The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0023.001 2008-2010Comm. No. ~ J' Ref. To: ~~eaeo~ed Ref. Dpte 1 ~ S~bM~~d ~: O~a.~'P.~zkr,, GK1M ~~,N1 R • Located southeast part of Hilo • Owned and operated by the County of Hawai' i • In operation since the 1970's • 40 acre site • A former quarry • Unlined • 5 years of life remaining at current recycling rates (or through 2013) • Located southwest of Waikoloa at Pu'uanahulu • Owned by Hawaii County and operated with County personnel • Managed by Waste Management of Hawaii - Construction and development of new landfill cells - Environmental monitoring - Closure and post-closure activities. • 300 acre site that opened in 1993 • Subtitle-D Landfill - Lined with a geomembrane - Engineered leachate collection system - Landfill gas collection and control system was installed in 2006 • 33 years of life remaining at current recycling rates • Closed landfills at Kailua-Kona and Waimea • Flow control • East Hawaii residuals management when SHSL is full (2013) • Recovery and treatment • Operated from the fate 1970s until 1993 • Located east of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway approximately 3 miles north of Kailua- Kona • Subsurface fires since 1991 • County is investigating fire suppression options • Long term management options - Extinguishing the subsurface fires, repairing the cover, and managing the waste in place - Excavate the landfill, remove materials that can be recycled or composted, and transfer residuals to the WHSL 4 • Operated from the late 1960s until 1987 • Subsurface fires documented in 2006 and 2008 • Subsurface fires have been extinguished - Limiting the amount of influx of oxygen to the subsurtace of the landfill by backfilling and grading • Additional cover material will be applied to the surtace to seal the landfill from the atmosphere in an effort to prevent further combustion • Flow control ordinances - Ensure that materials flow to facilities in which local government has significant capital investment and/or other interest - Common in U.S. • Proposed recovery facility by a private collection firm • Concerns: - Some added risk of increased commercial collection costs - Reduces the County's flexibility to adopt zero waste programs - Some loss of control and flexibility for County to choose a recovery and disposal technology that best meets the needs of the entire County rather than the interest of a single firm 5 Definition: Thermal, biological, or chemical processing -AFTER waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and bioconversion - BEFORE landfill disposal "Conversion technologies" or "Alternative technologies" - Tremendous current interest in U.S. - Many RFPs and studies in progress European Union Landfill Directive - Driving interest in thermal technologies and mechanical-biological treatment • Biological treatment with RDF for combustion • Biological treatment with composting • Anaerobic digestion • Only mass-burn WTE is common in U.S. - About 70 RDF plants and 5 MBT plants in commercial operation in U.S. - About 150 MBT plants in Europe - No commercial-scale gasification, pyrolysis, plasma arc, or anaerobic digestion facilities processing municipal solid waste in US and very limited elsewhere • 50-90%+ reduction in landfill disposal • Most technologies are complex with high capital costs • Consistent with zero waste principles? • Costs for East Hawai i - WTE costs $120-145/ton - Other technologies • Highly uncenain • $80-$210 per tan • Beneficial uses: further recovery of metals and some recyclables possible, electricity, syngas, compost (usually poor quality) • Greenhouse gas emissions - Complex, but'/<to Y:the GHG of landfill no/low LFG capture • Other air emissions - All can meet U.S. EPA requirements - Gasification, pyrolysis, plasma arc -potential for lower emissions than mass-burn WTE • Water quality - Most will reduce risk of long-term groundwater quality issues • Markets -cost effectiveness can depend on • Monitor current developments • Leave open as an option for future plans • Would require committing to a landfill option for East Hawaii 8 • Reconsider Wheelabrator proposal or conduct another procurement • Advantages - Proven technology - Added metal recovery and electricity generation - Less land needed for landfilling - Reduced potential for water quality impacts from landfilling - Reduced greenhouse gases Disadvantages - Cost would be $50-75 per ton mare than landfill - At 230 tpd, somewhat inconsistent with zero waste principles - Would meet regulatory requirements, but some air emissions would