HomeMy WebLinkAboutCounty of Hawaii - Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update 2019County of Hawai’i
Department of Environmental Management
Solid Waste Division
345 Kekūanāo’a Street, Suite 41
Hilo, HI 96720
2019 Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan Update
County of Hawai’i
In association with:
Prepared by:Dr
a
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
August 2019
2019 Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan Update
Prepared for
County of Hawaiʻi
Prepared by
Parametrix
719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98104
T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353
www.parametrix.com
In association with
Wesley R. Segawa and Associates, Inc.
Hilo office (Main)
101 Silva Street, Suite 201
Hilo, HI 96720
T. 808-935-4677 ext.0
hilo@wrsasolutions.com
Dra
f
t
CITATION
Parametrix. 2019. 2019 Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan Update.
Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, WA.
August 2019.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... ES-1
ES.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ ES-1
ES.2 The Path to Zero Waste .............................................................................................................. ES-1
ES.3 Plan Update Process ................................................................................................................... ES-1
ES.4 Chronology of Plan Updates ....................................................................................................... ES-2
ES.5 Consequences of Inaction ........................................................................................................... ES-4
ES.6 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................................. ES-4
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Goals of the Solid Waste Management Plan Update ................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3 Organization of this Plan ............................................................................................................... 1-3
2. WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Population and Employment ........................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3 Generation, Disposal, and Recycling ............................................................................................. 2-4
2.3.1 Historical .......................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.3.2 20-Year Projection ........................................................................................................... 2-8
2.4 Waste Composition ....................................................................................................................... 2-9
3. SOURCE REDUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Background ................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1 Regulatory Context .......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.2 Resolution 356-07 (Zero Waste) ...................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.3 Review of 2009 Plan ......................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 3-3
3.3.1 County of Hawaiʻi Waste Reduction Programs ................................................................ 3-4
3.3.2 County of Hawaiʻi Staffing Levels ..................................................................................... 3-7
3.4 Issues and Concerns ...................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.5 Options for Improvement ............................................................................................................. 3-8
3.5.1 County Source Reduction Practices ................................................................................. 3-8
3.5.2 Business Waste Audits and Reduction Plans ................................................................... 3-9
3.5.3 Construction and Demolition Diversion .......................................................................... 3-9
3.5.4 Visitor Industry ............................................................................................................... 3-10
3.5.5 Reuse Facilities ............................................................................................................... 3-10
3.5.6 Establish Pay-As-You-Throw System for Residential Discards ....................................... 3-11
3.5.7 Expanded Home Composting Program .......................................................................... 3-15
3.5.8 Expanded Reusable Bag Program .................................................................................. 3-16
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
ii August 2019
3.5.9 Expand Source Reduction Education ............................................................................. 3-16
3.5.10 Establish Extended Producer Responsibility Policy ....................................................... 3-16
3.5.11 Create a Zero Waste Fund ............................................................................................. 3-17
3.5.12 Public-Private Partnerships with Community-Based Organizations .............................. 3-17
3.6 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 3-18
4. RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS ...................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Background ................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Zero Waste ....................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.2 Review of 2009 Plan ......................................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 4-4
4.3.1 County of Hawaiʻi /State of Hawaiʻi Programs ................................................................ 4-5
4.3.2 Private Sector Programs ................................................................................................ 4-10
4.3.3 Current Material Markets and Market Development Initiatives ................................... 4-11
4.3.4 County of Hawaiʻi Staffing Levels ................................................................................... 4-14
4.4 Issues and Concerns .................................................................................................................... 4-14
4.5 Options for Improvement ........................................................................................................... 4-14
4.5.1 Residential Curbside Collection and Processing of Recyclables .................................... 4-14
4.5.2 Increase Green Waste Dropoff Opportunities at Recycling and Transfer
Stations .......................................................................................................................... 4-19
4.5.3 Residential Green Waste Collection and Processing ..................................................... 4-19
4.5.4 Add Food and Other Organics to a Residential Curbside Recycling and
Green Waste Collection Program .................................................................................. 4-21
