v
ALTERNATIVES:
New East Hawaii Landfill, Off -Island Disposal, No Action
PW
ESTIMATED COST:
Not yet available
STATE LAND USE
Urban/Agricultural
r
DISTRICT:
ZONING:
MG -20: General Industrial 20 acres or more; Agriculture
r
PERMITS REQUIRED: Federal: FAA Air Space Review.
State: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit, Underground Injection Control, State Historic
Preservation Division Chapter 6E Concurrence, Covered
Source Permit, Solid Waste Management Permit, Clean Air
Act Title 5 Covered Source Permit
County: Plan Approval, Subdivision Approval, Grading
Permit, Building Permits.
ACCEPTING AUTHORITY: Office of the Mayor, Hawaii County
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page v
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
The subject of this Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN) is a
waste reduction technology facility planned as a component of the County's multifaceted
approach to solid waste management. The actual location of the project is not yet set, but
it is expected to be sited on County of Hawaii land, or State land under Executive Order
to the County, near the current landfill in Hilo (Figs. 1-2). Cost estimates are not yet
available.
Section 1.1 of this introductory chapter reviews the management of solid waste on the
to Big Island and provides a context for the action. Section 1.2 discusses the formulation
process for the alternatives currently being considered. Section 1.3 provides detailed
descriptions of the various alternative forms that a waste reduction technology facility
(WRTF) might take, along with other long-term and interim alternative strategies for
dealing with solid waste. Subsequent chapters discuss the Environmental Impact
,^ Statement (EIS) process, describe the physical and social environment, and explain the
studies that will be conducted in the EIS to determine impacts and mitigation measures.
w
1.1 Municipal Solid Waste on the Big Island: Background
The County manages solid waste through recycling of HIS containers, glass, paper, and
w. certain plastics; diversion of greenwaste and scrap metal; and disposal in two landfills.
The South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL) was built in the mid 20th century, before
r landfills were equipped with bottom liners or leachate collection. Despite continuing
efforts to efficiently utilize permitted airspace, the SHSL is rapidly filling up and will
have to close within two to five years. The West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill (WHSL) was
built in 1994 with a liner and a leachate collection and treatment system, in conformance
with current landfill regulations (Subtitle D of the federal Resource Recovery and
Conservation Act or RCRA). The WHSL should have capacity until the middle of the
21 s` century. Most residents haul their rubbish to one of 21 County transfer stations, but
companies that collect residential rubbish and businesses haul directly to the landfill.
The principal County guide to solid waste management strategy is the 2002 update to the
Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP), which called for the following
policies or actions:
• Construct no new landfill in East Hawai i;
• Emphasize the recovery of recyclable materials at the planned East Hawaii Sort
Station, possibly by incorporating features of a material recovery facility (MRF);
• Establish a county recycling program with a long list of elements that has the
potential to increase the waste diversion significantly; and
• Procure a waste reduction facility for the east Hawaii waste stream using either
waste -to -energy, thermal gasification, or anaerobic digestion technology.
• East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Pagel
r
Figure 1 Island of Hawai i
County actions since the ISWMP was adopted have conformed to this plan, although
some adjustments have been made, as discussed below. r
The high cost of treating leachate continues to discourage construction of any new East M
Hawai `i Landfill. However, the County has applied for a permit from the Hawaii State
Department of Health for a project to gain significant additional airspace, the Phase I
Expansion of the SHSL. The project will increase the overall capacity by modifying the
slope profile, without raising the permitted height or expanding the footprint.
Preliminary estimates indicate that this action could extend the operating life of the
SHSL by two to four years. A permit for a Phase II Expansion, in which the maximum .,
permitted height of the landfill would be raised, may be sought later.
r
i
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 2 -•
Figure 2 South Hilo Landfill Vicinity
The original vision for the Sort Station near the SHSL was to divert and recycle as much
solid waste as feasible and then truck the remainder 85 miles to the WHSL after the
SHSL closed (see route on Fig. 1). The project has been modified in response to the
opposition to hauling solid waste across the island expressed during the Sort Station EIS
public involvement, which has accelerated the timetable for acquisition of a waste
M reduction technology facility. The County is now planning a Sort Station reload building
M East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 3
with a tipping floor that could be used for both recycling and as a front end for a waste
reduction technology facility. With some modifications, the Sort Station could also serve
as a site to bale waste for barging to an off -island location, or as a facility for efficient
trucking of waste to the WHSL, if this becomes necessary.
Recycling and diversion activities have been rapidly expanding in scope and scale. The
County's system of HIS Bottle Bill redemption centers achieved a 69% recovery rate, the
highest of any island in Hawaii during 2005, the program's inaugural year. Eleven
redemption centers have been established around the island — nine through County
support in cooperation with the ARC of Hilo, and two by an independent entrepreneur.
Transfer stations are being enhanced, as funds are available, to add facilities for recycling
and for dropping off green waste, bulky items and scrap metal. In addition to scrap metal
processing at the Sort Station Complex, the County is locating a scrap metal processing
yard adjacent to the WHSL. At another new site nearby, a private operator will be
producing a quality certified compost product and will collect waste fat/oil/grease, which
may ultimately be processed into biodiesel.
In terms of the waste reduction technology, it is important to review the history of the
process. In 2002, the ISWMP evaluated for applicability to the County's waste stream a
broad range of alternative technologies. These included:
• Waste -to -Energy (Combustion)
• Aerobic Composting
• Thermal Gasification
• Anaerobic Digestion
• Bio -Refining
Based on this analysis, the County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee decided that two
of these technologies were unsuitable for County implementation: aerobic composting,
due to the potential for offensive odors; and bio -refining, because of a lack of evidence
that it was or would soon become a commercially viable technology. The committee
decided to advance only waste -to -energy (combustion), thermal gasification and
anaerobic digestion. Of these three, only waste -to -energy was considered to be fully
commercially viable at this time, though the other two seemed to be on a track for
commercialization in the near future.
The ISWMP further advised to not proceed rapidly on procurement of a waste reduction
technology. It was believed that more and, possibly, preferable technological options
would be technologically and economically feasible in the near future. However, in
order to avoid the possibility of having to ship waste across island to the WHSL after the
SHSL closes, the County Council in 2005 mandated DEM to move up the timetable for
the waste reduction technology facility. The County then contracted Hawkins Delafield
and Wood LLP to prepare a two-stage request for proposals (RFP). As part of this effort,
the County also contracted R. W. Beck, Inc. (Beck) to undertake a technical assessment
of the current state of the waste reduction industry, and to examine technologies that have
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 4
0
r
the potential to effectively and efficiently treat East Hawai is waste stream in
consideration of the specific characteristics of the waste, as well as the fiscal and
administrative situation of the County (see App. 1). The technical assessment concluded
that anaerobic digestion was not suitable for inclusion in the RFP because it could only
deal with a limited portion of the waste stream and did not yet have a sufficiently viable
commercial track record dealing with a municipal solid waste stream like that of Hawai' i.
Vendors have therefore been invited to submit statements of qualifications to develop a
facility utilizing one of the two remaining technologies, waste -to -energy or thermal
" gasification.
The RFP process is proceeding according to the following schedule:
r
• Stage 1 notice issued to potential vendors, December 28, 2005
• Stage I proposal deadline, March 22, 2006
• Selection of short list of vendors, May 2006
• Stage 2 RFP issued, July 2006
r
• Stage 2 proposal deadline, October 2006
• Selection of vendor, November 2006
• Contract negotiation finalized and contract issued, February 2007
• Environmental Impact Statement, project design, and permits, 2007
• Facility constructed and operational, 2010
•w
1.2 Alternative Formulation
r
The specific project that will be the main subject of the EIS will be identified through the
6
ongoing waste reduction technology procurement process described above. Although the
EISPN must accordingly be focused on waste reduction technology, the law requires an
+�
EIS for a public project to formulate and carefully examine alternatives. In this case, the
County is considering a variety of long-term waste disposal actions that can to some
degree meet the following purpose and need for the project:
r
• Provide reliable, cost-effective waste disposal using commercially proven
methods or technologies;
• Maximize island self-sufficiency and sustainability by the beneficial utilization of
r
waste through energy, soil amendments and/or reused materials; and
• Minimize social and environmental impacts.
rr
The alternatives considered in detail in Section 1.3 below vary in their likely viability and
their ability to satisfy the purpose and need of the project. Table 1 provides a quick guide
to these alternatives.
Ilf
r East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EZSPN Page 5
Table 1
Initial Alternatives
Alternative
Section
Basis for Consideration
Waste -to -Energy
1.3.1.1
These are the most proven and reliable technologies
Combustion
in the waste reduction industry and are the only
alternatives included in the current solicitation for
Thermal Gasification
1.3.1.2
proposals.
This less well -proven technology does not have a
track record in the U.S. for MSW, but it may be
considered if the results of the active procurement
Anaerobic Digestion
1.3.1.3
process are, for whatever reason, unacceptable.
Anaerobic digestion entails higher risk,
accomplishes less waste reduction, and leaves more
waste for dis osal in landfills.
Aerobic Composting 1.3.1.4
These technologies were considered in the ISWW
process but ruled by the Environmental
Bio -Refining 1.3.1.5
Management Commission as not being suitable for
the Big Island due to concerns about odors and
commercial viability.
New East Hawaii
1.3.3
These strategies do not meet the purpose and need
Landfill
well but may be considered depending on the results
of the technology selection process.
Off -Island Disposal
1.3.4
1.3.2
This "default' situation provides a baseline by
No Action
which to compare the impacts of various actions. It
includes the County continuing to implement the
ongoing actions described in Section 1.1.
Timing of the EISPN
In the interest of encouraging and benefiting from maximum public involvement, the
County has initiated the EIS process at a very early stage, before many aspects of the w�
project have been fully conceptualized. This will allow interested parties, including
individuals, neighborhood groups, trade organizations, environmental and cultural
groups, non -profits, and government agencies a chance to weigh in while all options are w
still being examined. It is important to think broadly at this time, when there are still a
number of unknowns, including:
■.
s
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 6 .r
w
0
r
,, • Will the solid waste management site near the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill be
acceptable, or will it be necessary to examine alternative sites?
r • Have WRTF technologies matured sufficiently to provide the County with a
,. practical and affordable option that is acceptable to the community?
Wr
• Considering the small size of the East Hawaii waste stream, can a facility be
built and operated at an acceptable cost?
r It should be noted that there would be certain advantages to delaying the initiation of the
EIS process until the range of alternatives was narrowed. A specific project site would
�. be chosen, and many alternatives would have been eliminated for various reasons. The
document could focus only on those approaches "most likely to succeed." Nonetheless,
the County has chosen to en• on the side of the widest possible public involvement by
undertaking an EISPN before it is fully certain which alternatives will be advanced in the
` EIS and exactly where the facility will be sited. The uncertainty will diminish as a result
of the RFP process and the input received at the EISPN. The EIS will likely include a
more focused evaluation of a narrower range of alternatives on sites whose locations
r
have been fully identified.
1.3 Alternatives
r
1.3.1 Waste Reduction Technologies
The following sections are excerpted from the Technical Memorandum (presented in full
in Appendix 1). These summaries provide an overview of each technology, as well as the
probable waste products, environmental controls, beneficial byproducts, track record, and
applicability to the specific circumstances in the County. The Technical Memorandum
did not attempt to assess cultural perspectives or community opinions concerning the
40
advantages and disadvantages of applying a particular technology in a particular place.
The public involvement process initiated by this EISPN and continuing through the EIS
will help determine which, if any technology, best fits the County of Hawai i.
1.3.1.1 Technology: Waste -to -Energy (Combustion)
Overview Description
Waste -to -energy (WTE) facilities combust municipal solid waste (MSW) and use the
heat of combustion to produce steam, which in turn, is used to generate electricity. WTE
systems typically consist of five basic components:
r�
,� • Waste Pre -Processing Area, where non-combustible items and unacceptable
waste is removed and the remaining materials are pre-processed for combustion.
While combustors can receive the full MSW stream, materials such as large
appliances are removed. Attempts may also be made to remove toxic materials,
such that occur in electronic equipment, through disposal bans or other means.
w
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 7
r•
Y
• Combustion/Boiler, where combustion occurs and the heat of combustion is used
to heat water and produce steam.
• Power generation, where steam is used to power turbine generators.
• Ash handling and disposal, which involves collection of residue from the
combustion chamber and emission control system and landfill disposal.
• Emissions control, which involves a number of process controls and treatment so
that emissions can meet regulatory and permit requirements.
The two basic technologies used are mass bum, in which MSW is burned with little or no
pre-processing, and refuse -derived fuel (RDF) in which MSW is reduced in size and
processed into a more uniform fuel (typically "fluff' or pellets):
Mass Burn facilities tend to use less complex mechanical feed and combustion
systems so that they can accommodate a wide range of materials in the
combustion process. The two basic combustion processes used are starved air and
excess air. The particular process used at any given installation will depend upon
a number of factors including size (capacity), manufacturer, and waste
characteristics. Mass burn facilities typically range in capacity from very small
up to about 300 tons/day. They generally accept up to 98 percent of delivered
material, with the 2 percent remainder consisting of appliances and similar waste.
They typically reduce the amount of waste that is delivered by about 75 to 90
percent on a volume basis and by about 70 to 80 percent on a weight basis. As an
example, if 100 tons of MSW were delivered to the Sort Station reload building,
about 96 to 98 tons of material would actually be combusted, and between 20 and
30 tons of ash and non-combustible waste would require disposal at the landfill.
RDFfacilities use more complex waste feeding systems and are typically more
efficient than mass burn facilities. That is, RDF facilities typically generate more
electricity per ton of processed waste than mass bum systems. However, the
increased mechanical complexity and more efficient boiler systems add cost.
RDF projects are also more labor intensive and have higher operation and
maintenance costs. As a result, RDF facilities are generally used for larger
facilities (300 tons/day and greater) where there are greater economies of scale.
RDF systems typically reduce the delivered MSW by 65 to 80 percent on a
volume basis and 50 to 70 percent on a weight basis. This means that if 100 tons
of MSW were delivered to the Sort Station reload building, about 75 tons of
material would actually be combusted and between 30 and 50 tons of ash and
non-combustible waste would require disposal at the landfill.
Waste Products/Environmental Controls/ Beneficial Byproducts
WTE facilities produce a number of air pollutants that are the byproducts of combustion.
Accordingly, air emission controls are a critical component of these facilities and can
represent up to about 30 percent of the system cost. The specific control systems
required will depend on plant size, combustion type, waste characteristics and local air
quality regulations. Typical emissions controls include:
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 8
r
M
AW
• Temperature and residence time system controls to limit the production of dioxin
(tested for annually per EPA Clean Air Act regulations);
r
• Ammonia (or urea) injection into the combustion gas stream for nitrous oxide
(NOX) control;
• Carbon injection into the gas stream after it exits the boiler area for mercury
control;
• Hydrated lime slurry wet/dry scrubbers (or sodium bicarbonate dry/dry scrubbers)
for acid gas control; and
r.
• Fabric filter baghouse for removal of particulates and other contaminants.
The principal solid waste product of combustion is ash. Ash is generally not a hazardous
waste, but owner/operators must perform an initial characterization of the ash to
demonstrate that it is not hazardous, and then test the ash on a periodic basis to confirm
that the ash does not exceed standards for solid waste disposal.
r
As implied by the name, the primary beneficial byproduct in waste -to -energy facilities is
electrical power. MSW has a relatively low caloric value in comparison to oil and coal.
The potential energy production from a WTE plant is expected to be between 80 and 100
net MWHr per day for mass burn and between 90 and 110 net MWHr per day for RDF.
r
Applicability to the County of Hawaii WRTF Project
MSW combustion would provide an effective means of reducing the volume of waste
r
requiring transportation and disposal in West Hawaii. Given the expected size of the
.�
facility, mass bum would be the most likely technology. With mass burn, the volume of
material delivered to the Sort Station reload building tipping floor would be reduced by
between 70 and 80 percent. Materials that would continue to require landfill disposal
include ash resulting from the combustion process and materials, such as appliances and
bulky waste, would be removed at the Sort Station reload building tipping floor. A mass
burn facility would generally be compatible with the County's planned Sort Station in
that presorting to remove undesired items could be conducted on the tipping floor.
In an RDF system, significantly more material would be removed during pre-processing,
,. compared to mass burn, in order to produce a uniform fuel. The overall volume
rr reduction for a RDF facility would be on the order of 65 to 80 percent. It is expected that
a RDF facility would utilize the Sort Station reload building tipping floor for removal of
appliances and bulky items, and would likely require about 10,000 to 12,000 square feet
r.
of additional pre-processing space, as well as processing equipment.
Commercial Status
W MSW combustion is a fully commercialized process that has been widely implemented in
the U.S. and worldwide. Approximately 90 WTE projects are operating in the U. S.,
most of which are fairly large (900 tons per day average). Many small plants (less than
+� East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 9
rr
M
100 tpd) have been closed in recent years due to poor economics except in more isolated
areas such as Alaska.
1.3.1.2 Technology: Thermal Gasification
Overview Description
Thermal gasification involves heating a carbon -based feedstock in a controlled oxygen
environment to drive off reduced or partially oxidized gases. Thermal gasification
processes involve high pressures and temperatures and require containment vessels,
pumps, and other equipment to maintain these conditions.
