Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0116.004 2016-2018 Eileen O'Hara -t,of;,•• Phone: (808) 965-2712 °M'' ' '''`'' ' Fax: (808) 961-8912 Council Member :•c!,'.•' � ., .., Council District 4 �'�''° `: Email: eileen.ohara@hawaiicounty.gov Vice Chair: Plannin Committee and Chair: Environmental • '•: - g Management Committee �r&oF•,;;�!`: Agriculture, Water&Energy Sustainability Committee County of Hawaii COUNTY CLERK Hawaii County Council COUNTY OF HAWAI'I 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 1402 • Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 RECEIVED Time 11:A ^w..By 1!'' Date MAR`i-0 2011 DATE: March 20, 2017 TO: Valerie T. Poindexter, Council Chair and Members of the Hawai`i County Council FROM: ('Ei1een O'Hara, Council Member SUBJECT: Information for discussion in EMC meeting on March 21, 2017 Attached please find materials related to the continued discussion on Communication No. 116 in the Environmental Management Committee meeting on March 21, 2017. It would be greatly appreciated if the materials were copied and distributed to all Councilmembers prior to the beginning of the meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. EO:bl Comm.No, 11(o,`� Ref.To: f GNI G Ref.Date Plerc,k.24 Sp I Executive Summary 1 I Executive Summary I I ES.1 Introduction The 2009 County of Hawaii Integrated Resources and Solid .. Waste Management Plan(IRSWMP or Plan) Update has been prepared in compliance with the Hawaii Revised Statutes(HRS) Chapter 342G,which requires counties in Hawaii to update and Irevise their solid waste management plans every five(5)years. The last update to the Plan was completed during 2002.Work on this revision of the Plan began in early 2008,and involved the participation of a Solid Waste Advisory Committee(SWAC),the .P`` County of Hawaii(County)Environmental Management --. Commission, the public,the business community,the County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management (DEM), the Office of the Mayor,the Solid Waste Division (SWD), the County Council,and numerous other stakeholders. 1 ' This IRSWMP update includes an evaluation of waste management practices in the County, including waste reduction practices and programs,opportunities for implementation of zero waste policies and practices,the status of both active and closed landfills,and potential I options for expanding and extending the capacity of the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL),The results are organized by section in accordance with HRS 342G.Each section contains a description of the existing conditions,a summary of the 2002 Integrated Solid I Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) update recommendations and status of implementation of those recommendations, a description of options available to the County for improvement of the solid waste management program,and recommendations for Iimplementation of selected options. I ES.2 The Path to Zero Waste In December 2007,the County Council adopted resolution 356-07 to"embrace and adopt the principles of zero waste as a long-term goal for Hawaii County." The zero waste Iphilosophy promotes the efficient use of materials to eliminate waste and pollution by emphasizing a closed-loop system of production and I consumption,and moving in logical increments toward the goal of zero waste. *" r .° Concurrent with the development of this IRSWMPs ' I e update,the County contracted with a consultant to ` ', develop a zero waste implementation plant.Thea } recommendations of that study were considered by =5 , ISWAC and other stakeholders during the II Recycle Hawaii and Richard Anthony Associates.2009.Zero Waste Implementation Plan for the County of Hawaii. IDecember 2009 ESS-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY development of this Plan. This IRSWMP update includes a number of specific recommendations from that study intended to keep the County moving forward on its path to zero waste. The recommendations in this Plan are projected to increase the County's current recycling rate of 29 percent to a rate of 44 percent by the end of the planning period (FY 14-15). ES.3 IRSWMP Update Process Development of this IRSWMP update was guided by a 12-member SWAC, appointed by the Mayor.SWAC members participated in 13 meetings at which they reviewed draft plan sections, debated key issues, developed plan goals (provided in Section 1), and shaped recommendations. Presentations to the County Council's Environmental Management Committee were made on a monthly basis to solicit feedback from County Council members and the public on issues and options. In addition, input was requested from the public in a variety of forums including a series of public meetings, periodic meetings with community organizations, and routine posting of all draft documents and meeting minutes on the IRSWMP page of the County's Website (htIp://co.Haai 01111s/env ranghswmp htm). The key recommendations included in this IRSWMP update have consensus support from the SWAC and are intended to balance the many interests of the various stakeholders within the County.The recommendations developed during this process have been organized into a 5-year implementation plan.This IRSWMP update includes each of the plan sections covering various waste management topics, and the draft implementation plan. It includes responses to comments received from the State of Hawai'i Department of Health (HDOH), and is being submitted by the Mayor to the County Council for adoption, and then will be presented to HDOH for final approval. Final approval by HDOH is anticipated by the first quarter of 2010. A summary of the IRSWMP recommendations and the draft implementation plan are presented below. ES.4 Transitions from the 2002 ISWMP Update The County's initial ISWMP, as required by state law (HRS 342G) was adopted on October 5, 1994. An update to that original plan was completed by the County and approved by the State of Hawai'i in December 31, 2002. A key issue addressed in the 2002 plan update was the pending closure of the SHSL, which was expected to reach capacity in the summer of 2004. The 2002 update included the following key recommendations: • Construct no new landfills in East Hawai'i • Emphasize the 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 facility for the East Hawai'i waste stream using either waste- to-energy,thermal gasification, or anaerobic digestion technology. (See Appendix A for a chronology of waste reduction study and procurement activities in Hawai'i County.) 