Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0582.033 2004-2006 pxV or M'•; oJ•.•. 4. ' ail a. Barbara Bell Director Harry Kim Mayor o` YaY'~ Nelson Ho 7•F yp'j11.'N Deputy Director ~uixixt~ of ~ttiuttii DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuoi Street, Room 210 • Hilo, Hawaii 967204252 4 ? (808) 961-8083 • Fax (606) 961-6086 ~ C email' cohdem(a)co.hawaf i.hi.us l,_ , CJ - h3 t-,+ August 21, 2006 J Stacy Higa, Chairman and to Members of the Hawaii County Council ~ 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Subject: Communication 582.31: Solid Waste RFP -Questions and Answers Deaz Chairman Higa and Council Members, We would like to commend Council Member Isbell for reseazching and suggesting questions that the Council should consider in discussing the proposed waste reduction facility Request for Proposals. To facilitate your deliberations, we offer the following answers/comments (mazked "DEM") to the questions presented in Communication 582.31. 1. A Framework for Evaluatins the Feasibility of a Waste to Energy Facility Q. What issues should the council consider in evaluating the feasibility of the proposed solid waste reducfion facility, i.e. waste-to-energy facility (WTE)? A. The "Decision Makers' Guide to Solid Waste Management" released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1995, offers a framework For considering the basic issues associated with the development of a municipal solid waste combustion facility. 1) Identifying Goals: - What are the goals of the proposed WTE facility? DEM: The specific goals of the proposed WTE facility aze: • To reduce the volume of trash generated in East Hawaii so that trucking rubbish across the island to the Pu`uanahulu Landfill does not become necessary; • To provide along-term solution to handling East Hawai`i's trash in a manner that is environmentally sensitive and cost effective; • To develop a facility that is state-of-the-ar[ so that enviromnental impacts are minimal. to Comm. No. ~7 a 2.33 Ref. To: pti~~N~ Ref. t`a!~~ (iQ6 Nawai'i County is an equal oppormniry provider and employer. ~ q33 August 21, 2006 The Honorable Stacy Higa, Chairman, and Council Members Page 2 - Why is WTE the preferred technology? DEM: On page 85 of the updated Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan adopted by the County Council in 2002, there is a General Overview of the process for selecting a waste reduction technology. It states that the committee [the Solid Waste Advisory Committee] recommended the technology be chosen through a request for proposals process allowing three technologies: waste-to-energy incinerator, thermal gasification facility, or an anaerobic digestion facility. Since this document was produced there have been some changes in the technologies and their feasibility. In the Technology Memo dated April 10, 2006 (also Council Communication #584.25), our engineering consultant, RW Beck, reported that waste-to-energy incineration and thermal gasification were sufficiently commercialized and could provide reliable long-term service. Anaerobic digestion had not made enough gains in commercialization to meet the County's needs of reliable service. The first stage of the RFP allowed thermal gasification proposals as well as waste-to-energy incineration. After review of the proposals received, the three proposals that advanced to the "short list" were all waste-to-energy proposals. They made it to the short list because of their experience, expertise, and financial resources. 2) Assessing Project Feasibility: - When source reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and waste-stream growth patterns are taken into account, is the remaining waste stream sufficient to support an energy recovery facility operating at or near capacity over the life of the project? DEM.• The three companies who aze on the short list have been provided with information about our waste stream. Their willingness to participate in the RFP process indicates that their analyses show that the waste stream will be sufficient. The type of proposals we receive will give us more complete information on this point. - Is there a buyer for the energy produced by the energy facility? DEM: Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELLO) is required to purchase all electricity generated by other sources. In addition, the County is in discussion with HELLO to ensure we aze taking advantage of every opportunity to ensure the highest value for our production of energy. - Is there strong political support for a WTE facility? DEM: This is one of the questions currently on the table for the Council's consideration. It is understood that there will be some community opposition to an "incineration" facility, because of past problems elsewhere. However, the new generation of WTE facilities aze much cleaner and environmentally neutral than August 21, 2006 The Honorable Stacy Higa, Chairman, and Council Members Page 3 older incineration facilities. The administration supports a WTE facility, with the understanding that community outreach and education will be a very necessazy component of this whole process. It is hoped that the County Council will also support this. - Has the plan for the facility taken into account other existing or future waste management practices in the service area, including waste reduction, source separation, recycling, composting, and landfilling? In other words, is the development of the facility part of a unified solid waste management plan for the entire county? DEM: The update to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan is the unified solid waste management plan for the entire County. The Stage I RFP included information about our future plans in the areas of recycling, source sepazation, etc., as well as the County website locations of the Update to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station. All information made potential vendors aware of how this facility fits into our overall goals. - Has the area to be served by the WTE facility been clearly defined? Has a planning process considered whether it would be advantageous to build one facility for the entire island versus one or two or more smaller facilities for various areas within the island? DEM: The area to be served has been broadly identified as East Hawaii, the area necessary to include to avoid trucking garbage to Pu`uanahulu. There would be advantages of scale to building one facility to serve the entire island, and having that facility located in West Hawaii where the lazgest amount of trash is generated. However, having one islandwide facility in West Hawaii would mean that garbage would be trucked long distances around the island to this single plant. Public commitments have been made to the community that trucking of East Hawaii trash to West Hawaii will not happen. If a single facility were developed in East Hawaii for the entire island's trash, the number of trucks on the road bringing West Hawaii rubbish to East Hawaii would greatly exceed the number necessary to bring East Hawaii trash to West Hawaii, and this additional traffic would not be acceptable to West Hawaii residents. That is why, at this time, a single facility to handle East Hawaii trash is being proposed. 