To be commercially viable, MSW thermal gasification systems would include the
following basic components:
• Waste Pre-processing Area, to remove materials that cannot be thermally
degraded (such as metals, glass, and concrete) and to pre-process remaining
materials into a uniform feedstock. Size reduction, densification, and drying the
waste may be involved.
• ReactorJGas Refining, where gasification reactions occur and the resulting
product (gases or oils) is refined, as needed, to produce gas of suitable quality.
The gas produced is often referred to as "synthesis gas" or "syngas", because it is
predominantly a combination of methane and hydrogen.
• Power Generation or Chemical Production, using the syngas and/or oils as a fuel
or feedstock. Unrefined or minimally refined gas can be burned directly in
boilers with heat recovery to produce steam for electricity generation. More
refined gas can be used in reciprocating engines, gas turbines, or for chemical
production.
• Emissions Control on units combusting the gas produced.
• Ash, Char, or Slag Handling and Disposal.
Several specific processes fall into this group including:
Pyrolysis, which heats a carbon -based feedstock in a sealed pressurized chamber
(drum, kiln, or tube) in the absence of oxygen to produce char, oils, and gas.
Because of the lack of oxygen, no combustion occurs, but an external heat source
is required to drive the reaction. Temperature, pressure, and other factors are
used to control the products of pyrolysis. For example, heating at lower
temperatures primarily produces oils while heating at higher temperatures
primarily produces gases. Gas produced by a pyrolysis reaction typically contains
methane, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. The gas is
typically refined and burned to produce electricity or used to produce organic
chemicals.
Design variations include flash pyrolysis, which involves contact with extremely
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 10
,• high temperatures and rapid vaporization of the feedstock, and slow pyrolysis
which can take several minutes. Slow pyrolysis is typically used to produce
charcoal, activated carbon, and coke.
Pyrolysis has been used in industrial applications for many years to manufacture
products such as charcoal, activated carbon, carbon black, and coke. Pyrolysis
has been used on wood, coal, and homogenous waste streams such as shredded
tires and coconut shells. Pyrolysis has also been used on MSW, but this requires
significant pre-processing to create a uniform fuel. In addition, the feed systems
have had significant technical problems related to their ability to uniformly and
continuously feed material into the pyrolysis chamber.
V
• Conventional Gasification, which heats a carbon -based feedstock with a
controlled input of oxygen or air to produce syngas that, in turn, can be used to
produce electricity or organic chemicals. Because some oxygen is introduced, a
small amount of combustion occurs. The heat from combustion then thermally
degrades the remaining materials to form char, oils, and syngas. Gas produced in
•" these systems typically contains methane, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen.
Gasifiers come in various forms that differ in the methods used to move material
through the gasifier or to introduce oxygen or air. For example, fixed bed
gasifiers move the feedstock through the system over stationary or moving grates
while fluid bed designs fill the gasifier with inert particles, such as sand, and
entrain and suspend the feedstock throughout the bed. Updraft gasifiers inject
oxygen or air from the bottom, and gas exits from the top. Downdraft gasifiers
introduce oxygen or air at the top with gas exiting the bottom.
• Plasma Arc, which discharges high voltage electricity to "super heat" a gas (such
as air, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, or argon) to temperatures above 7000 degrees
F. The hot ionized gas (plasma) then comes in contact with the feedstock,
producing syngas, which in tum can be used for the production of organic
M chemicals or the generation of electricity.
East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page ll
Gasification has been used for over a hundred years in various applications,
including production of gas for street lighting and cooking, production of organic
chemicals, and electricity generation. Typical organic feedstocks include coal
and uniform biomass waste such as rice hulls, wood waste, and other agricultural
wastes. MSW gasification has had limited success due to several factors. First,
w
because MSW is not uniform, significant pre-processing is required to create a
uniform feedstock, such as RDF. Without such pre-processing, constant delivery
+�
of material to the gasifier is problematic. Historic attempts at using minimally
processed MSW as a feedstock ran into technical problems with handling and
uniform feeding of the feedstock to the gasifiers. Other issues have included
temperature, process control, and cost. Another factor is the need to keep
impurities out of the feedstock.
• Plasma Arc, which discharges high voltage electricity to "super heat" a gas (such
as air, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, or argon) to temperatures above 7000 degrees
F. The hot ionized gas (plasma) then comes in contact with the feedstock,
producing syngas, which in tum can be used for the production of organic
M chemicals or the generation of electricity.
East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page ll
W
W
Plasma arc gasification requires a closed, pressurized reactor and "torches" to
produce the high voltage electrical discharge. The amount of air or oxygen
introduced is controlled in order to promote certain chemical reactions. A
number of design variations are possible. Some designs involve the production of
plasma outside of the reactor vessel. Plasma and feedstock are then introduced
into the vessel. Other designs create plasma inside of the reactor vessel.
Plasma arc technology has been used for stabilizing hazardous and medical waste
by creating an inert vitrified material that does not leach contaminants. As
discussed below under "Commercial Status", use of plasma arc/gasification
technology on MSW is still in the research and development (R&D) phase.
Waste Products/Environmental Controls/Beneficial Byproducts
Air emissions and disposal of residual solids (ash, char, and slag) are the principal
environmental concerns for thermal gasification processes. Typical emissions controls
include:
• Where syngas is burned in a boiler, reciprocating engine, or gas turbine, there are
temperature and residence time system controls to limit the production of dioxin
(tested for annually per EPA Clean Air Act regulations);
• Ammonia (or urea) injection, where syngas is burned in a boiler, for NOX
control;
• Carbon injection into the gas stream after it exits the boiler area for mercury and
trace metal control;
• Hydrated lime slurry wet/dry scrubbers (or sodium bicarbonate dry/dry scrubbers)
for acid gas control; and
• Fabric filter baghouse for removal of particulates.
Pyrolysis and gasification systems produce several residues including char, silica, slag,
and ash. These residues are typically landfilled and are subject to the same tests to assure
they are not hazardous waste as is ash produced from a WTE facility. Slag from a
conventional gasification process can sometimes be used in the manufacture of asphalt
and roofing tiles. Plasma arc technology produces an inert vitrified material that is well
suited to landfill disposal.
Beneficial byproducts from this suite of technologies include electricity and syngas,
which can be used for grid -power or transportation fuel. The average energy production
for a thermal gasification plant could range from 60 to 120 net MWHr per day,
depending on the technology and other factors. Some forms of pyrolysis result in
production of liquid fuels, which are easier to transport and more suitable for
transportation fuels. Because of the range of technologies and operating variables, the
quantity and value of byproduct is difficult to estimate.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 12
r � Applicability to County of Hawaii WRTF Project
rr As mentioned above, thermal gasification plants typically require pre-processing to
remove large non-combustible materials and create a uniform feedstock. If little pre-
processing is required by the specific technology selected, overall volume reduction can
W theoretically approach 90 percent, but this type of facility will be more susceptible to
shutdowns due to operation problems, and maintenance of the equipment will be more
costly. If more extensive pre-processing is required for the specific technology selected
(as would be expected) and more materials are removed "upstream" of the gasification
process, overall volume reduction is expected to be in the range of 65 to 85 percent. A
thermal gasification facility with pre-processing would utilize the Sort Station reload
building tipping floor to remove appliances and bulky items but would also likely require
about 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of additional space and pre-processing equipment
such as screens, conveyors, and magnets.
w
Commercial Status
Anaerobic digestion is a biological process that entails microbial breakdown of large
organic molecules into methane and carbon dioxide in the absence of oxygen. A useful
product of anaerobic digestion is biogas (methane and carbon dioxide). In addition to
generating gas, anaerobic digestion produces a residue that contains inorganics, non-
degradable organics, and other materials. Following the digestion process, these solids
may be cured in standard composting type systems. A typical anaerobic digestion system
•+ East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 13
The Technical Memorandum found very few vendors offering performance guarantees on
w
thermal gasification systems using MSW as the primary feedstock. However, there are a
limited number of plants in the demonstration phase.
r
Conventional gasification plants using MSW as a feedstock are operational in Europe.
For example, there are two demonstration units in Italy that were designed to use
pelletized RDF as a feedstock. It is expected that a number of plants could be
constructed there over the next several years, but it is not clear whether or not there
would be commercially financed or partially funded through government grants. It also
should be noted that source separation of materials is strongly mandated in Europe, and
thus MSW feedstock is more uniform in Europe than what would be expected in Hawai i
County. There are a few thermal gasification units in Japan in the range of 6.25 tons/hr.
There are two plasma arc units in Japan that in part use MSW and are approximately 20
tpd and 160 tpd in size. The 160 tpd facility is being developed by Hitachi Metals. The
design uses pre-processed MSW and auto shredder waste. Unsuccessful attempts were
•
made to obtain operating data from that plant; thus the Technical Memorandum (App. 1)
was unable to determine if acceptable performance criteria are being met at that facility.
rr
1.3.1.3 Technology: Anaerobic Digestion
Overview Description
Anaerobic digestion is a biological process that entails microbial breakdown of large
organic molecules into methane and carbon dioxide in the absence of oxygen. A useful
product of anaerobic digestion is biogas (methane and carbon dioxide). In addition to
generating gas, anaerobic digestion produces a residue that contains inorganics, non-
degradable organics, and other materials. Following the digestion process, these solids
may be cured in standard composting type systems. A typical anaerobic digestion system
•+ East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 13
would include the following components:
• Waste Pre-processing Area, to remove materials that cannot be anaerobically
digested (such as metals, glass, and concrete) to pre-process the remaining
materials into a uniform feedstock. Moisture is often added to this material to
form a slurry in the digester.
• Anaerobic Digester, where large organic compounds are broken down into
smaller compounds in an airtight vessel, called a reactor or digester. The gas
produced by this can be used with minimal treatment in boilers to generate heat
and in reciprocating engines or turbines to generate electricity. If the gas is
purified, it can be used in place of natural gas or compressed natural gas as a
vehicle fuel.
• Gas Flaring, Steam and/or Power Generation using the digester as a fuel.
• Emissions Control on units combusting the gas produced.
• Disposal or Residue Composting and Beneficial Use.
Several different types of digester reactors exist. Most common are cylindrical vessels
with vertical or horizontal mixing. Mixing techniques may be mechanical (with a large
impellor) or by circulation of pressurized gas or effluent. Material is fed into the reactor
and allowed to process under controlled conditions of temperature and moisture content.
Material within the digester is typically a liquid or semi-liquid slurry. Material leaving
the reactor is then typically dewatered.
Anaerobic digestion has been used for decades to process solids removed during
wastewater treatment. Certain characteristics of MSW make anaerobic digestion more
problematic than for sewage biosolids. For example, inert materials in MSW, such as
glass and plastic, are not degraded in the process and will therefore remain a solid
byproduct, unless removed by pre-processing or screening. Certain inert materials can
also damage the equipment in the digester.
Waste Products/Environmental Controls/Beneficial Byproducts
Since all gases are contained in the anaerobic digestion process itself, odors and other
pollutants are not emitted directly into the atmosphere provided that proper gas piping
and storage is provided. If the gas produced by anaerobic digestion is subsequently
flared or used in combustion to produce electricity, air emissions controls are required.
The primary beneficial byproduct of anaerobic digestion is methane, which is generally
used for powering the facility and nearby mechanical systems. Depending on the amount
generated, this gas can be used to produce electricity for the grid or as transportation fuel.
The solids byproduct of anaerobic digestion can be processed into a potentially
marketable compost product. However, securing reliable long-term markets for the
material is difficult due to contamination with plastics and other materials. Anaerobic
digestion may also produce wastewater requiring treatment.
East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 14
M
Applicability to County of Hawaii WRTF Project
'r For the WRTF Project, if a beneficial use could be found for the resulting digester
residue, the overall reduction in the amount of material requiring landfilling would be
approximately 60 percent. If uses for the digested residue are not available and/or if the
W material is contaminated and must be landfilled, the expected volume reduction from
anaerobic digestion would be on the order of 35 to 45 percent of the waste delivered to
the Reload Building tipping floor.
r
Currently operating anaerobic digestion facilities in Europe either process a waste stream
with significant source separation (in which case they receive almost exclusively
organics), or they have extensive pre-processing in the form of "dirty" MRFs on the
front-end to remove non -organics. Most of this material is recycled and reused in some
manner. In addition, the European programs are generally much more effective at
keeping toxics out of the waste stream than those programs currently in place in Hawaii.
.. It is expected that an anaerobic digestion facility would utilize the Sort Station reload
building tipping floor to remove appliances and bulky items but would also likely require
about 10,000 to 15,000 square feet of additional pre-processing space, as well as other
equipment such as screens, conveyors, and magnets to remove non -organics and plastics.
rr
+r East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 15
Commercial Status
Anaerobic digestion is fully commercialized for use with sewage sludge, livestock, or
agricultural waste and, less commonly, for food waste. Approximately 130 anaerobic
digestion plants were commercially operating worldwide in 2003, digesting the organic
r
fraction of MSW and/or organic industrial wastes. More than 95 percent of these
facilities were located in Europe, with some in other countries such as Canada.
However, anaerobic digestion of MSW is a relatively new application of the technology,
and poses special challenges such as the removal of contaminants and extraneous
materials, finding reliable long-term markets, and sizing equipment to meet peak load
requirements. No anaerobic digestion facilities using MSW as feedstock were identified
r
in the U.S., except for a few pilot programs. The Technical Memorandum was unable to
locate vendors offering performance guarantees on anaerobic digestion systems using
.,
MSW as the primary feedstock, and this particular application cannot be considered to be
.r
fully commercialized at this time.
1.3.1.4 Technology: Aerobic MSW Composting
rr
Overview Description
Aerobic composting of MSW involves the decomposition of large organic molecules
through the action of microorganisms in the presence of oxygen. Composting systems
_
receive and process the organic fraction of MSW. This fraction can be delivered in
r
different forms:
+r East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 15
Un -segregated MSW, without any previous source separation of recyclable or
undesirable materials (i.e. household hazardous wastes);
The wet (organic) fraction from a wet -dry collection system after source
separation of recyclable or undesirable materials; or
Source separated organics.
The most compatible materials for MSW composting are food waste, green waste, woody
material, paper, and other organics. The quality of the compost is sensitive to both the
process and the degree to which undesirable material has been excluded from the waste.
Typical MSW composting system would include the following components:
• Waste Pre-processing Area, to remove materials that cannot compost (such as
metals, glass, plastic, and concrete) and to pre-process the remaining materials to
varying degrees.
• Active Composting Area, where large organic compounds are broken down into
smaller compounds.
• Odor Control Systems, which, depending on location, can include fully enclosing
the compost area and providing odor treatment.
• Compost Storage/Disposal, of the products of aerobic composting, including
primarily soil amendments used in agriculture or landscaping.
Aerobic composting includes a variety of technologies, both enclosed (in -vessel) and
open systems. Open systems commonly use windrows that can either be static piles with
forced aeration or piles that are turned with specialized equipment to expose the material
to air. In -vessel systems, though higher in capital cost, provide the best control of the
composting process including air supply and temperature.
Waste Products/Environmental Controls/Beneficial Byproducts
The most significant emission from aerobic composting of MSW is odor. With diligent
operations and proper odor control equipment, odors can be reduced; however, most
operating MSW composting facilities in the U.S. have experienced some degree of odor
problems. In some instances, odor problems have been extreme, causing shutdown of the
facility. The technologies associated with odor control have continued to evolve, but
odor management continues to be the greatest challenge for most operating facilities.
The chief beneficial byproduct from aerobic composting is soil amendment. Greenwaste
composting has a long and successful track record in Hawaii and can be self sufficient
when supported by a ban on greenwaste from the landfills. Most of the geologically
recent soils that predominate in the County can be improved using organic compost.
Composting MSW is considerably more difficult than for separated greenwaste.
Marketability of the resulting compost product is lower due to visible contamination of
the compost with materials such as plastics and to public concerns about the safety of
material produced from MSW. These problems have been considerably lessened when
the "feedstock" is limited to source separated organics.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 16
r"
Commercial viability of MSW composting facilities is currently in question because most
Applicability to County of Hawaii WRTF Project
In an aerobic composting facility, some level of front-end processing would be preferable
to ensure that non-organic materials were removed before the composting process. It
may be desirable to remove compost contaminants from the final compost product in
..
addition to, or in lieu of, the front-end processing. The overall volume reduction for an
"•
aerobic composting facility could be between 35 and 60 percent, depending partly on if a
s
beneficial use could be found for the compost product. It is expected that an aerobic
r
composting facility would utilize the Sort Station reload building tipping floor for
,•
removal of appliances and bulky items. It would likely require an estimated 10,000 to
20,000 square feet of additional space and other equipment such as screens, conveyors,
and magnets to remove non -organics from the waste and prepare finished compost.