4.5.5 Add Food Waste Bins at Recycling and Transfer Stations ............................................. 4-22
4.5.6 Source Separation Ordinance (Mandatory Recycling) and/or Disposal Bans
with Differential Tip Fees ............................................................................................... 4-25
4.5.7 Commercial Recycling and Green Waste Program ........................................................ 4-27
4.5.8 Bioconversion of Food and Other Organics from Businesses/ Institutions ................... 4-28
4.5.9 Processing Food Waste Options .................................................................................... 4-29
4.5.10 Establish a County “Buy Recycled” Policy ...................................................................... 4-32
4.5.11 Marketing Partnership with Other Hawaiʻi Counties .................................................... 4-32
4.5.12 Establish Opportunity to Recycle Legislation ................................................................. 4-32
4.5.13 Maintain Active State and Regional Profile on Zero Waste Public Policy ...................... 4-32
4.5.14 Other Potential Recycling Opportunities ....................................................................... 4-33
4.6 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 4-34
4.6.1 Recycling ........................................................................................................................ 4-34
4.6.2 Organics ......................................................................................................................... 4-36
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
August 2019 iii
5. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION .............................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Background ................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2.1 Regulatory Context .......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2.2 Review of 2009 Plan ......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 5-2
5.3.1 County of Hawaiʻi Waste Reduction Programs ................................................................ 5-2
5.4 Issues and Concerns ...................................................................................................................... 5-6
5.5 Options for Improvement ............................................................................................................. 5-7
5.5.1 Develop 3-Year Landfill Diversion Education and Social Marketing Plan ........................ 5-7
5.5.2 Conduct Waste Management Attitude Survey ................................................................ 5-8
5.5.3 Expand Existing Advertising and Marketing Efforts ......................................................... 5-9
5.5.4 Expand Public and Civic Outreach ................................................................................... 5-9
5.5.5 Expand School Education Programs ................................................................................ 5-9
5.5.6 Expand Business Education Programs ........................................................................... 5-10
5.5.7 Develop Visitor Industry Education Programs ............................................................... 5-10
5.5.8 Evaluate Effectiveness and Continue to Refine Education Programs ............................ 5-10
5.6 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 5-11
6. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELECTRONIC WASTE ................................................ 6-1
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Regulatory Background ................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2.1 Summary of Household Hazardous Waste Regulations .................................................. 6-1
6.2.2 Summary of E-Waste Regulations ................................................................................... 6-1
6.2.3 Review of 2009 Plan ......................................................................................................... 6-2
6.3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 6-3
6.3.1 Household Hazardous Waste ........................................................................................... 6-3
6.3.2 E-Waste ............................................................................................................................ 6-4
6.4 Issues and Concerns ...................................................................................................................... 6-6
6.4.1 Household Hazardous Waste ........................................................................................... 6-6
6.4.2 Electronic Waste (E-Waste) ............................................................................................. 6-7
6.5 Options .......................................................................................................................................... 6-8
6.5.1 Install Permanent Collection Facilities at Recycling and Transfer Stations ..................... 6-8
6.5.2 Implement Additional Collection Events ......................................................................... 6-9
6.5.3 Establish E-Waste Take-Back Programs with Manufacturers or Sellers .......................... 6-9
6.5.4 Implement Advanced Disposal Fee for E-Waste ............................................................ 6-10
6.5.5 Explore Public-Private Partnership for Local E-waste Campaign (anything
with a plug) .................................................................................................................... 6-10
6.6 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 6-11
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
iv August 2019
7. SPECIAL WASTE .................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.1 Review of 2009 Plan Update ............................................................................................ 7-1
7.2 Background ................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2.1 Asbestos ........................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.2 Used Motor Oil ................................................................................................................. 7-2
7.2.3 Petroleum-Contaminated Soil ......................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.4 Used Batteries (lead-acid) ................................................................................................ 7-3
7.2.5 Sewage Sludge ................................................................................................................. 7-3
7.2.6 Agricultural and Farm-Generated Waste ......................................................................... 7-3
7.2.7 Medical Wastes ................................................................................................................ 7-3
7.2.8 Used Tires ........................................................................................................................ 7-4
7.2.9 White Goods (Large Appliances) ...................................................................................... 7-4