1 ES-2 December 2009 IEXECUME SUMMARY 111 , • Establish a County recycling program with a long list of elements that have the potential to increase waste diversion significantly IAfter adopting the 2002 ISWMP update, the County took steps toward implementing these recommendations,as follows: I * Expanding the number and scope of its recycling programs,which increased its recycling rate from 15 percent in FY 01-02 to 29 percent in FY 07-08 1 • Initiating development of elements of the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station(now nearing completion) that could potentially serve a number of strategic waste management functions I O Issuing two (2) requests for proposals (RFPs) for construction of a waste reduction facility.The first RFP was cancelled by the County.The second procurement process resulted in a proposal for a 230-ton-per-day mass-burn waste-to-energy facility to be Ilocated at the SHSL. In 2008,the County Council rejected the recommended proposal,in part because the construction and operation costs were higher than anticipated. I Since 2006, the County has taken three(3) other important actions related to its solid waste management system: I 1. It completed a comprehensive engineering ooihaboww..41",t4f71""(S evaluation of its twenty-one 140604104 in* „goo wit Poz '" 12342371704 * I (21)recycling and transfer stations;this evaluation concluded that thirteen(13) - -,t 18783078877478.18117 2 68i 73 Waimse*1* t224% I have serious failures requiring reconstruction to 114707 008088778 r87 883137 , correct,and another six(6) I have serious problems that could be corrected without Wines 7 880 78 Ne., tils trol' complete reconstruction. 14,701.4% i tow"mrins 2203 87 7737 1 2. It extended the capacity of KM111410$00*TS 888178887887173123 the SHSL through innovative 5217(62%) it, ON 0414 engineering solutions,such ,m, Ias creating a sliver fill and utilizing additional airspace iNgsalami EN resulting from creation of the Isliver fill. , sawn WI WI, 1P .i 0 3. It prepared an expansion I feasibility study and capital cost estimate to assess whether undertaking a *wow WM I seven (7)acre landfill expansion immediately 0.....173818 3441(42%) 77.701707887 adjacent to the SHSL would 1 New Numbeat undo 7870087 stabon.tom 8388 $8 N houNd trk et coos se*pootont auto*county 010011*****11.eau* RscstlktawiTrmdsr*Mons FY-014S WA VSOXIK1106.5 fIVO 04•94...(91.4419010 IDecember 2009 ES-3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY be less expensive than long-hauling waste to the County's West Hawai'i Sanitary Landfill (WHSL) in Pu'uanahulu. The feasibility study did not support the seven (7) acre expansion and this option has been removed from further consideration. In response to these developments,a key focus of this Plan update was evaluating a series of potential options for managing residuals that remain after source reduction, reuse, and recycling. After SWAC and stakeholder consideration of potential options, this Plan recommends the following residuals management strategy: • Conduct a series of activities necessary to confirm the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of undertaking development of a new landfill within the quarry adjacent to the SHSL site. • Update the feasibility of trucking waste to the WHSL site including further analysis of 1 the Reload Facility and associated hauling operations,haul routes, traffic issues, and equipment acquisition plans. • If construction of a new landfill within the quarry adjacent to the SHSL proves to be feasible and cost effective, then consider development of the new landfill. If not, truck waste to the WHSL site through the East Hawai'i Regional Sort Station Reload Facility while the SHSL is still active. If trucking waste to the WHSL is the more feasible option, the County may begin that activity while the SHSL is still active. • Do not issue an RFP for waste reduction technology during this Plan's 5-year life cycle. During each subsequent solid waste management plan review period,evaluate whether new technology advances or other circumstances have occurred to warrant issuing an RFP for a conversion technology for part, or all, of the County residuals management stream. In addition to activities associated with handling residual wastes,this Plan presents a series of recommendations geared towards taking the next steps on the path to zero waste including expanded programs targeted toward reducing the volume of landfill-bound waste and improving existing infrastructure. It also recommends reconstructing and upgrading one or more County recycling and transfer stations each year. ES.5 Consequences of Inaction This IRSWMP update outlines a series of recommendations for action during the County's next 5-year implementation period. Some of these programs will be controversial because they require changes to ingrained behaviors and increase costs in the short term. However, the status quo is not sustainable for the long term because of a series of challenges related to the County's existing system, demands from the public for increased services,and aging 1 infrastructure. Should the County elect to maintain the status quo and not proceed with the Plan recommendations, some consequences of inaction could include the following: • As evidenced by the recent failure of a retaining wall at the Pahoa Recycling and Transfer Station, the County's recycling and transfer stations would continue to deteriorate resulting in reduced service and potential public safety concerns. • No further progress would be made in providing additional waste reduction, recycling, or reuse services that are desired by many County residents. 