Commercial Status
r
distillation and fermentation processes. A commercial bio -reining system would
MSW composting has been widely implemented, especially in Europe. About one quarter
of the U.S. MSW compost facilities were shut down between 1992 and 1995 due to
"'
public opposition and technical problems, especially with odor control. No new MSW
composting facilities have been developed in the last five years.
r"
Commercial viability of MSW composting facilities is currently in question because most
vendors are unwilling to provide performance guarantees, especially for odor control, if
MSW is the primary feedstock. Most new composting facilities are using source -
separated organics from the residential and/or commercial solid waste streams for
feedstock, as opposed to mixed MSW.
..
"•
1.3.1.5 Technology: Bio -Refining
s
Overview Description
r
w
Bio -refining involves the conversion of plant biomass into a number of products that can
be used as transportation fuels, such as ethanol; food ingredients; pharmaceuticals;
industrial fibers; and as feedstocks for the production of chemicals. Bio -refining uses
acidic or enzymatic hydrolysis to break down large organic molecules, as well as
distillation and fermentation processes. A commercial bio -reining system would
typically consist of the following five basic components:
• Feedstock Separation, which involves either collection of source -separated
biomass (i.e. yard waste, agricultural residues such as rice hulls and straw; forest
thinnings; and paper wastes) or use of a Materials Recovery Facility to separate
biomass from other waste materials.
• Feedstock Pre-processing, which involves further sorting, preparation of uniform
�. size material, and drying.
• Cellulose Breakdown, through treatment of the feedstock with heat and/or
W chemicals.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 17
rr
I
• Hydrolysis, with acids or enzymes to further breakdown biomass.
• Fermentation and Distillation of the sugars to produce biofuels and chemicals.
Waste Products/Environmental Controls/Beneficial Byproducts
Bio -refineries produce very few pollutants since most process chemicals are recovered
and recycled and byproducts, such as lignin, can be sold. Fuels from bio -refineries are
ultimately combusted, and may be a source of air emissions.
The details on beneficial byproducts vary with each technology, but ethanol may be
common to most.
Applicability to County of Hawaii WRTF Project
Volume reduction from bio -refining would be on the order of 30 to 70 percent, depending
on the amount of material that is segregated out during preprocessing. The planned Sort
Station reload building could be used to remove certain items such as appliances and
bulky items from the waste stream. In addition, a relatively large area would be required
for processing waste to remove inorganic materials and plastics.
Commercial Status
Bio -refining for ethanol production is fairly wide -spread in the U.S., with most facilities
using corn as feedstock to produce 99% pure ethanol. These same facilities typically
produce wet or dry distiller's grain that farmers and ranchers may use for dairy cow or
cattle feed. Several bio -refineries that use agricultural wastes as feedstock are in various
stages of development. These facilities use feedstock such as sugar cane bagasse, rice
straw and wood.
Bio -refining using MSW is still in the development phase, and the Technical
Memorandum did not identify any commercial scale bio -refinery facilities using MSW as
feedstock. Several of the obstacles to commercialization of bio -refining have been
overcome (e.g.,. there are now better markets for ethanol and other bio -refined products,
and the rising price of petroleum has improved the relative economics of bio -refined
products). Nonetheless, the technology as applied to MSW still faces barriers to
commercialization.
The County's Solid Waste Management Plan referred to a proposed combined materials
recovery facility/bio-refining plant in New York that would process 230,000 tons/year of
MSW and 49,000 tons/year of sewage sludge. Though proposed by Masada Resources
Group over ten years ago, the plant has yet to be developed.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 18
1.3.2 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative assumes that ongoing MSW activities would continue and
that permitted and planned projects would be successfully developed, but that no major
additional actions would be implemented. As currently envisioned, this includes
completion of the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station (which is expected to start
construction in or before summer 2006), extending the life of the South Hilo Sanitary
Landfill as long as possible, and substantially expanding waste recycling programs.
r
Under the No Action Alternative, all waste currently disposed of at the South Hilo
Sanitary Landfill will be delivered to the Sort Station. Because the costs and impacts of
r the Sort Station are well known, this alternative will provide a comparison with other
technologies that are currently being investigated. The Sort Station will have private
waste diversion companies in nearby parcels, to accept recyclable -rich loads for less cost
r than bringing them to the Sort Station. Waste that is not recycled will be consolidated at
the Sort Station and delivered to the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill, or loaded into long-
haul trucks for delivery to the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill, if the South Hilo Sanitary
.. Landfill is no longer operational.
It is recognized that the precise characteristics of the No Action Alternative may change
as the ultimate configuration of the Sort Station — which may vary from minimal to as -
planned — is decided upon; as other County solid waste projects and programs progress;
and as conditions change in the sometimes volatile world of solid waste. The Draft EIS
+� will refine the No Action Alternative assumptions as necessary.
1.3.3 New East Hawa► i Landfill
The alternative of building another landfill near the SHSL was considered in depth as
part of the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station EIS (County of Hawaii 2004), which still
provides a valuable and relevant analysis.
Federal and State regulations have been strengthened in the past decade in response to
ar growing concern over the effect of landfills on water quality and other health and safety
aspects of waste disposal. All new landfills and lateral expansions must have a low -
permeability bottom liner and leachate management system that minimize the water
■I quality effects. In addition, the siting and operating criteria for new landfills are much
more complex and include considerable monitoring and maintenance during operation of
a landfill and for at least thirty years after its closure. All these factors have substantially
M increased the cost and lengthened the permitting procedures for establishing a new
landfill or enlarging an existing landfill's footprint.
rr Specific landfill siting considerations for the Hilo area are availability of land; the
proximity of major roads for access and egress; the availability of electricity, water and
landfill cover material; and rainfall and the cost of managing leachate. The first three
r factors are favorable for the SHSL site, as there are a number of depleted quarries that
could provide a potential location as well as landfill cover material. Also, roads are
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 19
present and utilities are all readily available for expansion into the adjacent quarry area.
However, because Hilo receives over 125 inches of average annual rainfall, both the cost
of leachate management and potential adverse impacts on the municipal sewage system
over the life of the landfill and its post -closure monitoring and maintenance periods led
DEM to reject building a new landfill in or near Hilo as a prudent alternative to the Sort
Station.
If and when DOH permits bioreactor landfills in the State of Hawai i, they have at least
some potential to reduce the cost of either laterally expanding the SHSL or building a
another landfill. Bioreactor landfills are steadily gaining acceptance as an appropriate
technology for accelerating the decomposition of solid waste. One of the objectives of
most landfills designed and operated in accordance with federal RCRA Subtitle D
regulations is to exclude moisture and remove leachate in order to minimize potential
adverse impacts to underlying groundwater. Normal landfills are highly compacted and
covered to exclude moisture. This creates an anaerobic environment where
decomposition takes place in the absence of oxygen. Aerobic decomposition (i.e., with
oxygen) is considerably faster. Bioreactor landfills are managed in a moist condition to
create an aerobic environment in the waste that promotes rapid decomposition. In
bioreactor landfills, leachate is collected and re -circulated through the waste and, at some
facilities in and climates, moisture is added when necessary. In Hilo, however, rainfall
would provide more than adequate quantities of moisture to operate a bioreactor landfill.
In fact, there would likely be excessive leachate that would require expensive treatment
and disposal, as discussed above with reference to normal landfills. In addition to
managing the moisture content of the waste, many bioreactor landfills capture landfill gas
from which methane can be separated and used for fuel. The waste in bioreactor landfills
is typically covered with an impermeable membrane and piping systems are incorporated
into the waste cells to efficiently collect the usable landfill gases for use as fuel.
Besides fuel production, the benefits of accelerated decomposition include reduction of
the waste mass and therefore increased capacity, reduction in the release of greenhouse
gases as landfill gases are captured for reuse, long-term reduction in the leachate's
biochemical oxygen demand, and earlier stabilization of the landfill after closure, which
facilitates post -closure maintenance and monitoring. Landfill waste volume reduction
may be as much as 30 to 40 per cent.
In the past few years, bioreactor landfills have been constructed and operated in Virginia,
California, and North Carolina. All are demonstration projects and all required
regulatory approval to proceed. As liquids are prohibited from MSW landfills, regulatory
approval was required to add moisture in the landfill in California. The East Coast
landfills have liner systems that are not strictly in compliance with RCRA Subtitle D
regulatory standards, although they are alternative systems approved by state regulations
as allowed in the federal regulations.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 20
M
Although a conventional lateral landfill expansion or new landfill is feasible, and
bioreactor landfills may eventually be viable in Hawai' i, because both permitting time
and costs are uncertain and would likely be high, neither appears at this time to be a
prudent alternative for the problem at hand.
0 Overview Description
M. The quarries just south of the existing landfill (see Fig. 2) offer the best potential site for
a new landfill in East Hawaii due to their proximity to the existing landfill. These
quarries are bounded by the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill on the north side and by
County- or State-owned quarries on the south. The western boundary is an extension of
'r the existing landfill access road and is used to reach the County drag strip, across which
is undeveloped Hawaiian Home Lands. To the east is Keaukaha Military Reservation,
used by the Hawaii National Guard. Land acquisition time and expense would be
virtually eliminated, and infrastructure development costs would be minimized because
of proximity to the existing landfill. Visual, social and other "nuisance" impacts of the
landfill site would be minimized because of the history of solid waste management at the
" site and the industrial nature of the surrounding area.
The topography allows for much deeper development of the landfill than would be
practical if starting without an excavated area. Estimates of the capacity are based on an
assumption that a landfill development in this parcel has vertical slopes on three sides
and a 4:1 slope, for access, on the fourth side. The landfill could utilize more than 30 of
the 40 acres for waste disposal. Following this model the volume of waste would be 3.9
million cubic yards before the waste mass reached ground surface, and another 2 million
cubic yards before the landfill reached the height of the adjacent landfill. According to
current waste projections, such a landfill would have capacity for over 50 years of MSW.
If a waste reduction technology is implemented within the years before the landfill
reaches ground surface, the landfill site could last for the foreseeable future.
"^ Waste Products/Environmental Controls/Beneficial Byproducts
In all other technologies discussed in this EISPN, the waste products are disposed of in a
"^ landfill. The waste products from a landfill itself are those things that are emitted as
+�+ gases and escape from the bottom liner as leachate. One could also consider the large
extent of land used for landfilling a waste product, since further use after landfills close
W East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 21
These quarries are leased from the State by the County and subleased to Jas W. Glover to
'W
provide daily cover for the landfill and rock for other destinations. The site has been
excavated to approximately 60 feet below ground surface. The area has vertical walls on
three of the four sides, with additional quarry space on the three parcels to the south. The
existing excavation would facilitate construction of a landfill. A landfill would be able to
begin approximately 55 feet below existing ground level and to fill in without the
maximum 3:1 side slope required of free-standing landfills. A new landfill constructed in
this quarry could have vertical slopes for the first 55 feet, followed by a standard side
slope to approximately 80 feet, the same elevation as the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill.
The topography allows for much deeper development of the landfill than would be
practical if starting without an excavated area. Estimates of the capacity are based on an
assumption that a landfill development in this parcel has vertical slopes on three sides
and a 4:1 slope, for access, on the fourth side. The landfill could utilize more than 30 of
the 40 acres for waste disposal. Following this model the volume of waste would be 3.9
million cubic yards before the waste mass reached ground surface, and another 2 million
cubic yards before the landfill reached the height of the adjacent landfill. According to
current waste projections, such a landfill would have capacity for over 50 years of MSW.
If a waste reduction technology is implemented within the years before the landfill
reaches ground surface, the landfill site could last for the foreseeable future.
"^ Waste Products/Environmental Controls/Beneficial Byproducts
In all other technologies discussed in this EISPN, the waste products are disposed of in a
"^ landfill. The waste products from a landfill itself are those things that are emitted as
+�+ gases and escape from the bottom liner as leachate. One could also consider the large
extent of land used for landfilling a waste product, since further use after landfills close
W East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 21
are severely restricted or prohibited.
Landfill leachate tends to reflect many of the components of the waste, including
hazardous materials that are inadvertently or illegally disposed in a landfill. It generally
has a lower pH than domestic wastewater and much higher biological oxygen demand.
Groundwater under the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill apparently flows towards the sea
fairly rapidly. The existing landfill has no liner, yet there are no traces of landfill
leachate contamination measured in groundwater monitoring wells (see Sec. 3.2.3).
Leachate is not likely to contaminate groundwater in a lined landfill; however, because a
new landfill must be lined, the cost of treating leachate in a wastewater treatment plant
could be high.
The site has two major constraints that require environmental controls to be considered
for RCRA Subtitle D compliant landfills. These site characteristics are:
The site is located within 7,250 feet of the Hilo International Airport, and
The average annual rainfall is close to 130 inches. Any water that comes in
contact with waste must be collected and treated.
During preliminary meetings with the State Department of Transportation and the FAA,
the FAA did not impose restrictions on the proposed action. Because the landfill is
within one mile of the active runways at Hilo International Airport, the FAA
recommended that any new landfill adjacent to the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill be
carefully managed using daily cover to reduce attractants to birds. Mitigation of bird
hazards is also required under current landfill regulatory structure and would not impose
additional costs on landfilling at this location. The Director of the Department of Health
would be required to give special permission, which DEM assumes would be granted,
though this is not assured
Hilo is the wettest city in the nation, and if constructed, a new South Hilo Sanitary
Landfill would be the wettest RCRA Subtitle D landfill in the nation by a factor of two.
The latest 10 -year moving average data from the National Weather Service indicate that
Hilo Airport receives an average of 126.27 inches of rain per year. During this review,
the wettest landfill that could be identified was near Seattle, which receives between 50
and 60 inches of rain per year. Almost all other communities that are located in wet areas
ship their waste to dry areas before landfilling. The communities in southern coastal
Alaska that receive rainfall in excess of 100 inches per year use low barge backhaul rates
to ship their waste to Washington State.
Any new landfill or lateral expansion will require equipment to collect, transport and
treat leachate. Leachate consists of moisture derived from the waste and rainfall that
percolates into the landfill. An assessment of the volume and water quality parameters
for leachate generated from a Hilo Area landfill was made for the purpose of estimating
the impact of leachate on the operating cost of this alternative landfill as well as the Hilo
Wastewater Treatment Plant (Hilo WWTP).
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 22
T, The Hilo WWTP is located approximately three miles north of the project site on State-
owned land that surrounds the airport. The facility was built by the County through the
1990s and currently has little excess capacity. The plant design capacity is 5 million
gallons per day average daily flow. Liquid treatment is accomplished by bar screens
followed by aerated grit chambers, Pre -aeration basins rectangular primary tyclarifers
,
trickling filters, a solids contact tank, circular secondary clarifiers and a chlorine
disinfection unit prior to discharge through an ocean outfall. Solids are treated using a
gravity thickener, primary and secondary anaerobic digesters, and a sludge centrifuge to
dewater solids before they are disposed in the landfill.
The HELP model is a publicly available hydraulic flow model that is designed to assess
the amount of leakage through landfill bottom liners. The HELP Model indicates that
54% of rainfall falling on the landfill would be collected as leachate in open cells, while
S% would be collected from landfill areas with intermediate cover.
.. Water quality and contaminant composition in leachate is more difficult to estimate due
to the variability between landfills. For modeling purposes water quality characteristics
were taken from several wet -area landfills in Eastern Oregon. These landfills typically
receive 40-50 inches of rainfall per year. The data from each of these landfills showed a
leachate composition similar to Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill on Oahu.
Brown and Caldwell's conclusions were that the operation of the HW WTP would be
+r severely impacted by addition of the landfill leachate. Based on the current plant loading
and an assumed 1% annual growth rate for the Hilo service area, the estimated leachate
loadings are approximately equivalent to:
_ • 10 years of capacity to treat suspended solids,
• 40 years capacity to treat total nitrogen, and
'r • 50 years capacity to treat biochemical oxygen demand.
r' East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 23
D
Bacterial action in landfills in wet areas such as Hilo convert a significant percentage of
organic material into methane and carbon dioxide. Both of these greenhouse gases are
emitted in high enough quantities that they can be captured for industrial use, given
construction of specialized facilities.
Applicability
W
As part of the Sort Station EIS research (Hawai'i County DEM 2003), the wastewater
data were submitted to Brown and Caldwell, Inc., of Honolulu, a professional
..
engineering firm specializing in wastewater treatment plant design and maintenance.
Brown and Caldwell were asked to assess the impact of leachate on the operation and
maintenance of the Hilo WWTP. The Hilo WWTP is operating at close to its design -
loading capacity as measured by the maximum monthly average flow and concentration.
Brown and Caldwell's conclusions were that the operation of the HW WTP would be
+r severely impacted by addition of the landfill leachate. Based on the current plant loading
and an assumed 1% annual growth rate for the Hilo service area, the estimated leachate
loadings are approximately equivalent to:
_ • 10 years of capacity to treat suspended solids,
• 40 years capacity to treat total nitrogen, and
'r • 50 years capacity to treat biochemical oxygen demand.
r' East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 23
D
This capacity does not exist at the Hilo Wastewater Treatment Plant, and leachate
treatment would thus require a new facility to be constructed. A detailed cost estimate of
the cost of constructing a new municipal wastewater treatment plant has not been
completed; however, the capital costs for constructing a new wastewater treatment plant
are likely to be far in excess of the landfill construction costs, and plant operations may
also add significant additional costs.
