HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0582.023 2004-2006 In any situation, a workable solution is defined by the problem.
In the case of solid waste policy in Hawaii County, the problem has been, and continues to be, defined as
inadequate waste disposal capacity - "the South Hilo landfill is full, so we have a problem".
The solution has, therefore, been defined as discovery of some means to increase capacity to dispose of
an ever-increasing amount of waste. This is not a workable solution.
An alternative definition of the problem would be that there is too much waste, requiring a solution that
reduces waste.
In 2002, at the time of the publication of the Update to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, the
quantities of waste being delivered to both landfills were increasing at an average rate of approximately 5
percent per year - a rate far higher than is accounted for by population growth.
Daily waste generation per capita for the United States was recorded at 4.6 pounds compared to 5.8
pounds for the state of Hawaii, and 6.2 pounds for this County.
Unless the Department of Environmental Management can provide compelling, updated evidence that this
wastefulness has been drastically reversed, it is pure folly to pursue increased capacity.
Yet another request for proposal (RFP) process has been initiated to get bidders interested in selling solid
waste management services to the County. This (like the previous, unsuccessful) RFP process is plagued
by a focus on inputs rather than on outcomes. What is being sought, as before, is a "technology" rather
than a sustainable outcome. Use of technology may well be inevitable. However, any technology is only a
means to an end, not the solution itself.
The consistent theme throughout County government discussions has been the urgency of the situation
due to the impending closure of the South Hilo Landfill. In the pursuit of a resolution to the County's landfill
crisis, three critical questions have been, and continue to be, absent from the policy discussion, let alone
action:
1. What are the direct and indirect County economic costs and benefits of diversion versus disposal?
2. What is the County's responsibility regarding local and global environmental impact?
3. What is the hierarchy of waste management within the County's solid waste management policy
framework?
There has been nil consideration given to the economic advantages of diversion versus disposal. Research
from across the U.S.A. and other countries demonstrate consistent local economic advantages from
diversion. Local businesses and local employment benefit more from diversion, yet disposal remains at the
forefront of Hawaii County's solid waste management policy.
Environmental impact has been addressed solely from the perspective of achieving the minimum
necessary to satisfy state health and federal environmental regulations. There has been little express
concern for the actual safety and well being of the island community or the wider global environment.
Likewise, there has been nil discussion regarding what the County's priorities are in solid waste
management. This discussion would be productive as a forerunner to the discussions about contracting,
technologies, finances, and timelines that are part and parcel of an RFP. QQ
Comm, No. ~(J~ •Z
Ref. Tot'Pe
Ref. t-'ote
1
The State of Hawaii established, in its Integrated Solid Waste Management statute (HRS 342G-2), the
following order of priority for solid waste management practices and processing methods:
First: Source reduction;
Second: Recycling and bio-conversion, including composting; and
Third: Landfilling and incineration
Source reduction, recycling, and bio-conversion are all means of diverting solid waste; and landfilling and
incineration are disposal methods.
The State of Hawaii "order of priority" for solid waste management mirrors the internationally accepted
"waste hierarchy" used in many jurisdictions:
1. Prevention of generation of waste -most preferred option
2. Minimization
3. Re-use
4. Recycling /Composting
5. Energy Recovery
6. Disposal -least preferred option
Neither the State of Hawaii legislated priorities for solid waste management practices and processing
methods nor the internationally accepted waste hierarchy have been given any significant place in
discussions or policy actions in Hawaii County.
In fact, Hawaii County policy, including the pending RFP, essentially inverts the order of priority and the
waste hierarchy, with disposal being "most preferred" and prevention of generation of waste "least
preferred."
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
Kea`au, Hawaii
2