7.2.10 Abandoned Vehicles ........................................................................................................ 7-6
7.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 7-6
8. COLLECTION AND TRANSFER ................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Background ................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Review of 2009 Plan Update ......................................................................................................... 8-1
8.4 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 8-2
8.4.1 Recycling and Transfer Station Features ......................................................................... 8-5
8.4.2 Recycling and Transfer Station Maintenance, Repair and Enhancement ....................... 8-7
8.5 Issues and Concerns .................................................................................................................... 8-10
8.6 Curbside Collection Implementation Considerations ................................................................. 8-10
8.6.1 Institutional Approaches to Service Delivery ................................................................. 8-10
8.6.2 Collection Technology .................................................................................................... 8-14
8.6.3 Service Levels ................................................................................................................. 8-16
8.6.4 Service Frequency .......................................................................................................... 8-17
8.6.5 Funding Options ............................................................................................................. 8-17
8.7 Options for Improvement ........................................................................................................... 8-18
8.7.1 Add Curbside Collection ................................................................................................. 8-18
8.7.2 Change Permits to Allow Small Businesses to Recycle at Transfer Stations .................. 8-22
8.7.3 Continue Progress Towards Reconstruction of Stations in Need of Repair .................. 8-23
8.7.4 Increase Attendants’ Monitoring of Recycling and Reduce Operating Hours
at Recycling and Transfer Stations ................................................................................. 8-23
8.7.5 Add Full-Time Attendants, Reduce Operating Hours, and Implement PAYT
at Recycling and Transfer Stations ................................................................................. 8-24
8.7.6 Reduce System Costs by Closing Select Stations and Reducing Operating Hours ......... 8-24
8.7.7 Lower Transportation Costs by Compacting Recyclables .............................................. 8-25
8.8 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 8-26
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
August 2019 v
9. RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9-1
9.2 Review of 2009 Plan Update ......................................................................................................... 9-1
9.3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 9-2
9.3.1 South Hilo Sanitary Landfill Closure ................................................................................. 9-3
9.3.2 West Hawaiʻi Sanitary Landfill ......................................................................................... 9-3
9.3.3 Landfill Disposal Fees ....................................................................................................... 9-7
9.3.4 Evaluation of SHSL Capacity Replacement ...................................................................... 9-7
9.4 Issues and Concerns ...................................................................................................................... 9-8
9.4.1 Private Facilities and Flow Control................................................................................... 9-9
9.4.2 Closed Landfills ................................................................................................................ 9-9
9.5 Material Recovery and Treatment Facilities Overview ............................................................... 9-11
9.5.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 9-11
9.5.2 Overview of Recovery and Treatment Technologies ..................................................... 9-13
9.6 Recovery and Treatment Options for the County of Hawaiʻi ..................................................... 9-19
9.7 Landfill Disposal Options ............................................................................................................. 9-23
9.7.1 Improve Existing Infrastructure and Operations ........................................................... 9-23
9.7.2 Construct a Construction and Demolition Landfill with a Sorting and Reuse
Area ................................................................................................................................ 9-25
9.8 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 9-27
10. ADMINISTRATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................... 10-1
10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 10-1
10.2 Review of 2009 Plan Update ....................................................................................................... 10-1
10.3 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.3.1 Solid Waste Fund Revenues ........................................................................................... 10-1
10.3.2 Solid Waste Fund Expenses ........................................................................................... 10-4
10.4 Issues and Concerns .................................................................................................................... 10-5
10.5 Administration and Funding Options .......................................................................................... 10-7
10.5.1 Establishing Solid Waste as an Enterprise Fund ............................................................ 10-7
10.5.2 Separating Solid Waste Management as a Line Item on Property Taxes ...................... 10-8
10.5.3 Establish PAYT System at County Recycling and Transfer Stations ............................... 10-8
10.5.4 Modifications to Existing Programs and Practices ......................................................... 10-8
10.5.5 Illegal Dumping Prevention ............................................................................................ 10-9
10.6 Plan Recommendation .............................................................................................................. 10-13
11. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 11-1
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
vi August 2019
LIST OF EXHIBITS
ES-1 Prioritization of Plan Recommendations ......................................................................................... 6
2-1 Estimated Historical Population, Hawaiʻi County ......................................................................... 2-1