The County Wastewater Division identified several issues beyond those addressed by
Brown and Caldwell that could make treating leachate considerably more risky. The
County review raised the potential that leachate may contain hazardous components such
as solvents or pesticides. If leachate containing hazardous components were accepted,
the effluent discharge to coastal waters outside Hilo Bay may violate the terms of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Under NPDES,
hazardous materials may not be discharged into navigable waters. Leachate found to
contain hazardous constituents would not be allowed into the Hilo WWTP. This would
create a situation where large volumes of wastewater may require disposal as hazardous
waste. There is currently no method of disposing hazardous waste in Hawai' i.
Commercial Status
Traditional landfills compact waste to the maximum practical density and attempt to keep
it dry in order to reduce leachate production. The majority of new landfills are operated
in the driest portion of the waste generation area or waste is shipped to a dry area.
As discussed above, bioreactor landfills are a recently developed technology for
managing landfills to accelerate the decomposition of solid waste. In these, leachate is
typically circulated through the waste and, at some facilities in and climates, moisture is
added when necessary. Maintaining aerobic conditions in a landfill generally requires
much greater physical complexity and management than for an anaerobic landfill. In
addition, anaerobic bioreactor landfills capture landfill gas from which methane can be
separated and used for fuel. After a cell is closed, the waste in bioreactor landfills is
covered with an impermeable membrane and piping systems to collect the gases.
EPA's discussion of bioreactor landfills (epa.gov/garbage/landfill/bioreactors.htm) includes
aerobic, anaerobic and hybrid bioreactor landfills. This discussion makes it clear that
from a regulatory standpoint bioreactor landfills are experimental technology. Although
their discussion indicates numerous advantages of bioreactors including leachate quantity
reduction and reduction of BOD, their special considerations paragraph states:
"Several considerations about bioreactor landfills must be examined and
understood before the EPA can identify specific bioreactor standards or
recommend operating parameters. Bioreactor landfills generally are engineered
systems that have higher initial capital costs and require additional monitoring
and control during their operating life, but are expected to involve less monitoring
over the duration of the post -closure period than conventional "dry tomb"
East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 24
landfills. Issues that need to be addressed during both design and operation of a
bioreactor landfill include:
• Increased gas emissions
• Increased odors
• Physical instability of waste mass due to increased moisture and density
• Instability of liner systems
r
• Surface seeps
• Landfill fires"
Almost all of EPA's model bioreactor landfills are placed in areas that require additional
water to function correctly. The concept of placing a bioreactor landfill in an area that
receives too much water has not been tested. The Technical Memorandum (App. 1)
concluded that:
—
• Operation of a bioreactor landfill is a specialized technology that would be
entirely new to Hawai i. To use bioreactor technology would almost certainly
force the County to contract private landfill operators. Even the number of
—
private landfill operators that are qualified to operate a bioreactor landfill under
favorable conditions is limited to one or two. There is currently no experience in
the United States in the operation of a bioreactor landfill in wet conditions.
• A bioreactor landfill that receives the quantity of rainfall found in Hilo would
require excess leachate to be disposed in the Hilo W WTP. The quantity of
leachate requiring disposal would be reduced in a bioreactor landfill; however, the
..
concentration of contaminants might increased due to greater contact with the
waste. Most of the problems associated with leachate disposal for conventional
landfills would also occur with a bioreactor landfill.
�.
• As the complexity of landfilling increases, the costs and risks of failure may also
be expected to increase. It is possible that the increased management cost may be
offset by sale of methane gas. The management criteria and regulatory basis of
+�
the technology is still under development. Like many of the waste reduction
r
technologies that hold promise as a long-term solution in Hilo, a bioreactor
landfill is still a developing technology.
Approximate Cost
..w
Rough costs for building and operating a landfill adjacent to the existing South Hilo
Sanitary Landfill have been estimated based on the design of a landfill within the quarry,
which reduces the amount of initial excavation required. Major assumptions include:
• At final build -out the landfill would include roughly 40 acres and contain
approximately 5 million cubic yards of airspace. The height of the new landfill
would not exceed the height of the final closure elevation at the South Hilo
r Sanitary Landfill. At its deepest point the waste mass might be over 100 feet
thick.
—
W East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 25
M
The landfill would be in full compliance with RCRA Subtitle D, and would have
special permit conditions that allow it to operate within the Terminal Control
Area of Hilo International Airport.
Construction of the landfill would occur in stages, new construction is on
approximate 5 -year intervals over a period of 25 to 50 years.
Leachate would be generated at an average rate of 45,000 gallons per day with
peak flows up to 1 million gallons per day. Effluent would be stored and metered
to a new wastewater treatment plant as practical during wet weather operations.
If the new plant were constructed near the existing Hilo W WTP, the leachate
transmission line would be approximately 15,000 feet in length and cost
approximately $2,000,000. Construction of a new W WTP for landfill leachate is
not currently known, but could be in excess of $50,000,000.
Storage and pre-treatment would occur in a leachate lagoon, and in extreme
conditions leachate might be stored in the landfill.
Leachate would be minimized by providing an impermeable intermediate/final
r
cover immediately after the cell filled. Only the active portion of the landfill
would remain exposed to rainfall. Active areas average between 3 and 8 acres.
The initial cost of landfill construction at the landfill site is approximately $10 million.
This includes the first 8 acres of landfill cells and the infrastructure required to meet
current operating standards including support buildings, access and egress, linersystems,
leachate collection systems, leachate lagoon, a pipeline from the landfill to a new
W WTP. An additional $60 million in capital costs would be needed for construction of a
new W WTP. The total cost of landfilling waste in a new South Hilo Sanitary Landfill
and a new Wastewater Treatment Plant may be in excess of $100 per ton. The
uncertainties over leachate treatment requirements may also be considered a contingency
that may add significantly to the cost of operation.
1.3.4 Off -Island Disposal
Overview Description
Landfills located in the western United States accept waste from other locations, and
have expressed interest in receiving waste from Hawaii for disposal. This alternative
has been advanced primarily as an interim solution until a local WRTF or other suitable
permanent solution becomes available. The process for disposing of waste in mainland
landfills would include:
M
M
• The County would solicit proposals and select a vendor to transport and dispose
of waste.
• The County would collect waste at the Sort Station reload building tipping floor,
and sort out items that are unsuitable or inefficient to ship, such as concrete and
automobiles.
• The contractor would take possession of the waste at the Sort Station and
indemnifies the County in the event of a leak, spill or accident. `
M
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 26 -
r
r East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 27
M
• The contractor would load the remaining waste into a baler, which compresses
waste into square bales weighing 2 to 12 tons. The bales would then be wrapped
An
with wire followed by at least 4 layers of 25 -mil low-density polyethylene
(LDPE) film. The film has adhesive on one side to prevent it from slipping or
stretching during transport. The LDPE film is colored so that waste is not visible,
and the bales are airtight inside the wrapper so that aerobic decomposition is
halted.
• Waste bales would be stored at or near their point of origin for at least 5 days to
allow them to become anoxic.
..
• Waste bales would then be loaded to pallets or containers for truck transport to
the Port of Hilo. Waste would be inspected at the harbor for damage to bales and
r
then loaded onto barges by stevedores for the 12 to 18 day trip to the West Coast
..
of the US mainland.
• Company -specific procedures would be developed for inspection of bales and
r
handling of broken or damaged bales during transport.
• Waste would be off-loaded to truck or trains for transport to the landfill.
• Upon arrival at their final disposal destination, waste would be off-loaded and
r
transported to the working face for permanent disposal.
r
Waste Products/ Environmental Controls/Beneficial Byproducts
+�
The baling process seals waste in airtight containers. After the waste is baled there
would probably be minimal release of leachate or waste materials. Barge shipments
would be made after accumulation of a sufficient amount to fill the barge, estimated to be
.�
every three weeks to one month.
The specific environmental controls applied to transportation of waste to the West Coast
,.
are unknown, but the shippers would be required to maintain compliance with local
environmental regulations in each state where the waste is transported or disposed.
..
There are no beneficial byproducts of waste shipping in the traditional sense. Benefits of
the interim solution would be in avoiding and potential environmental impacts associated
with trucking waste across the island and landfilling or other types or waste disposal.
Applicability
There has been notable controversy in Hawaii County surrounding the issue of disposing
of waste in a different part of the island than where it was generated. Off -island disposal
W
would transport waste more than 2,000 miles from its point of generation; however, the
,.
recipients in Washington and Idaho have not historically objected.
r
r East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 27
M
In a separate legal question, the U.S. Supreme Court held that governments do not have
the right to dictate where waste is disposed, a practice known as flow control, because
these regulations are discriminatory to interstate commerce (US Supreme Court 1994,
Carbone vs. Clarkstown). At least two waste shippers are currently building private
commercial facilities on O' ahu to receive and ship waste. They intend to compete with
the City and County of Honolulu facilities through a reduced tipping fee structure.
Another legal issue that is relevant to shipping waste to the mainland is the restriction on
interstate transportation of agricultural products. Under federal regulations contained in
7CFR 330.400, it is illegal to transport any agricultural product to the mainland from
Hawaii without it having been cleared and certified by the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA). Municipal solid waste generated in Hawaii will have ample
amounts of prohibited materials and higher pest concentrations than the fresh fruits. The
State of Hawaii requested from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
of the USDA an assessment of the feasibility of transporting baled MSW from Hawaii to
mainland landfills for disposal. The USDA Center for Plant Health Science and
Technology tested the proposed baling system to determine whether Mediterranean Fruit
Flies or other exotic pests could survive being stored inside a waste bale for the period
required to transport waste from Hawai' i to Washington or Idaho.
A USDA study of the potential threat from agricultural pests transported in MSW
concluded that the risk of introducing unwanted insects, plants and pathogens was
acceptably low, contingent upon standard specifications of baling and inspection. The
study concluded that the risk of live pests making the journey is substantially eliminated
by compaction and wrapping due to mechanical stresses of compaction, the heat
generated by decomposing waste, and the lack of oxygen inside the wrappers.
Potential bidders for waste shipping are apparently confident that USDA is likely to
approve waste shipping between Hawaii and the U.S. mainland on the condition that the
waste is compacted and wrapped as specified.
Applicability as an Interim Solution for Hawaii County
An "interim solution" is defined as an option that could be implemented in a relatively
short period of time, and could be discontinued if and when a long term solution is
implemented, or it could be continued indefinitely if desired by the County.
As discussed in Section 1.1, a major reason for accelerating development of a WRTF is
that without some new source of disposal facilities, there are likely two to five years left
before the SHSL is closed. The only existing waste disposal facility in the County will
be the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill. If a WRTF (or, alternatively, another landfill) is
not in operation by the time the SHSL reaches capacity, the County will be required to
either truck waste to West Hawaii overland, or it will barge waste to the mainland until a
more permanent solution is implemented.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 28
There are some circumstances for which an interim solution would be desirable.
'0
If the current procurement is unsuccessful due to legal challenges or contractual
difficulties.
• If the procurement of a WRTF identifies only technologies that are inappropriate,
Ir
costly, or otherwise unacceptable to the County.
..
• Also, even if a permanent WRTF is constructed, off -island disposal may be
desired for ash or rejects from the WRTF
W
A review of local permitting and construction practices in the County indicates that a lead
time of two years may be appropriate if the County determines that an interim solution
w
will be required.
Commercial Status
,.
The components of waste shipping involve no new technology or new application of
existing technology.
w�
East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 29
w
s
M
PART 2: EIS PROCESS
2.1 Proposing Agency and Accepting Authority
The County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management (DEM) is
considering construction of a waste reduction technology facility (WRTF) in East
Hawaii for long-term municipal solid waste management. This document is formal
notification of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed
action. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will identify and assess alternatives,
including the No Action Alternative, alternative solid waste management strategies and
technologies, and also alternative sites for the preferred alternative. The EIS will also
specifically identify locations for all activities in all advanced alternatives. The use of
County funds and State and County lands, as well as construction of a waste -to -energy
facility or a new landfill, trigger the environmental review requirements under Hawaii
Revised Statutes Chapter 343, Hawai' i Revised Statutes. The accepting authority to
determine the adequacy of the Final EIS is the Office of the Mayor of the County of
Hawai i.
2.2 Environmental Impact Statement Process
The three phases of every Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) development are
described below.
Scoping. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) begins with the
scoping process. The purpose of scoping is to notify the public of the proposed action,
identify issues and assess the relative significance of these issues, determine the
alternatives for study, allocate the proper resources for environmental investigation, and
plan a schedule for the EIS. The scoping process for this project has involved public and
small group meetings and continues with the publication of this Environmental Impact
Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN) document in the Environmental Notice of the
Hawaii State Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC).
A key element in scoping is public participation. The public is invited to provide written
comments upon reviewing the EISPN. Ideally, the comments should identify concerns or
issues that should be addressed in the EIS, suggest resource persons or references that
could provide useful information, confirm the accuracy of information presented in the
EISPN, suggest alternatives, or identify persons or organizations who should be
contacted because they may be affected by the project.
In addition to the opportunity for formal public review during the EISPN process,
Hawaii County DEM and its representatives have met and will continue to meet with the
general public, as well as community organizations, business groups, environmental
organizations, and cultural organizations that have special concerns. These meetings are
meant to offer an informal setting for soliciting concerns and gathering information. To
date, the following meetings have occurred.
East Hawai 'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 30
w
., • Sierra Club, Hilo, February 22, 2006
• Public Meeting, Hilo, March 1, 2006
`r • Environmental Management Commission, Kailua-Kona, March 15, 2006
Minutes and announcements related to the March 1, 2006 public meeting are included in
Appendix 2. Another public meeting will be held during the comment.period for the
.. EISPN.
rr
After the EISPN, the County will review the technical merits and probable costs of each
.. of these alternatives as well as public input received on the EISPN. During this same
time, the County will issue its Stage 2 Request for Proposals to solicit bids for
appropriate waste reduction technology vendors following completion of the final
Technical Memorandum and this EISPN. The Draft EIS process will resume after the
rr County has determined the best alternative, or combination of alternatives, and has
received qualified bids to design, build and operate the waste system under contract to
the County. Periodic public involvement will be conducted during this interval.
Draft EIS. The Draft EIS (DEIS) will include a summary of the issues raised during the
.- EISPN comments period and at meetings. It will also include analysis of the
environmental impacts of the proposed project, any alternatives that are advanced, and
the No Action Alternative. The public will have a 45 -day period to review the DEIS and
provide comments. Another public meeting will be conducted during this period.
Final EIS. Hawaii County DEM will review and respond to the comments received on
,. the DEIS. The Final EIS (FEIS) will incorporate the comments, and include copies of the
comments and responses. The Final EIS will include the decision on which alternative is
selected for implementation. The Office of the Mayor, in consultation with the State
Office of Environmental Quality Control, will decide whether the FEIS meets the EIS
M
requirements of the State of Hawai' i.
r 2.3 Consultation of Agencies and Organizations
The following agencies and organizations have received a copy of the EISPN and are
formally invited to be consulted as part of the EIS process:
Federal
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — Solid Waste Division Region 9
rr
• U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
State
• Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, Energy
Resources and Technology Division
• Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
• Department of Health
• Department of Land and Natural Resources
�• East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 31
• Department of Transportation
• Office of Environmental Quality Control
• Office of Hawaiian Affairs
• State Historic Preservation Division
• University of Hawai i, Environmental Center
County
• Civil Defense Agency
• County Council
• Department of Parks & Recreation
• Department of Public Works
• Department of Water Supply
• Fire Department
• Planning Department
Organizations and Individuals
• Kanoelehua Industrial Area Association
• Pana' ewa Hawaiian Home Lands Community Association
• Recycle Hawai i
• Sierra Club
• United Public Workers Union
The above list is a preliminary identification of parties with interests at stake or
that may have pertinent information. The applicant welcomes and appreciates any
assistance in identifying others who have special information or might be
impacted by the proposed project, and who should therefore be consulted in the
process of preparing the Draft EIS.
The EISPN has also been made available at the Hilo, Waimea and Kailua-Kona public
libraries and has been sent to the Hawaii Tribune Herald, West Hawaii Today,
Honolulu Star -Bulletin, and Honolulu Advertiser.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 32
PART 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND PROPOSED
MITIGATION MEASURES
r
The actual locations for the proposed WRTF and other alternatives have not been
conclusively set. It is highly likely that the selected site will be in vicinity of the South
r Hilo Sanitary Landfill, probably in the same general area as the existing transfer station
and proposed Sort Station This location has would also be the logical site for staging
waste for off -island disposal. The area directly south of the current landfill is the logical
site for the alternative of a new landfill, as explained in Section 1.3.3 above. A final
proposed WRTF location, or a set of alternative locations, will be presented in the EIS.
If advanced for further study, the location(s) of the off -island disposal staging area and a
potential landfill site would also be specified in greater detail in the EIS.
For purposes of this EISPN, the term project site refers to the area directly around the
SHSL/transfer station/landfill area, as shown in Figure 2. This site is accessed via State
_ Highway 11, Leilani Street, landfill a substandard roadway known as the Ammunition
Dump Road. The general area is mostly industrial, and has activities such as metal
1W recycling, composting, rock quarrying, a landfill and a transfer station.