3) Energy and Material Market: -Because WTE facilities have high capital and operating costs, most need to produce significant income from energy sales to be economically viable. A buyer must be willing and able to enter into along-term contract to purchase energy at a competitive rate. Low revenues from energy sales must be offset by higher waste tipping fees. When several disposal options are available, the one August 21, 2006 The Honorable Stacy Higa, Chairman, and Council Members Page 4 with the lowest overall life cycle net cost per ton, including transportation and ultimate disposal, usually will be chosen." (See pg. 8-12 "Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management") DEM: These aze good comments. Any company prepazing a proposal for the County will certainly take these factors into consideration when working on its numbers. - What marketable products, i.e. electricity, steam, co-generation of steam and electricity, or refuse-derived fuel will the facility produce? DEM: The initial proposals indicated electricity only would be produced. However, this question will be fully answered when the County has specific proposals to consider. - Is there a market for these products? DEM: The question of the marketability of electricity has already been addressed, because HELCO will purchase power generated. On the other items, it is expected that if a company is proposing another marketable product, they would have determined that there is a mazket for it before presenting their response to our Stage I RFP. 4) Responsibility for Facility Operation - If a private contractor will operate the facility, will it assume liability for damages caused by breaks in service? This would include failure to meet contract obligations to an energy buyer. DEM: Rick Sapir of Hawkins, Delafield, and Wood LLC has been integral in this process from the beginning so that the issues of liability for damages and contractual obligations for power generation will be addressed in a manner that is clear to all parties involved. Confusion over guazantees or liabilities is in nobody's best interest. 5) Method of Financing - How will the project be financed? DEM: The Stage I RFP stated that a proposal using public funding is required, and that a proposal for private funding will be considered. August 21, 2006 The Honorable Stacy Higa, Chairman, and Council Members Page 5 2. Developin¢ a Waste-to Enerey Facility Q. Is pursuing the development of awaste-to-energy facility patently unreasonable at this time? A. Hawaii State law mandates the following solid waste management practices and processing methods, in order of priority: 1) source reduction; 2) recycling and bioconversion, including composting; and 3) landfilling and incineration. (sec. 342G- 2, HRS) These three distinct steps in the waste management continuum aze also addressed in the County's Solid Waste Management Plan. (See Pt. II relating to "Solid Waste Systems" in the ISWMP of August 1993). While State law mandates that the County's first priorities should be to minimize our waste through effective source reduction and recycling programs, there will always be a need to dispose of the solid waste that remains. The standazd means to accomplish this, at this time, is through landfilling or incineration. (Note that "landfilling" includes the use of bioreactor processes.) Although it is therefore not unreasonable for the County to now explore this option through the rfp process, it is a step that should be undertaken with considerable care. Given the significance of this matter, it is incumbent upon the County to consider this project in a deliberate and thoughtful way and not simply leave the outcome up to the mazket to decide. Clearly, long-term costs can be substantial if the project is not properly planned and executed. DEM: The thoughtful discussion above is appreciated. The process we have undertaken over the last yeaz, with the help of experienced consultants, is a very thorough one and we are grateful for the Council's support of this. We do not feel that the development of awaste-to-energy facility at this time is patently unreasonable. This is a proven, reliable method of handling solid waste. Waste-to-energy was identified in the County's Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan as one of three possible waste reduction technologies for consideration by the County. Until final proposals aze received and evaluated, we cannot say what the economic impact of developing a WTE facility will be to the County. Obviously, if costs included in proposals aze unaffordable, the County will not proceed any further. However, continuing this process through the final step of issuing the Stage II RFP and obtaining firm numbers is the recommended step at this time. Astate-of--the-art WTE facility can provide along-term solution to our solid waste needs. 3. South Hilo Landfill Post Closure -Disposal Alternatives. Feasibility of TransportinE Waste to the Mainland Q. Is transporting Hawaii County's solid waste to the mainland an option? August 21, 2006 The Honorable Stacy Higa, Chairman, and Council Members Page 6 A. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is presently considering a change to its administrative rules that would allow the transportation of solid waste from Hawaii to be disposed in landfills in the mainland. (This rule change was initiated as a result of the City & County of Honolulu's need to find alternative disposal options for its solid waste.) In order to avoid the inadvertent import of pests from Hawaii, the present rule change would only allow the importation of municipal waste which does not include agricultural or yard wastes. This would require that some process be developed to prevent the contamination of shipped waste by any agricultural or yard waste. The comment period on the proposed rule closed on June 5, 2006 and a decision by the depaztment is awaited. DEM: Transporting our solid waste to the mainland may be an option. Until the USDA finalizes its rules for such transport, we need to be aware that there may be restrictions on what can be shipped that could limit the usefulness of this option. There is a "big picture" issue here, however, if transporting trash to the mainland is to be considered for other than short-term interim use while a waste reduction facility is under development. Philosophically, to ship our trash to the mainland to be landfilled is not the most responsible option. We need to deal with our own rubbish. That is not to say that this may not be a very good short-term solution, but for the long term, it should not be a preferred alternative. Conclusion We look forwazd to participating in your discussion on this important issue, and hope that you will let us know if you have any further questions that we can help you with. Sincerely, rove Barbara Bell Hazry Ifim DIRECTOR MAYOR cc: SWD