HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinances to reduce landfill volume 14/17/23 DISCUSSION DRAFT ONLY by Georjean Adams
For EMC Discussion: County Ordinances to Significantly Reduce Landfill Waste Volume
Background for paper presented 2/22/23 and 3/29/23 option #1 - Landfill Bans
One effec�ve way to achieve diversion from landfilling wastes would be to ban certain wastes
from disposal in a landfill, whether by residents or commercial en��es.
Currently only some wastes are prohibited from landfill at WHSL as “special waste” generally
because they are classified as “hazardous” under EPA or state regula�ons. For the most part,
the county has provided or directed companies to facili�es that most residents and businesses
can bring these wastes. These facili�es ensure the majority of material is recovered for reuse or
will transfer the waste to appropriate disposal in permited hazardous waste facili�es. Currently
banned from WHSL:
• used motor oil (a toxic hazardous leachate, feasible recycling for DIY and commercial
users)
• used lead-acid bateries (hazardous, but also feasible to recover lead for reuse, have
upfront disposal fee)
• medical wastes (hazardous, collected by drug stores and police offices)
• used �res (fire hazard if landfilled, feasible recycling, upfront disposal fee)
• large appliances/white goods (not hazardous unless they contain CFC coolants, but also
viable commercial scrap metal recycler demand)
• derelict vehicles (viable scrap metal recycling, up front disposal fee via registra�on)
• other commercial wastes defined and regulated as “hazardous”
Addi�onal “special wastes” could be added as “designated recyclable wastes” that are
prohibited from landfill when minimum reuse/recycle feasibility criteria are met such as:
1. Collec�on loca�ons are readily available to the majority of residents (eg, transfer sta�ons
and other county loca�ons such as the HER greenwaste site at WHSL, arrangements with
retail/service providers and special collec�on events), as well as for commercial generators
(county facili�es or service businesses exist on island with whom businesses can contract to
take recyclable materials. Inevitably, there will be rural loca�ons where there is no easy
transport to recycle loca�ons. Special accommoda�on may be necessary to help with collec�on
for these generators to avoid illegal dumping or variances to allow landfill.
2. Reasonable fees for disposal/reuse/recycling are or could be required at purchase or at
collec�on loca�ons which are not so excessive as to encourage illegal dumping.
3. Reuse or recycling is economically feasible. Costs should not exceed the value of the
recovered materials plus fees. This is a func�on of markets and technology and will change over
�me. In general, the landfill ban should result in a steady feedstock to support reuse/recycling
opera�ons.
4/17/23 DISCUSSION DRAFT ONLY by Georjean Adams
4. Life cycle environmental costs do not exceed the value of the recovered material plus the
benefit of landfill diversion (eg, global warming contribu�on due to transporta�on and
processing, health and safety of reuse/recycling opera�ons, and energy costs).
5. Educa�on programs and adequate suppor�ng assistance is and will con�nue to be available
from the county.
6. Significant por�on of currently landfilled waste by volume is represented by the designated
recyclable waste. [note: most tables track weight and not volume]
An algorithm could be developed with a minimum total score or weighted score of the above
feasibility criteria. There should be periodic updates to scoring and addi�on of candidate
designated recyclable waste as markets and technology changes.
The first candidates as designated recyclable wastes prohibited from landfilling are those with
already exis�ng viable recycling ac�vity. Below are a couple examples [to be further developed].
HI5
1. mul�ple venues exist for collec�on (although they can be increased especially for public
gathering places – parks, beaches, community events)
2. current fees are not driving illegal dumping. Redemp�on results in income for collec�on
par�es.
3. consumer deposit fees of 5 cents and ADF for manufacturers of 1 cent could be raised to
more fully cover program costs. It has been argued that consumers could accept a 10 cent
deposit fee, but this should be studied. Illegal dumping can be addressed by various programs
(see 2019 ISWMP CH 10-9)
4. LCA results TBD
5. HI5 program is well known to residents. Not so sure about tourists. Addi�onal educa�on and
provision of collec�on services at resorts would help. Higher redemp�on would increase
recycling.
6. HI5 does not present a high volume as currently structured (crushed containers have low
volume) ~ <1%. Adding wine and liquor botles could increase volume diversion.
Green Waste (landscape, not food)
1. Collec�on sites exist at an increasing number of transfer sta�ons and at WHSL and Hilo. Could
be improved (more loca�ons, beter logis�cs and staffing). Coordina�on with decentralized
compos�ng would also help.
2. Fees are favorable - commercial rate (1/2 trash), residen�al is free. Need study on whether
possible to increase.
3. Recycling costs – HER contract represents a hurdle to favorable economics. County pays high
cost for recycling. Mulch is given away free, even though there is high demand. Mulch is also
not converted to compost for higher value. Must be improved.
4. Life cycle favorable with proper management (pests and fire)
5. Educa�on – prety well known
4/17/23 DISCUSSION DRAFT ONLY by Georjean Adams
6. ~7% volume reduc�on opportunity. Much higher if total organics added.
Corrugated Cardboard
1. Collec�on sites exist. Residen�al collec�on at transfer sta�ons and private haulers.
Commercial generators can use recyclers – Atlas, Business Services Hawaii – directly or via
commercial haulers. Big box stores directly ship to mainland.
2. Fees are favorable - commercial rate (1/2 trash), residen�al is free. Need study on whether
possible to increase.
3. Recycling costs are favorable, although market fluctuates, it is rela�vely strong.
4. Life cycle TBD – no recycling on island except for minor shredding for compost.
5. Educa�on – fair. Contamina�on at transfer sta�ons is apparent. Understanding what
“corrugated” means limited or residents doing wishful recycling.
6. 8%? Much higher if could add other paper types. Currently inadequate ROI for the volume of
other paper types generated on island.
Glass (nonHI5)
1. Collec�on sites exist. Residen�al collec�on at transfer sta�ons and private haulers.
Commercial generators – unknown
2. Fees – zero at transfer sta�ons, treated as regular waste by weight for commercial disposal at
WHSL.
3. Recycling costs – grinding occurs on island for use as fill and landscaping, so presumed to be
favorable. Reuse economics needs study.
4. Life cycle -TBD. On island recycling is favorable. Reuse would be beter, but not happening
now.
5. Educa�on – fair. A lot of HI5 beer botles go into glass containers.
6. ~8% all glass.
Other categories to explore in the short term could include reusable materials from
construc�on/demoli�on and scrap metal
Examples of waste types not yet ready for landfill ban:
Electronics
1. Limited collection sites and limited types of electronics covered by current EPR program.
Noncovered electronics (eg small appliances) if still working may be accepted by Reuse Centers
and thrift stores.
2. Fees covered by manufacturers under new law, previously small fees upon collection
3. Recycling costs – not really favorable, but there are offsets for recovered specialty metals and
possible reuse after refurbishment. Not available on island.
4. Life Cycle – TBD
5. Education – TBD
6. ~1% not significant
Plastics other than HI5
4/17/23 DISCUSSION DRAFT ONLY by Georjean Adams
1. Limited collection of #1 & 2 at Business Services Hawaii location.
2. No current fees. Would need study to see if it would be possible to expand HI5 type collection
or look at EPR.
3. Recycling costs are not favorable – limited and highly variable market value and high
processing/sorting and transportation costs for most plastics. Even BSH requires clean streams.
4. Life cycle – TBD
5. Education – TBD. High contamination issues with previous programs.
6. ~8% By weight total plastic. Containers at 2%, film ~3% and durable and composites 4%