The project area is a more general and flexible term that varies according to the resource
under discussion, usually including certain portions of surrounding properties, and in
some cases (e.g., air quality, traffic and hydrology) to much larger areas, such as Hilo or
East Hawai i.
1�t
3.1 Geology and Soils
The entire Big Island is subject to geologic hazards from lava flows and earthquakes. The
r County of Hawaii is considered Seismic Zone 4, which requires structures and structural
fill deposits to be engineered to specific earthquake resistant standards.
The project site is on the lower slopes of Mauna Loa Volcano, in Lava Flow Hazard Zone
3 (on a scale of 1 to 9). Zone 3 is considered "less hazardous than Zone 2 (which is
adjacent to and down slope of active risk zones) because of greater distance from recently
active vents and/or because the topography makes it less likely that flows will cover these
areas" (Heliker 1990). As such, there is some risk of lava inundation over relatively short
time scales.
Soil on the site is classified as Papai extremely stony muck. This soil consists of an 8 -
inch layer of extremely stony muck underlain by fragmental ' a'a. Permeability is rapid,
runoff slow, and erosion hazard slight on this soil. The capability subclass is VIIs,
` indicating that the soil has very severe limitations that make it generally unsuited for
+� cultivation and limit its use largely to pasture, range, woodland or wildlife (U.S. Soil
Conservation Service 1973). Despite these limitations, the project site is classified as
Other Important Agricultural Land in the ALISH (Agricultural Lands of Importance to
r the State of Hawai' i) system (Baker 1976).
Potential Issues and Impacts
r East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 33
n
W
In general, geologic conditions impose no constraints for a WRTF or an off -island
disposal option, but they may raise the cost of another landfill. As required under County
of Hawaii regulations, all construction will conform with the provisions of the Uniform
Building Code (1997) appropriate to the Seismic Zone 4 rating.
The Draft EIS will examine geologic conditions with respect to the proposed action and
any other alternatives advanced for consideration, and will discuss impacts to soil
character and the agricultural potential of the property. If locations other than the
identified project site are considered for any advanced alternatives, the Draft EIS will
evaluate the geologic and soil conditions and resources and will discuss potential impacts
and constraints of the proposed action at such sites.
3.2 Hydrology and Water Quality
3.2.1 Floodplains
Existing Environment
Floodplain status for the project site has been determined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), which has mapped the area as part of the National Flood
Insurance Program's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). A summary of applicable
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) designations in the Hilo area is as follows:
• Zone A: SFHAs subject to inundation by the 100 -year flood. Because detailed hydraulic
analyses have not been performed, no base flood elevation or depths are shown. Zone
AE: SFHAs subject to inundation by the 100 -year flood determined in a Flood Insurance
Study by detailed methods. Base flood elevations are shown within these zones.
• Zone AH: SFHAs subject to inundation by 100 -year shallow flooding (usually areas of
ponding where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Base flood elevations derived
from detailed hydraulic analyses are shown in this zone.
• Zone VE: the 100 -year coastal, high hazard floodplain, incorporating storm surges. Base
flood elevations derived from detailed hydraulic analyses are shown in this zone.
• Zone X: Areas identified in the community flood insurance study as areas of moderate or
minimal hazard from the principal source of flood in the area.
The project site is in Flood Zone X on the Hawaii Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which
indicates that the area is outside the 100 -year floodplain.
Potential Issues and Impacts
There will be no impact to floodplains, as no floodplains are present in the project area.
The Draft EIS will assess the extent of runoff from the increased impervious paved
surfaces and any drainage improvements needed to ensure that all drainage is contained
onsite or adequately controlled. If locations other than the identified project site are
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 34
considered for any advanced alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the floodplain status
and flooding potential of such sites, and will discuss potential impacts and constraints of
'r the proposed action at such sites.
rr
3.2.2 Surface Water Features
Existing Environment
The project site is approximately one mile inland from the nearest coastline at Reed's
Bay. It is nearly one mile west of Wailoa Pond and slightly over two miles southwest of
the Wailuku River. There are no surface water features, such as streams, ponds, coastal
M waters, or wetlands, in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Old quarries located
.. about a mile to the northwest contain ponds; A rarely flowing drainage ditch collects
water from streams and ditches in the southeastern part of Hilo and discharges into
r vacant, low-lying land about a half -mile south of the SHSL.
Potential Issues and Impacts
M
r No surface water features are present in the project site and thus none would be affected
by the proposed WRTF or any other alternative. However, there is a need to restrict
polluted stormwater runoff during construction and operation of the selected facility,
deposition of contaminants associated with heavy equipment and vehicles on facility
roadways, and production of wastewater (if applicable) during operation of the facility.
Furthermore, there is at least some potential for a waste reduction technology facility to
s impact water quality of features at some distance from the facility due to deposition of air
pollutants in water bodies within the airshed of the facility.
The Draft EIS will:
• Assess the potential for long-term area -wide impacts to water quality through
deposition of air pollutants from the facility;
• Discuss treatment of wastewater produced by the facility;
y • Discuss management of stormwater runoff from the facility; and
• Evaluate and propose mitigation for secondary impacts to water quality as
applicable.
rr
If locations other than the identified project site are considered for any advanced
alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the surface water resources and discuss potential
impacts of the proposed action on such sites.
r
M
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 35
W
0
3.2.3 Groundwater
Existing Environment
The project site is situated on a series of basalts that flowed from Mauna Loa within the
last 10,000 years. The uppermost groundwater aquifer beneath the landfill is typically
encountered just above sea level, or about 70 to 90 feet below the ground surface at the
project site. As defined by the State of Hawaii, groundwater beneath the site is part of
the Hilo aquifer system of the North East Mauna Loa aquifer sector. The entire project
site lies above the segment of this aquifer that is seaward of the Underground Injection
Control (UIC) line, which is found a minimum of one mile inland of the project site.
According to the State of Hawaii Department of Health (DOH), groundwater that is
makai of the UIC is not considered a drinking water source, while groundwater that is
mauka of the UIC is considered a drinking water source. Thus, the portion of the North
East Mauna Loa aquifer below the project site extending downgradient towards the sea is
not considered a suitable drinking water source. The closest drinking water source wells
are the Panaewa 1, 2, and 3 well clusters, found approximately 1.5 miles upgradient of
the proposed site.
Environmental monitoring of the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill is regulated by DOH
requirements contained in HAR 11-58.1 and 40 CFR 257-258. These regulations require
a landfill to have a groundwater monitoring system that includes monitoring wells that
extend into the uppermost aquifer beneath the landfill. Wells must be constructed
upgradient of the landfill to monitor background water quality, as well as downgradient
of the landfill to monitor groundwater that could be affected by a release from the
landfill. The regulations require use of a sufficient number of wells to account for
naturally -occurring variations in groundwater flow directions and groundwater
chemistry.
Groundwater beneath the SHSL is monitored by four monitoring wells, including one
upgradient (background) monitoring well, and three downgradient (compliance) wells.
Each of these wells provides for adequate sample collection of groundwater from the
uppermost aquifer below the SHSL. Groundwater sampling began in 1995 and has been
conducted quarterly since that time. Historical groundwater elevation measurements
indicate that groundwater flow conditions remain very consistent over time.
Groundwater flows in a northeasterly direction passing beneath the landfill and transfer
station area to the downgradient monitoring wells. The consistency in the groundwater
flow direction and gradient means that groundwater flows in the same direction and at the
same rate over time. Based on the groundwater flow direction and velocity, the
monitoring wells are appropriately located and monitored to detect an environmental
release from the SHSL (GeoLogic Associates 2004).
Groundwater monitoring has been conducted quarterly since 1995, resulting in 29
discrete sampling events. Groundwater samples are analyzed for general chemistry
parameters, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). General chemistry
parameters include nitrate as ammonia, alkalinity, total organic carbon, and total
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 36
dissolved solids. These parameters are used as a general assessment of aquifer chemistry.
Elevated concentrations of these parameters may indicate a release from the landfill,
other human activities (such as a leaking septic tank or storm drain), seawater intrusion
,. into the aquifer, or naturally occurring variations in the aquifer chemistry. Groundwater
samples are also analyzed for fifteen different heavy metals, such as copper, lead, and
chromium. If present in landfill wastes, metals can be released when the wastes become
., acidic. Heavy metals may also be present naturally in the aquifer bedrock and soils.
Volatile organic compounds are man-made chemicals or are chemicals created by
bacteriological breakdown of man-made substances. Examples of VOCs include benzene
.. and toluene, which are components of gasoline and other fuels, and tetrachloroethene and
trichloroethene, which are solvents with diverse industrial uses. Groundwater samples
r are analyzed for VOCs, and the presence of these compounds in groundwater is definitive
�. of contamination by man-made sources. VOCs can enter groundwater from a fuel spill,
landfill leachate percolation, or industrial discharge.
R Groundwater samples are collected by qualified field personnel and are analyzed by an
analytical laboratory using test methods prescribed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Groundwater samples are accompanied by chain -of -custody documents
�. that list all persons who have handled the sample, and by a series of duplicate and blank
samples that are used to assess the quality of the laboratory's analytical abilities.
rr
To determine whether the landfill and associated facilities have affected water quality,
groundwater sample data are analyzed using statistical and non -statistical methods.
Statistical methods compare groundwater chemistry data collected from the upgradient
(background) well with data collected from the wells that are downgradient of the
M
landfill. Statistical methods also look for changes in groundwater chemistry that occur
over time in each well. Statistical anomalies are concluded when the downgradient
groundwater chemistry data are found to be significantly different than the upgradient
No
(background) monitoring data, or when a current analyte concentration is statistically
different than values measured historically. A calculated statistical anomaly may indicate
that a release from the landfill has occurred. Non -statistical data analyses methods
r
include comparing water quality data with established water quality goals, such as
YY
drinking water standards or the U.S. EPA's maximum contaminant levels (MCLS).
If a release from the landfill is identified, then DOH rules require the landfill
owner/operator to take the necessary measures to evaluate the nature and extent of the
release, and then upon confirmation of the release, to evaluate and if necessary mitigate
the release to minimize its impact on human health and the environment.
r
To date, the SHSL has been sampled 29 times, twice the number of sampling events that
are required by DOH for the period of time that the monitoring wells have been in place.
rr
Data collected during that time indicate that groundwater downgradient of the landfill has
a slightly different chemical signature than the groundwater upgradient of the landfill,
and this difference appears to be related to natural tidal influences on groundwater
rr
chemistry. No statistical or non -statistical evidence of a release to groundwater has been
identified. An independent assessment of the landfill groundwater monitoring system
East Hawai 'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 37
rr
M
found the number, depth, and placement of monitoring wells was adequate and
appropriate to detect a release from the landfill (GeoLogic Associates 2004).
Potential Issues and Impacts
No adverse impacts to groundwater quality have been detected from the current operation
of the landfill and associated facilities, which have included metal recycling, greenwaste
collection and processing, quarrying, and transfer station operation. The Draft EIS will:
• Assess the potential for impacts to groundwater quality through stormwater and
industrial discharge water from the facility and any other advanced alternatives;
• Discuss best management practices for protection of groundwater specific to the
advanced alternatives; and
• Evaluate and propose mitigation for primary and secondary impacts to
groundwater quality as applicable.
If locations other than the identified project site are considered for any advanced
alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the groundwater resources and discuss potential
impacts of the proposed action on such sites.
3.3 Biological Resources
Environmental Setting: Botany
The vegetation of this part of the South Hilo District can be described as a mixture of
post -agricultural fallow vegetation (mixed alien shrubland/ grassland and alien -
dominated forest with relatively few native plants) with remnant lowland `ohi`a forest
(Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). Areas directly adjacent to the SHSL, the transfer station,
greenwaste and metal recycling areas, and access roads are generally highly disturbed.
As a result of its history of use for quarrying and landfill purposes, the project site
currently has four vegetation types. The first two are common and widely distributed,
while the last is extremely limited in area.
The first consists of vegetation on the landfill itself, which is scattered weeds that sprout
up quickly but are subject to destruction as the face of the landfill is reworked. This
community has no conservation value.
The second consists of various early successional weed communities, in which alien
herbs, vines and grasses dominate. This is found on the outskirts of the landfill and other
working areas and on access roads. An extremely wide variety of weeds are present, but
in various locations, Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum), rattlepod (Crotalaria spp.)
Spanish clover (Desmodium spp.), sensitive plant (Mimosa pudica) and various sedges
and grasses are dominant. The reason these communities are labeled "early" is that they
East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 38
0
are periodically disturbed through mowing, stockpiling, herbicide spraying, etc. This
community has little if any conservation value.
rr
The third community is late successional forest, which is dominated by alien trees,
including Albizia moluccana, gunpowder tree (Trema orientalis), trumpet tree (Cecropia
W obtusifolia), strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum), Melastoma candidum, and
bingabing tree (Macaranga mappa). Even in such disturbed areas there are occasional
natives, including mini -groves of low -stature hala (Pandanus tectorius) resting on old
"r bulldozer pushpiles, and a few `ohi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha) and lama (Diospyros
sandwicensis) trees. This is the most common type away from working areas and roads
where disturbance is less. As with the fust vegetation type, this secondary forest has little
conservation value for either the plant species it contains or as animal habitat, although
Hawaiian Hawks may be able to forage there for rats.
The fourth community is native `ohi`a-lama-hala forest, heavily invaded by aliens
(especially Melastoma candidum and strawberry guava). Remnants of this native
vegetation type are present at various distances from the landfill on several sides. In the
immediate area, it appears to take up not more (and possibly much less) than one-half
acre directly opposite the entrance to the existing landfill, on TMK 2-1-13:142, as well as
the DHHL property adjacent.
•
W
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 39
r
Some relatively intact and higher quality pockets of this forest type are found on the 500
OR
acres of the Hawaii Army National Guard's Keaukaha Military Reserve, located to the
east of the landfill. This site contains a number of native plants that are relatively
uncommon in the lowlands of Hilo and uncommon or not present on the project site.
These include kolea (Myrsine spp.), kopiko (Psychotria spp.), mamaki (Pipturus
W
albidus), and `ie`ie (Freycinetia arborea). A joint University of Hawaii at Hilo -National
Guard project is experimenting with restoration of the native forest at the site (Dewar
2002).
Wr
There is no federally designated or proposed Critical Habitat for threatened or
endangered plants within or near the study area.
r
Potential Issues and Impacts: Botany
Based on previous surveys of the project site (Hawai'i County DEM 2003), there is little
potential on the project site for valuable botanical resources. The Draft EIS must
carefully evaluate the footprint of proposed direct and indirect use for all alternatives to
ensure that any areas that have not yet been surveyed are inspected. If appropriate, the
DEIS will discuss direct impacts to specific botanical components as well as secondary
_
and cumulative impacts, such as fire hazard, and will propose mitigation measures as
W
necessary.
W
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 39
r
W
W
Environmental Setting: Zoology
The fauna currently found within the project site is dominated by alien species (those
introduced to Hawaii by man).
It is probable that the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)
occasionally forages in the area, as it has been recorded from the general area in past
faunal surveys. All other mammalian species found on the island are alien to Hawai i.
The project site supports or is traversed by cattle, dogs, cats, rats, mice and mongooses.
The birds found within the project site are mostly alien, which is typical in most of the
ecologically disturbed lowland areas of Hawai i. It is possible that both the threatened
Newell's Shearwater (Puffinus newelli) and the endangered Dark-rumped Petrel
(Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis) overfly the site. There is no suitable nesting
habitat within, or close to the project area for either seabird species.
The invertebrate fauna of the project site, or for that matter of most of the island of
Hawai i, has not been systematically studied or completely described. No threatened or
endangered invertebrate species are known from the highly disturbed project site or any
directly adjacent areas.
There is no federally designated or proposed Critical Habitat for threatened or
endangered animals within or near the project site.
Potential Issues and Impacts: Zoology
Based on previous surveys of the project site (Hawaii County DEM 2003), there is little
potential on the project site for valuable faunal resources. The Draft EIS must carefully
evaluate the footprint of proposed direct and indirect use for all alternatives to ensure that
any areas of potential native fauna habitat that have not yet been surveyed are inspected,
and evaluate impacts and mitigation measures as appropriate.
If locations other than the identified project site are considered for any advanced
alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the faunal resources and discuss potential
impacts of the proposed action on such resources.
3.4 Air Quality and Climate
Environmental Setting
Air quality in Hawaii is among the best in the nation due to the limited population, lack
of major heavy industrial facilities, and surrounding isolation from air emissions sources.
During the 1970s and 1980s the State recorded air quality measurement at specific
locations in or around the Hilo area and determined that there was little measurable
degradation of ambient air quality at that time; however, there have been few official
measurements of air quality over the last decade. Although population density has
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 40
0
yr
xr
increased marginally, the overall area has relatively little air quality degradation as a
result of population impacts, with the exception that carbon monoxide levels may be
elevated near high-volume intersections during periods when traffic congestion and poor
air dispersion conditions coincide.