2-2 Resident Population Forecast by District, Hawaiʻi County ........................................................... 2-2
2-3 Historical Civilian Employment in Hawaiʻi County ........................................................................ 2-3
2-4 Forecasted Civilian Employment in Hawaiʻi County ..................................................................... 2-3
2-5 Historical Generation, Recycling/Diversion, and Disposal and Estimated Diversion Rate,
Hawaiʻi County ............................................................................................................................ 2-4
2-6 Historical Generation, Recycling, and Disposal for Hawaiʻi County .............................................. 2-5
2-7 Historical Disposal at Recycling and Transfer Stations and Commercial Customers for
West and East Hawaiʻi (in tons) ................................................................................................... 2-6
2-8 Historical Generation Trends in Hawaiʻi County ........................................................................... 2-6
2-9 FY 2017–18 Disposal by Recycling and Transfer Station ............................................................... 2-7
2-10 Projected Disposal with 8 Percent Increase in Recycling/Diversion 2020- 2039 .......................... 2-9
2-11 Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category for the Total County ............................... 2-10
2-12 Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category for West Hawaiʻi .................................... 2-10
2-13 Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category for East Hawaiʻi ...................................... 2-11
2-14 Disposed Composition Estimates: Total County ......................................................................... 2-11
3-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Source Reduction ........................................ 3-3
3-2 Tonnage Diverted at Reuse Centers FY 2009–10 to FY 2016–18 .................................................. 3-5
4-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Recycling, Bioconversion, and
Markets ....................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4-2 Historical Generation, Recycling/Diversion, and Disposal and Estimated Diversion Rate,
County of Hawaiʻi ........................................................................................................................ 4-5
4-3 County of Hawaiʻi Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations .................... 4-6
4-4 County of Hawaiʻi Segregated Rates ............................................................................................. 4-8
4-5 Example of Material Loss and Utilization Rates by Material Recovery Collection System
in State of Washington1 ............................................................................................................. 4-17
4-6 Factors Affecting Curbside Recycling Costs ................................................................................ 4-19
4-7 Organics Maintenance ................................................................................................................ 4-24
5-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Public Education and Information............... 5-1
6-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Household Hazardous Waste and
E-Waste ....................................................................................................................................... 6-2
6-2 Household Hazardous Waste Collection, County of Hawaiʻi (All data in pounds) ....................... 6-4
6-3 E-Waste Collected, County of Hawaiʻi .......................................................................................... 6-6
7-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Special Waste .............................................. 7-1
7-2 Special Waste Disposal Requirements .......................................................................................... 7-2
7-3 Recycling and Transfer Stations that Accept White Goods .......................................................... 7-5
8-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Collection and Transfer ............................... 8-1
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
August 2019 vii
8-2 Disposal at Hawai’i County Recycling and Transfer Stations FY 17-18 ......................................... 8-3
8-3 Services Provided at Hawaiʻi County Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations ............................ 8-4
8-4 Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations ................................................. 8-6
8-5 Recycling and Transfer Station Condition ..................................................................................... 8-7
8-6 Station Closure Options .............................................................................................................. 8-24
9-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management ............................... 9-1
9-2 Generalized Haul Route from East Hawaiʻi Regional Sort Station ................................................ 9-5
9-3 West Hawaiʻi Sanitary Landfill Configuration ............................................................................... 9-6
9-4 Technologies Proposed in Recent U.S. Alternative Technology Procurements ......................... 9-12
9-5 Landfill Gas to Energy Schematic ................................................................................................ 9-24
10-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management ............................. 10-1
10-2 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management Solid Waste
Fund Revenue ............................................................................................................................ 10-2
10-3 Solid Waste Fund Revenue Summary, Percent of Total ............................................................. 10-2
10-4 Solid Waste Fund Expenses ........................................................................................................ 10-4
10-5 Projected Solid Waste Capital Improvements ............................................................................ 10-5
10-6 Landfill Charge Rates 2018-2022 ................................................................................................ 10-6
10-7 Four Programmatic Areas for Preventing Illegal Dumping (EPA 1998) .................................... 10-11
10-8 New South Wales Survey on Illegal Dumping (North South Wales 2015) ................................ 10-12
APPENDICES
A SWAC Meeting Summaries
B SWAC Recommendation Ranking Summary
C 20-Year De Facto Population Recycling, Generation, and Disposal Projections
D 2008 Waste Composition Study
E Chronology for Waste Reduction Technology for Hawaiʻi County
F Ordinance 185 – Solid Waste Fees
G Draft Plan Comments and Responses Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 ix
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACM asbestos-containing materials
ADF advance disposal fee
AES AES Hawaii, Inc.