1 ES-4 Decernbe(2009 I IEXECUTIVE SUMMARY I • No significant progress would be made in further reducing waste sent to landfills,thus resulting in a missed opportunity to maximize available landfill airspace, reduce I greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the toxicity of waste materials sent to County landfills. I * The County's landfills would fill up faster, including the existing SI-ISL that, based on current waste generation and airspace consumption calculations,has an estimated five (5) to eight (8) years of remaining capacity. I Further, this Plan's proposed strategy of aggressively pursuing zero waste with continued local landfilling of the residuals is likely to be less expensive than investing in new conversion technologies. II ES.6 Summary of Recommendations IThe following is a summary of the recommendations developed during the IRSWMP update. I Implementing a series of programs to reduce the volume of waste entering the landfills including: I . Ordinances requiring mandatory recycling/source separation of certain types of materials (i.e., implementation of landfill bans for select recyclables) • Expanding the availability and increasing the convenience of reuse and recycling Iopportunities available to both residents and businesses • Implementing a Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) system for delivery of I waste materials at County recycling and transfer stations as currently practiced in more than 7,000 communities in the United - , 3 States,and/or other revenue sources such as user fees,increased . I property taxes for solid waste management,or landfill tipping fee increases I • Implementing programs that firmly establish the path to zero waste within the County • Implementing a variety of on-site composting programs,supplemented by a certified master composter program I • Improving and expanding the scope of educational programs within the County to increase public awareness of waste reduction and sustainable waste management Ipractices • Implementing programs within County departments to improve waste reduction Ipractices Making improvements to existing infrastructure to accommodate new waste reduction programs including: I • Reconstructing one or more recycling and transfer stations each year I IDecember 2009 ES-5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Restructuring operations of existing recycling and transfer stations and landfills including adding full-time transfer station attendants,reducing transfer station operating days and hours,and potentially closing selected transfer stations • Completing improvements to all recycling and transfer stations to accommodate mandatory recycling/source separation and a PAYT system 111 • Completing upgrades to selected recycling and transfer stations to create additional reuse centers • Siting, designing and constructing a MRF at the WHSL, and re-configuring the East Hawai'i Regional Sort Station Reload Facility to convert it to a MRF while the SHSL is active • Acquisition of green waste composting operations at the WHSL or other sites • Processing green waste at select recycling and transfer stations with a mobile tub grinder; material would be ground on-site and made available to residents as mulch Conducting More In-Depth Evaluations of Two Options to Address the Need for Long-Term Capacity for Residuals Needing Disposal: The SHSL is estimated to have between five (5) and eight (8) years of remaining capacity, and the County should act quickly to identify replacement treatment or disposal capacity. After analysis of many treatment and disposal options, this IRSWMP update recommends further evaluation of the following two options for providing long-term residuals management for East Hawai'i: 1. Re-configuring the Reload Facility at the SHSL, and trucking waste to West Hawai'i 2. Developing a new lined landfill in the existing quarry site adjacent to the current SHSL that would provide an estimated fifty (50) or more years of additional disposal capacity The result of preliminary cost estimates prepared for this IRSWMP update are as follows, and a more detailed discussion of each option is provided in Section 9: Per-ton Cost(2009$) Landfill Options Low High Transfer waste from East Hawai'i to the WHSL $82 Expand SHSL into quarries $69 $73 While the preliminary analysis conducted to date indicates that the landfill expansion appears to be the less costly option, there are many risks associated with a new landfill that would not be present with the trucking option.Thus, further studies should be conducted to determine the feasibility,costs, risks, timelines, and social and environmental impacts 1 associated with these options. For example, assessing the feasibility of the expanded landfill option will require consultation with HDOH,and preliminary engineering,environmental review, land use,and permitting activities. Updating the feasibility of the trucking option should including further analysis of the Reload Facility and associated hauling operations, haul routes, traffic issues, and equipment acquisition plans. ES-6 December 2009 1