The constant eruption of Kilauea Volcano is a significant source of sulfur dioxide and
other sulfur containing compounds as well as particulates and carbon monoxide. The Hilo
area is affected less than many other parts of the island because it is upwind during
'~ normal tradewind conditions. On days when the tradewinds are reduced, diurnal
convection winds or southerly kona winds may bring volcanic fog (vog) into the area,
resulting in measurable degradation of air quality and visibility.
r
.. Many factors are important. Different technologies involve different levels and types of
emissions, and there often are tradeoffs between cost and pollutant reduction. Normal
operation of a plant may produce minimal pollution, but off -normal (upset) conditions
during startup, shutdown, or abrupt changes in fuel type can increase emissions.
Operator error, plant malfunction, poor management, inadequate maintenance and other
factors can increase pollution. It is also important to note that while general ambient
levels may not exceed limits, plant workers may be exposed to higher pollutant levels.
The Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, regulates air quality in the U.S. Applicable
standards pursuant to the act include the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), New Source Performance Standards, and the National Emission Standards of
r Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for standard-setting programs and approval of
a individual actions such as specific permits. Many permit reviews are delegated to the
rr states, and in Hawati i they are regulated by the Department of Health.
East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 41
r
Air quality in the vicinity of the project site is episodically impacted by fugitive dust and
engine exhaust generated by the heavy truck traffic in the area. Quarries and the landfill
may also generate fugitive dust and carbon monoxide. These operations are subject to
limitations under source permits monitored by the Department of Health. The largest
single source of persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBTs) in the County is
r
the HELCO Hilo Generating Station, located about two miles from the project site.
Potential Issues and Impacts
r
Regardless of the method, solid waste disposal pollutes the air to some degree. Landfills,
waste -to -energy combustion, thermal gasification, anaerobic digestion, aerobic
composting, bio -refining, shipping waste to other locations and even recycling all pollute
the air. Pollutants vary from those emitted by vehicles and equipment burning fossil
fuels — a process that yields CO2 and carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates,
to the CO2 and methane that emerge from landfills, to more toxic pollutants such as
dioxins, furans and mercury that can be released in small quantities from waste -to -energy
w
units.
.. Many factors are important. Different technologies involve different levels and types of
emissions, and there often are tradeoffs between cost and pollutant reduction. Normal
operation of a plant may produce minimal pollution, but off -normal (upset) conditions
during startup, shutdown, or abrupt changes in fuel type can increase emissions.
Operator error, plant malfunction, poor management, inadequate maintenance and other
factors can increase pollution. It is also important to note that while general ambient
levels may not exceed limits, plant workers may be exposed to higher pollutant levels.
The Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, regulates air quality in the U.S. Applicable
standards pursuant to the act include the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), New Source Performance Standards, and the National Emission Standards of
r Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for standard-setting programs and approval of
a individual actions such as specific permits. Many permit reviews are delegated to the
rr states, and in Hawati i they are regulated by the Department of Health.
East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 41
r
The description of various technologies in Section 1.3 included basic comparison of
emissions risks and technologies. The following summarizes and supplements that
section:
Waste -to -energy (combustion) units produce a number of air pollutants — including
normally very small levels of hazardous pollutants such as dioxins, furans and mercury —
that are the byproducts of combustion. Accordingly, air emission controls are a critical
component of these facilities and can represent up to about 30 percent of the system cost.
The specific control systems required will depend on plant size, combustion type, waste
characteristics and local air quality regulations, but they include systems to remove
hazardous pollutants, particulates and NO..
Thermal gasification has emissions control on units combusting the syngas that is
produced. These include temperature and residence time system controls to limit the
production of dioxin and ammonia (or urea) injection, where syngas is burned in a boiler,
for NO, control, and a fabric filter baghouse for removal of particulates.
Anaerobic digestion also has emissions control on units combusting the gas produce.
Since all gases are contained in the anaerobic digestion process itself, odors and other
pollutants are not emitted directly into the atmosphere as long as the proper gas piping
and storage is provided. If the gas produced by anaerobic digestion is subsequently
flared or used in combustion to produce electricity, air emissions controls are required.
Aerobic composting has odor as its most significant emission, and there is also potential
emission of airborne fungi.
Bio -refining produces fuels that are ultimately combusted and are thus a source of air
emissions whether onsite or off.
Landfills in wet areas such as Hilo support bacterial action that converts a significant
percentage of organic material into methane and carbon dioxide. Both of these
greenhouse gases are emitted in high enough quantities that they can be captured for
industrial use but can also be significantly polluting if not captured.
Off -island disposal passes most air pollution products to other areas, aside from the
products of engine exhausts from the equipment used to bale and ship the waste to a port.
Regardless of the alternative that is adopted by choice or default, on-site mobile and
stationary construction equipment also would emit air pollutants from engine exhausts,
just as it currently does. The largest of this equipment is usually diesel -powered.
Nitrogen oxide emissions from diesel engines can be relatively high compared to
gasoline -powered equipment, but the standard for nitrogen dioxide is set on an annual
basis and is not likely to be violated by short-term construction equipment emissions.
Carbon monoxide emissions from diesel engines, on the other hand, are low and would
be relatively insignificant compared to vehicular emissions on nearby roadways.
East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 42
J
Mr
The Draft EIS will address the following issues:
• Construction impacts, including development of an effective dust control plan to
avoid or mitigate impacts. The plan may include watering active work areas,
go wind screens, covering open trucks carrying soil or rock, and other elements.
• Vehicular and equipment engine exhaust, particularly if the selected alternative
results in greater use of vehicles or heavy equipment than current operations.
r
• Long term regional impacts resulting from air emissions, including a risk
assessment that models human health impacts due to emissions of air pollutants
for the WRTF and any other alternatives advanced for consideration in the EIS,
considered cumulatively with respect to other sources such as power plants.
• Applicable laws, regulations, standards and permits will be discussed.
r If locations other than the identified project site are considered for any advanced
alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the air quality impacts specific to these sites.
r
3.5 Visual Character
Existing Environment
rr
The Hawaii County General Plan characterizes the scenic beauty of various area and
identifies sites and vistas of natural beauty, as shown in Table 2. Unobstructed views of
the project site not listed in the Hawaii County General Plan are generally present only
from more mauka areas of Hilo, such as Ponahawai Street, the University Research Park
.. off Komohana Street, and the Puainako Extension (Fig. 3).
As described in more detail in Section 3.7.1, areas surrounding the site are largely
.. industrial, including the Hilo International Airport, industrial areas and quarries. More
visually sensitive agricultural/residential areas are present about 1,000 feet to the west.
.. Potential Issues and Impacts
The project site's isolated location in an area with an already thoroughly industrial
character makes it visually non -sensitive. Nevertheless, the new facility is expected to
include visual and layout buffers designed to minimize the visual intrusiveness of waste
handling activities. Depending on the precise location and height of the WRTF or
alternative facility structures, they may be visible from other locations in Hilo,
particularly a few mauka sites that currently include see the landfill. The Draft EIS will:
art
• Discuss the layout and visual buffers with respect to their impact on the visual
character of the site.
• Evaluate the scenic impacts of the project through comparison of current scenic
character at various locations and from various vantage points with those
expected after the facility is constructed. Mitigation for impacts to visual
character will be discussed.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 43
r
A
Figure 3 View of Project Site from Puainako Extension
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 44
OW
Ow
r
al
r
m
s
r
AV
Table 2
Areas of Natural Beauty in Hawaii Countv General Plan
No.
Scenic Resource
TMK
Location
1
Banyan Drive Scenic Area
2-1-01,03,5
Waiakea
2
Liliuokalani Gardens
2-1-03:2
Waiakea
3
Viewpoint of Hilo Bay area with Mauna Kea in
Background
2-1-03:2
Waiakea
4
Viewpoint of Hilo Bay with Mauna Kea in
Back round
2-1-03:17
Waiakea
5
Coconut Isle (Mokuola)
2-1-03:19
Waiakea
6
Reeds Bay (Shoreline)
2-1-05:1
Waiakea
7
Ice Pond
2-1-06:10
Waiakea
8
Viewpoint -Shoreline (Leleiwi Point)
2-1-11:5
Waiakea
9
Lehia Park (undeveloped)
2-1-13:5
Waiakea
10
Viewpoint -Shoreline (Keokea Point)
2-1-14:13
Waiakea
11
Lihikai (Onekahakaha) Beach Park shoreline
2-1-14:13
Waiakea
12
Waiahole Fish Pond
2-1-15:1
Waiakea
13
Haleolono Fish Pond
2-1-15:42
Waiakea
14
Leleiwi Park shoreline
2-1-16 to 19
Waiakea
15
Lokoaka Pond, Akahi Pond, and Kionakapahu
Pond
2-1-16:1
Waiakea
16
Viewpoint -Shoreline (Waiuli Point)
2-1-19:9
Waiakea
17
Wailoa River Area:
--Hoakimau Fish Pond;
--Mohouli Fish Pond;
--Waiakea Fish Pond
2-2-13:3;
2-2-29:27;
2-2-31:1
Waiakea
18
Puu Halai
2-3-22
Ponahawai
19
Rainbow Falls and Area (Wailuku River Park)
2-3-27:1,2
Pi ihonua
20
Kaimukanaka Falls and Area
2-3-27:3, 5
Pi ihonua
21
Boiling Pots and Area
2-3-29:12
Pi'ihonua
22
Viewpoint on hilltop looking over Hilo Bay
2-3-37
Ponahawai
23
Wai`ole Falls and Area
2-5-9:4
Pi ihonua
24
Pe`epe`e Falls and Area
2-5-10:1
Pi ihonua
25
Viewpoint from lower Wailuku Bridge looking
makai
2-6-02
Pi ihonua
26
Viewpoint from lower Wailuku Bridge looking
mauka
2-6-03
Wailua
27
Alealea Point looking towards Hilo Bay
2-6-15:1
Wailua
Source: Hawaii County General Plan
If locations other than the identified project site are considered for any advanced
alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the visual resources and discuss potential impacts
of the proposed action on such resources.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 45
3.6 Noise
0
W
Existing Environment
Noise levels on the site are currently influenced by the commercial truck traffic,
quarry operations, recycling, miscellaneous industrial activities and landfilling.
Potential Issues and Impacts
The Draft EIS will examine the potential noise impacts from existing and future sources,
as well as the location and distance of potential receptors. Anticipated noise levels vary
greatly between alternative technologies. Noise impacts and potential mitigation will be
estimated for each remaining technology. If locations other than the identified project
site are considered for any advanced alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the noise
impacts of the proposed action on such noise -sensitive areas
3.7 Socioeconomic
3.7.1 Land Use and Planning Designations
Existing Land Use and Planning Designations
Few sensitive uses are currently present within 2,000 feet of the SHSL or transfer station
and none within 1,000 feet. However, several residences are located at distances from
about 1,000 to 2,000 feet from the landfill, near the intersection of Auwae Road and
Kahaopea Street, on agriculturally -zoned parcels (see Fig. 2). No public facilities,
schools, churches or other noise -sensitive uses are located within 2,000 feet of the project
site. DEM has not historically received complaints concerning noise, odor, dust, traffic,
runoff or any other nuisance conditions at the landfill and associated facilities from
neighbors.
Planning responsibility for the County rests with the County Planning Department, the
County Planning Commission and the State Land Use Commission.
State Land Use District
The project site includes land within the State Land Use Urban and Agricultural
Districts.
General Plan LUPAG Map
The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map is a graphic representation of the
Plan's goals and policies. Various portions of the project site are designated as either
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 46
4W
Industrial and Important Agricultural Lands.
r
rr
r.
r
r
r
r
Ow
r
aw
rr
.w
r East Hawai'i Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 47
r
County Zoning
Zoning for the project site properties is General Industrial (MG -1) and Agricultural (A -
5a).
Potential Issues and Impacts
The consistency of the action would depend on the precise location on the project site. In
general, areas zoned Industrial would have the required land use designations, and areas
zoned Agricultural would require Special Permits or rezoning. As currently envisioned,
the WRTF would be located near the Sort Station and within an Industrial zone. It is
important to note that the existing landfill is located mostly within areas zoned for
agriculture. Special Permit No. 574, approved with conditions on January 31, 1985,
allowed a 15 -acre eastward extension of the landfill. Condition C required the County to
submit an application for a State Land Use District boundary amendment from the
re
Agricultural to the Urban District for the subject property within five years from the date
R
of approval, which never occurred. DEM intends to coordinate with the Planning
Department to remedy the lack of compliance with Condition C as it continues to move
0
forward on the permit modify the existing South Hilo Sanitary Landfill. The quarry areas
into which a landfill would be expanded are similarly within the Agricultural zone.
w
r
If locations other than the identified project site are considered for any advanced
alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the planning designations of such sites and
discuss consistency and required land use permits or approvals.
For discussion of the conformance of a WRTF or alternative actions with the Hawai i
County General Plan, see Section 3-13.
w
3.7.2 Social Characteristics
r
Environmental Setting
Selected socioeconomic characteristics for Hilo and the County of Hawaii are presented
an
in Table 3. Hilo, and East Hawaii in general, have greater ethnic diversity, higher
populations of elderly, longer -established county residents, lower median incomes, and a s
greater incidence of poverty.
Potential Issues and Impacts
Direct social impacts to the general community from the proposed waste reduction
facility would be minimal. Under the proposed WRTF there is little or no change in the
traffic, volume of waste handled or population density. No relocation of residences,
M
r
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 48 -�
M
Table 3
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Hawaii Countv and Hilo
Characteristic/Geographic Area
Hawaii County
Hilo
Total Population
148,677
40,759
Percent Female
49.9
51.1
Median Age
38.6
38.6
Percent < 18 Years
26.1
24.7
Percent > 65 Years
13.5
16.7
Percent White
31.5
17.1
Percent Asian
26.7
38.3
Percent Native Hawaiian
11.2
11.3
Percent Two or More Races
28.4
29.7
Percent Family Households
69.6
69.3
Average Household Size
2.75
2.70
Average Family Size
3.24
3.19
Median Family Income
$39,805
$32,318
Percent Below Poverty Rate
11.0
17.1
Percent Housine Owner Occupied
64.5
60.9
Source: U.S. Census of Population, 2000. American Fact Finder web page (http/factfinder/census.gov)
W
businesses, community facilities, farms or other activities would occur because of the
project. The objective of the proposed action is to minimize the social and economic
r
impacts of waste management after the inevitable close of the South Hilo Sanitary
Landfill. The waste reduction technology will greatly reduce the quantity of waste that
must be transported and disposed of in North Kona, thereby reducing the amount of
heavy truck traffic, extending the life of the West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill, and
diverting waste for recycling, and reuse to recapture some of its material value. In
s
general, the Big Island community stands to benefit from a WRTF, and to a lesser extent,
from the other alternative actions other than No Action.
are disproportionately impacted by a proposed project and to identify possible mitigation
W East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 49
u
Although general social impacts may be minimal, it is not yet clear to what extent nearby
neighborhoods will be affected. Waste reduction technology facilities are generally
r
considered undesirable local uses, because of noise, odors, traffic and air pollution.
Environmental justice is a term that refers to social inequity in bearing the burdens of
adverse environmental impacts. Certain socioeconomic groups in the United States,
including ethnic minorities and low-income residents, have historically experienced a
disproportionate share of undesirable side-effects from locally undesirable land uses such
as toxic waste dumps, landfills, and freeway projects (Cutter 1995). State laws and
regulations require an EIS to address whether any low-income or minority populations
are disproportionately impacted by a proposed project and to identify possible mitigation
measures to avoid or minimize any adverse social impacts. The public process should be
"o
open, inclusive and substantive, and should include involvement in the issues of safety,
compensation, oversight and control. A key component of such analysis is the fully -
involved participation of the affected community in early planning, alternative selection,
and impact analysis (National Academy of Sciences 2000).
W East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 49
u
The Draft EIS will examine potential environmental and cost impacts of the proposed
action and alternatives on the socioeconomic characteristics of East Hawaii and other
areas of the County, paying particular attention to the issue of environmental justice. The
Draft EIS will propose strategies that can empower the affected community to assess
effects itself, through independent consultants, technical assistance grants, or mutually
acceptable experts.
If locations other than the identified project site are considered for any advanced
alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the socioeconomic setting and discuss potential
impacts of the proposed action on such sites.
3.8 Cultural, Archaeological and Historic Resources
Environmental Setting Impacts and Issues
The project site was inspected and analyzed for cultural and archaeological studies as
part of the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station EIS (Hawaii County DEM 2004)
In June of 2003, archaeologists performed a field survey of the project site, specifically,
the proposed Sort Station project area and the Leilani Street realignment corridor, which
had an extensive history of disturbance and industrial use. The field investigators walked
transects across the survey areas at a maximum 10 -meter spacing interval; where the
ground surface was not paved or obscured by piles of refuse, ground visibility was
excellent. No archaeological resources, or any resources of a potential traditional cultural
nature (i.e., landform, vegetation, etc.), were observed within the project area.
Furthermore, utilizing historical research, botanical reconnaissance and interviews with
knowledgeable informants, cultural specialists determined that no known valuable
natural, cultural or historical resources are present on the project site. The project site did
not support any traditional resource uses, nor were there any Hawaiian customary and
traditional rights or practices known to be associated with the property. None of the
organizations/individuals contacted had any information relative to the existence of
traditional cultural properties in the Sort Station/landfill/quarry area.