result • Same as Option 2, but larger facility • Advantages - Compared to Option 2, lower cost processing on a per-tan basis, but would those savings exceed the added cost of trucking? - Could size the plant to accommodate 50% recycling rate or higher • Disadvantages - Same as Option 2 - Added air emissions from trucking waste to the facility 9 • Small 20 tpd modular facility • Locate at the Waiohinu recycling and transfer station (with waste from Pahala, and Miloli i) • Cost $40 per-ton less to $50 per-ton more than landfill (net of trucking cost savings) • Advantages - Reduce County trucking by 20% - Could be combined with reconstruction of station - Some additional metal recovery • Disadvantages - Would meet regulatory requirements, but some air emissions would result - Remote location could make electricity generation problematic - Added staff training and skills needed - Operating risks in a remote area • Advantages - Potential for added recovery oirecyclables - Reduced greenhouse gas emissions - Reduced potential for water quality impacts from landfilling - Beneficial use for low-quality compost (land reclamation, landfill cover) • Disadvantages - Cost would be $30-130 more than landfill - Highest risk of system failure of any recovery option = Would require specialized operating expertise, sound preventive maintenance, and vigilant on-going odor management practices 10 • Two sequenced expansions - Lateral expansion • Lined cell adjacent to existing landfill • 9 years of capacity at existing recycling rates - New landfill • Lined landfill in on-site quarries • 38 years at existing recycling rates Lateral expansion - Active stdrmwater management to minimize leachate production - Regulations would require bottom liner with leachate collection ' and recovery system • -two layers of heavy duty plastic geomembrane, placed above and below a geosynthetic clay liner • engineered drainage layer - Leachate treatment • Initial feasibility study showed that constructed wetlands could effectively treat leachate • New Landfill - Siting study conclusions: "The location adjacent to the South Hilo Sanitary Land/ill .... rates highest" - On County-owned land used for quarry operations southeast of the existing landfill - The 75-acre quarry site is slightly larger than the existing landfill /ootprint (see Exhibit 1). - Would be operated using the same assumptions as the lateral expansion j 11 • Advantages - Relatively low risk technology compatible with any future recovery or treatment option - Relatively low capital investment -- consistent with zero waste principles - Few siting issues anticipated - Relatively law cost option (about $10-15/ton more than current SHSL cost) • Disadvantages - Operational challenges associated with high rainfall - Worst greenhouse gas emission performance - Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions - Some water quality risks • Transfer East Hawaii residuals at the Hilo sort station and transport by truck to the WHSL • 12 trucks on average day (18 tons per truck) • Cost - About $26 per ton more than current SHSL - About $10-15 per ton more than Option 1 • Advantages - Similar to Option 1 with less technology risk and less potential for water quality impacts • Disadvantages - Public opposition to trucking waste from East Hawari is likely -Added emissions from vehicles 12 Bale and shrink-wrap residuals at Hilo sort station • Barge to other island or to Mainland • Honolulu County Procurement - Award to Hawaiian Waste Systems (HWS) for landfill in eastern Washington State - Barge across Pacific and up Columbia River, then short truck-haul to landfill ' ~`~ -Assumed backhaul of aggregates or other commodities - $99 per ton - Award is under protest • Estimated cost - HWS has suggested $85-100 per ton to County staff - With specific contract language, price would probably be higher • Advantages - Appears to be technically feasible • Disadvantages - Some people object to the principle of exporting waste - Added pricing risk for proposals dependent upon a secure and consistent backhaul - Added risk associated with shipping baled garbage across the Pacific Ocean - Added fuel emissions from lengthy barge transportation - Risk of delays in barge transportation -storage or backup disposal needed 13 • Rather than a "ballot", we'tl conduct a multi-attribute utility analysis (value modeling) of options • Discuss objectives and ways to measure how well each option meets each objective • Weight relative importance of objectives at the February SWAC meeting • Report results and discuss in March meeting 14