HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1062.046 2006-2008
Public Hearing -04117 -Kona
Good Evening My name is John Harder, I'm from the Island of Kauai, and I am speaking
on the beha~ of Elizabeth Weatherford.
I've spent the last 15 to 20 years managing Solid Waste programs in Hawaii and the
Pacific. For nearby 10 years in the 1990's I was the State's Solid Waste Coordinator, and
worked closely with all of the Counties in overseeing their Solid Waste operations. I speak
from experience, and as an advocate of the new and exciting concept of Zero Waste
Management.
From both my personal and professional point of view I feel that developing a Waste to
Energy ~WTE) facility is not the appropriate Solid Waste solution for the Big Island. My
opinion is based on a number of issues: the significant environmental concerns about
emissions and ash management, the inevitable public resistance to incineration, the almost
unavoidable delays the project will face, but first and foremost, the most substantial reason
to consider another solution rather than incineration is to the economics of WTE.
With capital costs projected at $125 million and a resulting tipping fee of $1351ton there are
a number of far less expensive and more viable alternatives that could be selected.
Alternatives that may require that the County modify the current refuse collection system,
to provide greater options for material recovery, but that can provide far greater benefits
to the community, the environment, and to local business.
Investing in a Zero Waste option, making a commitment to maximizing diversion through
an integrated approach of waste reduction, reuse and recycling, can result in diversion
levels comparable to incineration. Aggressively implementing a wide range of diversion
programs would cost far less than incineration, and provide aptions to divert many of the
problem components of the waste stream that a WTE facility is incapable of handling.
A modern 100 ton per day Materials Recovery Facility (or MRF) could cost less than 10
million dollars and, with an aggressive source separation program in place, cost far less
than incineration to operate. With today's strong material markets in Asia, a MRF could
divert as much as 30% of East Hawaii's waste stream and operate with a positive cash flow
or at least accept material for recycling at no cost.
A comprehensive muti-material organics management opera#ion, including composting,
and biofuel production could also be implemented for less that $10 million and in addition
to managing the large volumes of greenwaste, could handle problem materials with a high
moisture content, such as sewage sludge, food waste, soaking oil, and grease trap waste
that could not be easily incinerated. Based on waste stream estimates an organics facility
could divert an additional 30% of the material now being disposed of at an operating cost
far less than incineration.
1
d
Gomm, ,
Ref. To:. ~ .
t~ ~
One of the misconceptions regarding incineration is that it can manage the entire waste
stream, producing nothing but ash, but any WTE facility is limited in the types of waste it
can accept. This leaves as much as 25% of the waste currently being landfilled that must
be managed elsewhere!
Two additional facilities that should a part of any integrated approach to Solid Waste
management are a Construction Demolitian processing facility and a Center for Hard to
Recycle Material for a CHARM}. These facilities would be necessary even if the WTE
option was selected, as the large volumes of C&D debris cannot be processed through an
incinerator, and hard to recycle material such as electronics and hazardous waste
generated by small businesses cannot be accepted by WTE facilities.
A Construction Demolition processing facility would require an investment in the range of
$5 million and would allow the diversion of a major, non-combustible element of the waste
stream. It is estimated that C&D debris comprises as much as 2g% of the material
currently entering the Hilo Landfill.
A CHARM, would probably cost less than $5 million, and again provide diversion options
for many items which a WTE facility could not accept such as bulky items, electronics and
hazardous waste generated by small businesses.
Though the operations costs of diverting C&D waste and hard to recycle material will not
be inexpensive, these materials can have a major impact on landfills, and on the
environment if not managed properly, and some form of diversion program will be
necessary even if the County moves toward incineration.
Thus with a total capital investment in the range of $40 million dollars the County would
have in place a flexible alternative to landfilling that could manage the entire range of waste
material, and divert nearly as much from the landfill as the proposed incinerator.
The greatest problem in developing an integrated approach to waste management is the
need to modernize the existing collection system. Maximizing diversion will require the
County to take some measure of control over both residential and commercial collection
(probably developing licencing or franchise requirements to standardize the current
unregulated haulers}, and involve a major public re-education program. But l think it is
obvious to almost everyone that the existing collection system is outdated, and sooner or
later the County will have to adopt a modem, efficient refuse collection technolo ,that can
gY
provide the level of service received by communities around the State and across the
Country.
Some of the options could include: franchising and automating the denser urban areas;
providing curbside collection of necyclables; franchising low density rural areas with
universal collection and single communifyhaulers; providing expanded, convenientdrop-og'
recycling in rural areas; mandating bulky item pick up by any haulers wishing to provide
refuse collection; franchising or licencing commercial haulers to r~equine the provision of
2
~~~rM~
recycling services. These are all standard components of many collection systems used
by geographically isolated urban/rural communities.
It may not be as easy to implement a new collection strategy, but the resulting modernized
system would be far less expensive to the community than the current system of numerous
small haulers providing services to a single neighborhood, and will provide the residents
of the Big Island with a much higher level of service.
Instead of delaying long overdue improvements in the Coun#y's collection system it only
makes sense to begin modifying collection as the necessary diversion infrastructure is
developed. The result would be a program that could easily adapt to future changes in
technology and markets and provide the residents of the Big Island with REAL alterative
to landfilling,
3