Potential Issues and Impacts
Based on previous work, there is little potential on the project site for resources of
archaeological or cultural significance. The Draft EIS must carefully evaluate the
footprint of proposed direct and indirect use for all alternatives to ensure that any areas
that have not yet been surveyed are inspected.
If locations other than the identified project site are considered for any advanced
alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the archaeological and cultural resources and
discuss potential impacts of the proposed action on such sites.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 50
3.9 Economic
Environmental Setting
As shown in Table 4, unemployment in 2005 in Hawaii County, which generally has
higher rates than for the State, was at a fourteen-year low. Recent, unadjusted monthly
rates have been somewhat higher. Currently, local sources indicate that there is nearly
Mo full employment for skilled workers in the building construction trades in Hawai i.
Table 4
rr
Unem to ment Rates State and Hawa► i CountX, 1995 to 2005
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Hawai'i 6.0% 5.7% 6.4% 5.4% 5.6% 4.3% 4.6% 4.2% 3.9% 3.3% 2.8%
State
IlHawai'il 7.8% 8.6% 10.2% 8.0% 9.6% 6.6% 6.8% 5.7% 4.6% 3.8% 3.3%
Source: State of Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations 2005. http:/,www.loihi.state.hi.us/.
All figures year-end.
r Over the past decade, the County's income and revenues have grown irregularly in
comparison to the population and per capita income. The annual budget for the County of
AM Hawaii has gone from $150 million in 1994 to approximately $209 million in 2003
Ill (Hawaii State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism 2004). Per
capita income has increased from $16,447 in 1990 to $23,500 in 2003, the lowest of the
four counties.
Waste management expenditures are very difficult to track; however, they have increased
substantially over the past 15 years due to the construction and operation of the West
IW Hawaii Sanitary Landfill at Pu'uanahulu Landfill in North Kona and the new RCRA
Subtitle D requirements that require increased monitoring and maintenance.
r
M Potential Issues and Impacts
Large construction projects generate substantial employment, income and tax revenues,
utt and in some cases may lead to in -migration of workers. Direct construction jobs typically
consist of on-site laborers, tradesmen, equipment operators, supervisors, etc.
Engineering jobs associated with the design and construction management work typically
consist of surveyors, design engineers, and administrative staff. It is anticipated at this
point that, regardless of the alternative selected, most project -related jobs will be filled by
r residents from the island of Hawai' i employed within the engineering and construction
fields.
The DEIS will develop an economic model that will analyze direct, indirect and induced
ny construction and operation employment, income, and expenditures. It will also include
analysis of State and County revenues versus expenditures. It will assess the labor
O1 East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 51
r
r
market for construction and operation of all advanced alternatives, and determine the
impact, if any, on local employment and housing.
3.10 Hazardous Substances/Conditions
Environmental Setting
Hazardous materials and petroleum product are not accepted at the SHSL. The County
maintains a three-level waste screening procedure for incoming waste. Any unacceptable
waste is returned to the delivery vehicle with instructions on proper delivery. There is �.
evidence of petroleum contamination on portions of the site that are under a current
Brownfields investigation. A remedial action has been proposed and is expected to be
implemented within the next two years. Many portions of the project site are recent
quarries. These quarries could be expected to have minor contamination from petroleum
resulting from hydraulic leaks, as well as explosive residues.
Potential Impacts and Issues
r
Byproducts of some waste reduction facilities, including the ash produced by waste-toso
-
energy facilities, must be chemically tested to determine if they contain concentrations of
compounds that surpass regulatory standards and if so, must be properly disposed of.
The Draft EIS will discuss the potential for hazardous materials and toxic substances on w
the proposed project site, and will also propose methods for proper disposal of hazardous
substances generated during operation of all alternatives advanced for consideration. If
locations other than the identified project site are considered for any advanced
alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the potential for hazardous materials and toxic
substances on such sites.
A
3.11 Public Facilities and Services
3.11.1 Roads, Traffic and Transportation
r
M
r
Both the nature of effects and the areas potentially affected vary considerably depending
on the alternative under consideration; therefore, several discrete geographic areas
require consideration. It is also important to remember that the existing, base situation by
which to compare any adverse or beneficial impacts involves an active solid waste
processing facility including a landfill recycling, scrap metal processing, and greenwaste
facilities, with considerable traffic activity.
Existing Facilities: Landfill and Leilani Street Area
r
Photographs of existing roads potentially affected by the range of proposed alternatives
are contained in Figure 4. M
r
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 52 r
u
The area immediately around the existing landfill and associated facilities is served by
Ammunition Dump Road, Leilani Street and its informal extension towards the transfer
"W station, and Kanoelehua Avenue (State Highway 11) (see Fig. 2; Fig 4a). Ammunition
Dump Road is a substandard roadway that continues on to several quarries and the Hilo
Drag Strip. The current Leilani Street extension, which connects the end of Leilani Street
rr with the Sort Station area, is an unofficial roadway that neither the State or County claim.
Its route passes through land owned by the State, County and Hawaiian Home Lands. It
is currently unsuited to handle the amount and type of traffic it receives. Until several
W decades ago, Leilani Street connected to the airport access road (Kekuanaoa Street), but
this intersection was closed by the State. The lack of this, or any other, alternative access
to the landfill leads to heavy use of Leilani Street and its extension.
r..
The intersection of Kanoelehua Avenue (State Highway 11) and Leilani Street handles
heavy industrial and commercial vehicles enroute to the Kanoelehua Industrial Area as
well as the landfill/transfer station area. A professional Traffic Impact Analysis Report
(TIAR) accomplished for the Sort Station in 2003 (Hawaii County DEM 2003)
concluded that the overall intersection operates relatively well, with acceptable levels of
4W service. However, several movements, such as left -turns and the Leilani Street
approaches, often experience long delays, resulting in poor operation. Queues along the
Leilani Street approaches are often long and do not clear every cycle. The potential for
r widening or providing turn lanes under current land uses is restricted by the short
w setbacks to existing buildings.
r
Both the Ammunition Dump Road and Leilani Street east of its intersection with Railroad
Avenue are slated for improvement and minor rerouting as part of the East Hawai i
w.
Regional Sort Station project (Hawaii County DEM 2003) and the Department of Land
and Natural Resource's proposed Mana Quarry project (pers. comm., Harry Yada,
District Land agent, December 2005). Long-range plans for the latter include the
potential to provide a connection to the Airport access road. These improvements are
currently in planning and will progress independently from the proposed WRTF,
improving access and traffic conditions. However, until the Leilani Street/Kanoelehua
Avenue intersection is improved and/or alternative accesses from the Leilani Street and
Railroad Avenue areas are developed, any substantial new source of traffic will be
viewed as problematic.
Existing Facilities: Long -Haul Route to Pu'uanahulu
The designated transport route for long-haul of MSW between Hilo and the West Hawai i
W
Sanitary Landfill (WHSL) (see Fig. 1), should that action become necessary, is along
Kanoelehua Avenue (State Highway 11) to Kamehameha Avenue (State Highway 19),
..�
and on SH 10 from Hilo to Waimea, State Highway 190 from Waimea to Waikoloa Road,
r
Waikoloa Road (County) to the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, and along the Queen
Ka`ahumanu Highway to the WHSL. Most roadways involved are State highways (with
the exception of Waikoloa Road) and all have only two lanes for most of their lengths.
r
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 53
r
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 54
r
do
r
an
Id
rw
•
w
dw
w
Ir
+� East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page SS
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 56
The No Action Alternative would lead to long-haul of MSW to the WHSL, along with the
r' traffic levels described above.
Construction and operation of a new East Hawai'i landfill would perpetuate the status
quo, and no adverse impacts or benefits relative to the current situation would occur.
'r East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 57
r
There are three possible scenarios for the duration of long-haul traffic. If off -island
Ow
As either short- or long-term long-haul may come to pass under several possible
alternatives, it is important to examine the expected state of highway facilities and traffic
levels along this route.
According to the Sort Station EIS (Hawaii County DEM 2003), under the assumption
that essentially all non -diverted MSW is transported to the WHSL, project -related traffic
will consist of up to 12 round trips per day and 3 one-way long-haul trips during both the
AM and PM peak hours. This would induce a traffic increase of between 0.2% and 0.8%,
depending on the segment under consideration. For example, on State Highway 19 near
_
Waimea, the three expected additional vehicles at both the AM and PM peak hour would
represent an increase of about 0.2% from the background AM and PM hour traffic (1,768
and 1,560 vehicles, respectively). When the truck traffic increase is measured against
^,
existing truck traffic (which constitutes about 3 percent of traffic within Waimea), the
project would increase AM and PM peak hour truck -only traffic by a maximum (worst-
case) of approximately 8% to 10% percent above existing truck traffic levels. The same
number of trucks will pass along Waikoloa Road, but because of the less congestion and
the fact that Waikoloa Road mainly skirts, rather than passes directly through, populated
areas of the community, traffic impacts would be less.
The No Action Alternative would lead to long-haul of MSW to the WHSL, along with the
r' traffic levels described above.
Construction and operation of a new East Hawai'i landfill would perpetuate the status
quo, and no adverse impacts or benefits relative to the current situation would occur.
'r East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 57
r
There are three possible scenarios for the duration of long-haul traffic. If off -island
Ow
disposal is adopted within two years, long-haul would not be necessary. If the proposed
WRTF (or a new East Hawaii landfill) is implemented in a relatively timely manner,
long-haul would greatly decrease after a period of about 5-10 years, when a long-term
solution is implemented. The third scenario — long-haul continuing for a much longer
period — would occur under the No Action Alternative, or temporarily if a long-term
solution is delayed. It is important to note that if for some reason the Sort Station is not
constructed as expected and planned, long-haul would consist of a much larger number of
County and private waste -hauling vehicles, and traffic impacts would be greater.
Existing Facilities: Port of Hilo
The Port of Hilo is approximately three miles by road from the landfill/transfer station
area and is accessed via Kanoelehua Avenue, Kamehemeha Avenue and Kalanianaole
Avenue (see Fig. 4e). Although there may be optional entrances to the port in the future,
the current entryway is shared by cargo and cruise ship traffic. Parking and maneuvering
space is limited, and the growth of the cruise ship industry is expected to require
additional area.
M
Potential Issues and Impacts
The No Action Alternative would lead to long-haul of MSW to the WHSL, along with the
r' traffic levels described above.
Construction and operation of a new East Hawai'i landfill would perpetuate the status
quo, and no adverse impacts or benefits relative to the current situation would occur.
'r East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 57
r
M
In general, implementation of any variant of the proposed WRTF would have traffic
impacts somewhat similar to the current situation. Disposal and/or beneficial re -use of
the residual products may lead to some additional traffic impacts, which would vary with
the sub -alternative under consideration and the specifics of individual vendor's
proposals. Disposal of the residual of the WRTF process (e.g., waste that cannot be
processed or otherwise diverted, as well as ash) will probably occur in a local landfill.
Traffic impacts would depend on how long the lifetime of the SHSL could be extended.
Under the off -island disposal alternative (whether medium or long-term), MSW would
be baled, probably in the vicinity of the Sort Station, and transported to the Port of Hilo
for barging to the U.S. mainland. Given current and project space and use conflicts at the
Port of Hilo, any such operation would require extensive planning and coordination with
port officials to reduce (among other problems) adverse traffic effects.
The Draft EIS is expected to include a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) that will
assess traffic conditions that would result from implementation of the proposed WRTF
and the No Action Alternative, as well as any alternative actions that are advanced in the
DEIS. Appropriate mitigation measures will also be identified as part of this TIAR. The
DEIS will include analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts relative to traffic
redistribution.
If locations other than the identified project site are considered for any advanced
alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the transportation facilities and discuss potential
impacts of the proposed action on such sites.
Existing Facilities: Hilo Airport— General Lyman Field
The existing SHSL is within one mile of the Hilo Airport. Under HAR 11-58.1 Part 13,
new landfills and lateral expansions are restricted within 10,000 feet (1.89 miles) of the
end of any aircraft runway used by jet aircraft. If the landfill or proposed landfill is
located within the airport zone, the owner and operators must demonstrate that the
operation of such a facility does not pose a bird -strike hazard to aviation. The Federal
Aviation Administration and the Director of the State Department of Health must be
notified of the intent and satisfied as to the accuracy of the demonstration. The Solid
Waste permit required by the State DOH would contain a demonstration that the landfill
did not create additional bird -strike hazards to airport operations and an
acknowledgement from the DOH director that the demonstration is sufficient.
The proposed site for a new landfill is approximately 7,250 feet from the middle of the
most active airport runway (Runway 8-26) at its nearest point. The nearest point of the
landfill site is 7,750 feet from the end of Runway 3-21 at the nearest point.
In initial meetings on the Sort Station with local FAA officials, the FAA did not impose
restrictions on the proposed action or alternatives. Because any of the proposed actions
are likely to be within one mile of the active runways at Hilo International Airport, the
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 58
FAA recommended that any proposed solution adjacent to the South Hilo Sanitary
Landfill be carefully managed to reduce attractants to birds.
Potential Issues and Impacts
The Draft EIS will provide a detailed analysis of potential impacts of the proposed action
and alternatives on the Hilo Airport. The Draft EIS will include consultation with local
FAA officials and the response to submittal of forms 7460-1 (Application for Proposed
Construction Within an Airport Restricted Area). This process provides an official FAA
position on method to mitigate hazards to aircraft operations.
3.11.2 Utilities
Electrical and Telephone Service: Existing Facilities
r
Electrical power on the island of Hawaii is provided by Hawaii Electric Light Company
(HELCO), a privately owned utility company regulated by the State Public Utilities
" Commission. Hawaiian Telcom and Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc., provide
telephone and telecommunications services.
r
Potential Issues and Impacts
w
A waste reduction technology facility will likely produce electricity that would support
its operations and sell any additional electricity back to HELCO for distribution. The
Draft EIS will assess the potential for surplus electricity generation by the WRTF, and
how this may offset the County's cost for the facility. Evaluations of energy demands
iN
and electricity or fuel surplus will also be evaluated for any other advanced alternatives.
w
Wastewater Treatment: Existing Facilities
rr
The existing project site has no wastewater collection infrastructure and will require
w
individual wastewater treatment systems for public restrooms. In addition, some of the
W
potential waste reduction technologies will have process water discharge requirements.
Potential Issues and Impacts
1r
The Draft EIS will include a full assessment of the wastewater disposal alternatives. The
s
proposed WRTF would not create a substantial demand for new wastewater capacity.
There may be an opportunity to recycle biosolids with greenwaste composting at the
proposed facility. The alternative action that involves construction of a new East Hawai i
landfill may create substantial new wastewater demand because of the requirement to
10
treat landfill leachate. Appropriate mitigation measures will be identified to ensure that
potential wastewater impacts are addressed.
rr
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 59
r
W
If locations other than the identified project site are considered for any advanced
alternatives, the Draft EIS will evaluate the existing utilities and utility requirements and
discuss potential impacts of the proposed action on such sites.
3.12 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts may be defined as impacts on the environment which results from
the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person
undertakes the action (Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] 1997:v).
The DEIS will contain a list of other projects — development, transportation, recreation
and others — and an analysis of how the impacts of the proposed project relate to the
cumulative impacts of the other projects.
As a large solid waste management project that is part of an essential County -wide
system, the WRTF may have the potential to induce secondary physical and social
impacts that are only indirectly related to the particular project. The DEIS will address
secondary impacts within each individual resource area under discussion, and then
present a summary of these impacts and proposed mitigation measures.
3.13 Consistency With Government Plans and Policies
The DEIS will contain a full discussion of the consistency of the project with a number of
County and State plans and policies. Among those discussed will be the Hawaii State
Plan, the Hawaii County General Plan, and the Hawaii County Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan. The following sections briefly summarize each.
3.13.1 Hawaii State Plan
Adopted in 1978 and last revised in 1991 (Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 226, as
amended), the Hawaii State Plan establishes a set of themes, goals, objectives and
policies that are meant to guide the State's long -run growth and development activities.
The three themes that express the basic purpose of the Hawaii State Plan are individual
and family self-sufficiency, social and economic mobility and community or social well-
being. The proposed project appears to be consistent with the goals, objectives and
policies of this plan. The DEIS will evaluate consistency of all advanced alternatives
with various aspects of the Hawai'i State Plan.
3.13.2 Hawaii County General Plan
The General Plan for the County of Hawaii is a policy document expressing the broad
goals and policies for the long-range development of the Island of Hawai i. The plan was
adopted by ordinance in 2005. The General Plan itself is organized into thirteen
elements, with policies, objectives, standards, and principles for each. Relevant to the
proposed project are the elements of Energy, Environmental Quality, and Public
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 60
Facilities. There are also discussions of the specific applicability of each element to the
nine judicial districts comprising the County of Hawai i. Section 4 of the General Plan
includes a discussion of general goals. In Section 5 courses of action for individual
districts are proposed. Of particular relevance are the goals and policies related to
energy:
�w
GOALS
(a) Strive towards energy self-sufficiency.
(b) Establish the Big Island as a demonstration community for the development and
., use of natural energy resources.
"
POLICIES
(a) Encourage the development of alternate energy resources.
(b) Encourage the development and use of agricultural products and by-products as
`
sources of alternate fuel.
(c) Encourage the expansion of energy research industry.
(d) Strive to educate the public on new energy technologies and foster attitudes and
activities conducive to energy conservation.
(e) Ensure a proper balance between the development of alternative energy resources
and the preservation of environmental fitness and ecologically significant areas.
(f) Strive to assure a sufficient supply of energy to support present and future
demands.
(g) Provide incentives that will encourage the use of new energy sources and promote
r
energy conservation.
(h) Seek funding from both government and private sources for research and
development of alternative energy resources.
(i) Coordinate energy research and development efforts of both the government and
,^
private sectors.
(j) Encourage the continuation of studies concerning the development of power that
can be distributed at lower costs to consumers.
(k) Strive to diversify the energy supply and minimize the environmental impacts
associated with energy usage.
(1) Continue to encourage the development of geothermal resources to meet the
energy needs of the County of Hawaii.
(m) Encourage the use of solar water heating through the continuation of state tax
credit programs, through the Building Code, and in County construction.
(n) Encourage energy-saving design in the construction of buildings.
(o) Support net -metering and other incentives for independent power producers.
ill
The Draft EIS will discuss the consistency of all alternatives advanced for study with the
goals, objectives, policies and courses of action expressed in the General Plan.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 61
r
3.13.3 Hawaii County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
The Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) is a general planning document ""
to provide the basis for improving and updating the county's solid waste management ..
system. The original plan was compiled in 1993 and adopted by the Hawaii County
Council by Resolution 291-94 on October 5, 1994 and was updated, as required by State •`
law (HRD 342G) in 2002. The current version presented a strategy for waste
management by the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, resolved after consideration of
alternatives that were narrowed through the planning process to the following
recommended actions:
• No construction of new landfills in East Hawai i;
• Emphasis on recovery of recyclable materials at the planned East Hawai' i Regional Sort
Station, possibly by incorporating features of a material recovery facility (MRF);
• Procure a waste reduction technology facility for the East Hawaii waste stream using
either waste -to -energy, thermal gasification, or anaerobic digestion technology; and
• Establishment of a County recycling program with a long list of elements that has the
potential to increase the waste diversion significantly.
The Draft EIS will discuss the consistency of all alternatives advanced for study with all
relevant aspects of the ISWMP.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 62
.i,
PART 4 DETERMINATION
The County of Hawaii has determined that the project has the potential to cause
significant impacts to the environment and therefore has decided to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement.
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility EISPN Page 63
W,
PARTS REFERENCES
Baker, H.L. 1976. Agricultural Lands oflmportance to the State ofHawai'i. University of
Hawaii at Manoa College of Tropical Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Circular 496.
Honolulu.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under NEPA.
Washington: CEQ.
Cutter, Susan L. 1995. "Race, class and environmental justice." Progress in Human Geography,
19 (1): 111-122.
Dewar, H. 2002. "Forest Managers Seek to Stem the Tide of Loss with Recovery Projects
Statewide." Environment Hawaii 11(6):1, 5-11.
Gagne, W., and L. Cuddihy. 1990. "Vegetation," pp. 45-114 in W.L. Wagner, D.R. Herbst, and
S.H. Sohmer, eds., Manual of the Flowering Plants ofHawai'i. 2 vols. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
GeoLogic Associates. 2004. "Review of Groundwater Monitoring and Reporting Program —
South Hilo Sanitary Landfill, Hawaii", May 12, 2004. Prep. for DEM. Hilo.
Giambelucca, T.W., M.A Nullet, and T.A. Schroeder. 1986. Rainfall Atlas ofHawai'i. Honolulu:
Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management (DEM). 2002. Update to the
Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) for the County of Hawaii, December, 2002
Prep by Harding ESE. Honolulu.
. 2004. Final EIS, Construction and Operation of East Hawaii Regional Sort Station.
Hilo.
Hawaii County Department of Public Works. 1970. Storm Drainage Standards. Hilo.
Hawaii County Planning Department. 2005. The General Plan, County ofHawai'i. Hilo.
Hawaii State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism 2004. 2004
Hawaii State Data Book. www3.hawaii.gov/DBEDT/index.cfm?section—READ—Databook1075.
Hawaii State Office of State Planning (OSP). 1989. West Hawaii Regional Plan. Honolulu:
OSP.
Hawaii State Office of State Planning (OSP). 1991. Hawaii State Plan. Honolulu: OSP.
Heliker, C. 1990. Volcanic and Seismic Hazards on the Island of Hawaii. Washington: U. S.
GPO.
National Academy of Sciences. 2000. Waste Generation and Public Health. National Research
Council. Washington, DC.
ar
National Park Service. 1990. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural
Properties. National Register Bulletin 38, National Register of Historic Places, Washington
r D.C.: National Park Service.
im Sato, H.H. et al. 1973. Soil Survey oflsland ofHawai'i, State ofHawai'i. Washington: U.S.D.A.
M Soil Conservation Service.
University of Hawaii at Hilo, Dept. of Geography. 1998. Atlas ofHawai'i. 3rd ed. Honolulu:
rr University of Hawaii Press.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2003. American Fact Finder Web Page: http://factfmder.census.gov/.
Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris. 1996. Geologic Map of the Island ofHawai'i. USGS Misc
Investigations Series Map 1-2524-A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey.
r
r
im
Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility
Appendix 1
Technical Memorandum
0
lw
r
,. Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility
Appendix 2
Public Involvement: Press, Agendas, Meeting Notes
P
■
rr
r
PUBLIC MEETING
Hawaii County Dept. of Environmental Management
Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice
Proposed South Hilo Waste Reduction Technology Facility
WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006, 68 PM
AUPUNI CONFERENCE ROOM, NEW COUNTY BUILDING,
PAUAHI STREET, HILO
AGENDA
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
2. SLIDE PRESENTATION
Please limit comments during this part of presentation to questions of
clarification.
3. QUESTION & ANSWER AND COMMENT SESSION
Environments I Impact Statement Preparation Notice
South Hilo Waste Reduction Technology Facility
Management
Purpose and Need for a Waste Reduction
Technology Facility (Long -Term Solution)
.Pro vide reliable, cost-effective waste disposal using
commercially proven methods or technologies;
-Maximize island a elf -sufficiency and sustainability by
the beneficial utilization of waste through energy, soil
amendments and/or reused materials; and
.Minimize so tial and environmental impacts.
This is Long -Term Planning
• Whatever permanent solution is selected will
operate for at least 20 years.
• Think about how your world has changed
since 1986.
• Change is inevitable, but we must proceed
very carefully with the full knowledge of the
people that will be affected.
What's Happening?
PROPOSING AGENCY:
Haweri County DEM
LOCATION:
Hilo, Ammunition Dump Read
LAND OWNERSHIP:
stood of Hawerl and Naomi Cuumy
CLASS OF ACTION:
Use a St.% am County lance and emary,
conmuction or wash• reduction facility or
aaamatiw solution
DETERMINATION:
EnNmnmenbl Impact statement retained
PROPOSED ACTION:
construct a munkipel solid waste redaaon
rulDyor illemat..
Why now?
• In the interest of encouraging and benefiting
from maximum public involvement, the
County has initiated the EIS process at a
very early stage, before many aspects of the
project have been decided.
Parallel efforts
• RFP: In December 2015 The Cwry Issued a RFP for Wane
Reduction Tec nticgiea to dispose ofEW Hawarl MSW After
nwaeMg available technologies the request we limited to
Wane-te-Energy and Gasl@ation technologies becausethey
were the ono WRTs with a demonstrated tredaecord. proven
technolog/, financial baddng, and the ablity, to achieve 90%
volume reduction.
• EIS: At the same time the Cwntylaunched the EIS process tO
consider el aftemasvee including the WRTs, landfilling, waste
hauling, and ofHsland dispose
What was considered in the EISPN?
. WRTs
. New Landfill
. Off -Island Disposal
. No -Action
-d WAT•r.eeneneneee in as mot
ISNTIP
- Rapine addnaad weel•weler
be, n•ACW amen ro maws and ermX, ne bebygoduN
_ane"=hMnm uev lIcahn h.m.
�cea swtnnr.wmasm.�
-rranahe,entire reryanaave
nd am•lelvdeuce CMpNWe
tuna i.
xM rvitlaNa ane see neva�e M1eul rdpN�r
What was considered in the
current procurement for WRTs
Waste -to -Energy: Combustion of waste for
production of electric power.
Gasification: Combustion in the absence of oxygen
for production of liquid fuels or
fuel gas.
Stage 1 Summary of WRT Shortlist (alphabetical)
Covanfa Energy Corporation
- Teem: CovanM rion
- TyMals Is Enargy
Protectw
Cov.M Enegy GerPer.aan
L -Con ( Ls lera
- Teem.C,Ba
py
, C
H1MIncH.
a-Lwa Grears
- T. Mate
MErerkProject G.u-,, Ma
eelebforTeolog0s, Inc
- T..m. Iwee1M4"awTeex,
- Tecanag: Wass a, &.w
- P/oJ.0 GwMMon WexM M•nagsm.M Nhc
EISPN Contents
.W este-to-Energy,
Section 1.3.1.1
.Thermal Gaalflca tion
Section 1.3.1.2
.Anaerobie Dlgn tion
Section 1.3.1.3
.Aerobic Composting
Section 1.3.1A
.Blo -Refining
Section 1.3.1.5
.New East H awal'1 Landfill
Section 1.3.3
.OR -Island Disposal
Section 1.3.4
.No Action A Itsmative
Section 1.3.1.5
Where are we now?
• Phase lRFP selected threevendors forfurtheroensioeraton,
all three propose to oonSiud and operatewesle-toEnergy
man bum fa:A ies.
• These throe vendorsarill prepare oast proposes and
eoneeptual plans for review by the Count'.
• County is prepedng Stage 1 RFP
• The EIS Preparation Notioa has been pubshad and is
available for comment.
• The Cormy is dlawning other atlamabes this are s osptable
Born a coat or environmental standpoint in rase the WRT
pmwremwt fails to produce esolution.
Proposed Location
2
Mass Burn Facilities
Waste -to -Energy Disadvantages
• Cost of construction and operation is
generally higher than landfill.
• Long construction and permitting lead time
• Potential air pollution/ air permit issues
• Stack height limited by airport operations
(FAA permits required)
Off -Island Disposal Alternative -
A possible Interim solution
Waste -to -Energy Advantages
• Proven technology
• Accepts most types of solid waste
• Waste reduction >90%
• Residual ash may be disposed in a landfill
• Air pollution control technologies are highly
developed and regulated
• Produces some electric power
Interim Solution
• An Interim solution may be needed H the
Hilo landfill must close before a WRT can
be built
Off -Island Disposal: Waste Bales
Off -Island Disposal Advantages
• Competitive cost due to favorable back -haul
barge rates
• Established technology
• Low environmental impact locally
• Could be used as a short-term solution
No -Action Alternative:
Waste Hauling/Recycling
• Minimal environmental impacts
• Probably the lowest cost alternative
• Self sufficient and flexible
• Promotes recycling
• Perceived social impacts from trucking waste
• No beneficial byproducts from landfilling
Where do we go - continued
•A conk act with one of the three WRT vendors will be
selected from the current WRT procurement in late
October. The winning vendorwill be approved (or
not) by the Council, Mayor and general public.
•If the agreem ant is not approved, orwill not be ready
when the Hilo Landfill reaches ca ad the County
m
may issue another procurement, gr o -Island
disposal. An off -island disposal contractor may be
offered contracts in 5 -year increments until WRT
technologies mature to the point where waste
becomes too valuable to dispose.
Off -Island Disposal Disadvantages
• Not self-sufficient, depends on other
communities and third -party haulers
• Potential disruptions
- Weather, labor strikes, environmental concerns at
the disposal location, fuel cost fluctuations,
regulatory approvals
• No beneficial byproducts
Where do we go from here?
•County a olid waste management is entering a period
or rapid transition. Now is the time to voice your
opinion on these changes.
-Bids f nom three waste -to -energy vendors are due in
late this year.
•The EIS prom as has begun. It is designed to in form
and encourage public involvement in the decision-
making process.
•The c omment period for the EISPN goes from May e
to June 7, 2006. Please write the County a letter.
Providing public Input
(1.) What is most Important?
a What are the characteristics of the best
Waste disposal method?
- Low cost
- Environmentally friendly
- Promotes recyding
- Recovers most materials for reuse
- Make sure I don't see it, smell h, or hes r it
- Eliminates trucking waste
rd
Providing public Input
(2.) What level of health risk?
• Health risk aseessmart adone according to yidelines
established A' Me EPA A health risk assessment wil ba
requred in the air pemfts from a wade -to energy faciay. Itwill
consider the cumulalve effects of a new combustion unit abrq
wth the ahlom power plant, closatl tandll and volcano. The
assessment considers more than .1dwanel cancer per
million of exposed popdalion an unacceptable hath nsk.
The Count/ will thorougtty assess environmental
consequences d any action. Your rput is important to this
process.
What to expect fro m the EIS process
Pubic comment period for the ES preparation Notice ends
June 7, and the County continues to welcomeyour input
Inroughout the proces.
The Dreg ES will likely requre more than 1 per for preperatbn
and we contain a petaled analysis of the oats, technical
feasibility, at quality Impacts, health maks, noise, odor,treRic,
secondary and cumulative mpacts. The Drat EIS is required
by lax to address all comments and concemdhat are
submitted in wiling.
A series ofpubic meetings wit be held in connection with
preparation of the Drag EIS. The font of thesewill probably be
in early 2007.
Providing public Input
(3.)what is the most useful to you
.The C ounty will expend available resources to keep
the public informed and receive input from interested
partes. The methods currently under discussion
include:
- Rel pubic maetngs?
- postings on the County webdte?
- Regular press relaases?
- Emoldisribution list?
- Maddstdbutiun?
How do I submit a comment?
.Addre as written comments to:
Me Barbara eel, Director
Depanmont of Environmetal Management
25 Aupunt St. Roan 210
Hilo Haxa'i, 96720
ATTN: Nh2T{IS
or
E -mall: bbelOco.hawanini.us
Reese include your return malting address to ensure Nat we are able
to send a response to your rommenl
MAY 8, 2006
East Hawaii Waste Reduction Technology Facility (HRS 343 FEA-EISPN)
District:
South Hilo
TMK
(3)2-I-013:various
Proposing
Agency:
Hawai'i County, Department of Environmental
Management
25 Aupuni St., Rm. 210, Hilo, HI 96720
Contact: Barbara Bell (961-8083)
Accepting
Authority:
Hawai'i County, Planning Department
101 Pau'ahi St., Ste. 3, Hilo, HI 96720
Contact: Brad Kurokawa (961-8288 ext. 200)
Consultant:
Geometrician Associates
HC 2, Box 9575, Kea `au, HI 96749
Contact: Ron Tel (982-5831)
Status:
Final environmental assessment (PEA) and
Environmental Impact Statement Preparation
Notice (EISPN), pending 30 -day public com-
ment and requests to become a consulted party
in the preparation of the upcoming draft envi-
ronmental impact statement(DEIS). Address
public comments on the FEA and/or requests
to become a consulted party to the proposing
agency with copies to the accepting authority,
consultant and OFQC.
Public Comment
Deadline
June 7,2006
Permits
Required:
Federal: FAAAir Space Review, State: NPDES,
Underground Injection Control, State Historic
Preservation Division Chapter 6E Concurrence,
Covered Source Permit, Solid Waste Manage -
incur Permit, Clean Air Act Title 5 Covered
Source Permit, County: Plan Approval, Subdi-
vision Approval, Grading Permit, Building Per-
mit
As the South
Hilo Sanitary Landfill approaches its design
capacity, the County
of Hawai'i needs to develop new options
for the ultimate disposal
of its municipal solid waste. The devel-
opment of a waste
reduction technology facility (WRTF) is one
Site
component of the overall long-term solid waste management ap-
proach identified by the County in the 2002 update to the Inte-
grated Solid Waste Management Plan.
As currently envisioned the WRTF would be sited adja-
cent to the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill, although the actual loca-
tion has not yet been set. The goals of the project are to provide
reliable, cost-effective waste disposal using commercially proven
technologies; to maximize island self-sufficiency and
sustainability by the beneficial utilization of waste through en-
ergy, soil amendments and/or reused materials; and to minimize
social and environmental impacts.
Various alternative forms that a waste reduction technol-
ogy facility (WRTF) might take are discussed in detail in the
EISPN, along with other long-term and interim alternative shate-
gies for dealing with solid waste, including construction of an-
other landfill in Hilo, off -island disposal, and No Action.
The EISPN offers an opportunity for interested parties,
including individuals, neighborhood groups, trade organizations,
environmental and cultural groups, non -profits, and government
agencies, to get involved in the EIS process at a very early stage,
before many aspects of the project have been fully conceptual-
ized. The EISPN presents information on the physical and social
environment at the presumed project site as well as the general
Hilo area. It also outlines the studies that will be required at the
FIS level.
South Hilo Landfill Vicinity
Page 10 Office of Environmental QMMii jyControl _ The -Environmental Notice