BPI Biodegradable Products Institute
BYOB Bring-Your-Own-Bag
CATI computer-assisted telephone interviewing
CBOs community-based organizations
C&D construction and demolition
CEDs covered electronic devices
CESQGs conditionally exempt small quantity generators
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CRCs Certified Redemption Centers
CRTs cathode ray tubes
CTVs covered televisions
DEA U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
DEM Department of Environmental Management
DIY Do-It-Yourself
DOTA Department of Transportation, Airports
EA Environmental Assessment
EHOF East Hawaiʻi Organics Facility
EHRSS East Hawaiʻi Regional Sort Station
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPR extended producer responsibility
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FOG Fat, Oil, and Grease
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FTE full-time equivalent
FY fiscal year
GO general obligation
GPS global positioning system
GVW gross vehicle weight
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
x August 2019
HAR Hawaiʻi Administrative Rule
HCC Hawaiʻi County Code
HCPD Hawaiʻi County Police Department
HDOH Hawaii State Department of Health
HEDRP Hawaiʻi Electronic Device Recycling Program
HHW household hazardous waste
H-POWER Honolulu Program of Waste to Energy Recovery
HRS Hawaii Revised Statutes
IRSWMP Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan
LED light emitting diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LFAs little fire ants
MBT mechanical-biological treatment
MMSW mixed municipal solid waste
MRF material recovery facility
MSW municipal solid waste
OTC Over-the-Counter
PAD predictive auto dialer
PAYT pay-as-you-throw
Plan County of Hawaiʻi Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDF refuse-derived fuel
REI Recycling Economic Information
RFP Request for Proposal
RRCs recycling and reuse centers
SHSL South Hilo Sanitary Landfill
SQGs small quantity generators
SRF State Revolving Fund
SWAC Solid Waste Advisory Committee
SWANA Solid Waste Association of North America
SWD Solid Waste Division
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
August 2019 xi
UH University of Hawaiʻi
UPW United Public Workers
USC United States Code
WHOF West Hawaiʻi Organics Facility
WHSL West Hawaiʻi Sanitary Landfill
WRT waste reduction technology
WTE waste to energy
WUTC Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 Introduction
The County of Hawai’i, in accordance with the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes
Chapter 342G (HRS 342G), has completed its review, revisions, and
updates for the 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan).
Work on this update began in the spring of 2018. The Plan development
process involved monthly meetings that engaged both the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee (SWAC) and the County of Hawai’i (County) Solid
Waste Division (SWD) of the Department of Environmental Management
(DEM). The last update of the Plan was produced in 2009.
The Plan update evaluates waste management in the County, including waste reduction practices and
programs, opportunities for recycling, implementation of zero waste policies and practices, the status of
active and closed landfills, and options for increasing landfill diversion. The results are organized by
chapter in accordance with HRS 342G. Each chapter contains a summary of the 2009 Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) recommendations and status of implementation of those
recommendations, a description of the existing conditions, a description of options available to the
County for improvement of the solid waste management program, and recommendations for
implementation of selected options.
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 Hawaiʻi County” and the County subsequently developed a Zero
Waste Implementation Plan in 2008 that outlines suggested changes to solid waste management
(County of Hawaiʻi 2009a). The zero waste philosophy promotes the efficient use of materials to
eliminate waste and pollution by emphasizing a closed-loop system of production and consumption, and
moving in logical increments toward the goal of zero waste.
As stated in Resolution 356-07, the County of Hawaiʻi recognizes “that zero waste is a long-term goal
and that in the interim, programs may need to be implemented that may be counter to the zero waste
philosophy and are necessary to reach the long-term goal of zero waste and that such programs should
not be prohibited by the embracing and adoption of the long-term goal of zero waste.” To this end, the
components of the Zero Waste Implementation Plan, which can be realistically achieved during the life
span of this Plan, have been incorporated into the Plan.
The County will continue to take incremental steps toward achieving zero waste in the long term with
the understanding that the ability to truly achieve zero waste is realistically challenging for an island.
ES.3 Plan Update Process
Development of this Plan update was guided by an eight-member SWAC, appointed by the Mayor.
SWAC members participated in 13 meetings at which they toured solid waste facilities on both sides of
the island, reviewed draft Plan chapters, debated key issues, developed plan goals (provided in
Section 1), and shaped recommendations. In addition, input was requested from the public in a variety
of forums including monthly SWAC meetings; routine posting of all draft documents, agendas, and
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
ES-2 August 2019
meeting minutes to the County’s online records archive; and two public hearings and the public
comment period to the draft Plan. Appendix A includes the meeting minutes from the monthly SWAC
meetings held during the Plan update process.
The key recommendations included in this Plan update have consensus support from the SWAC and are
intended to balance the many interests of the various stakeholders within the County. The County has
taken the top recommendations developed during this process, and will keep the stakeholders in mind
as the recommendations are implemented. This Plan update includes individual chapters that cover
various waste management topics as stipulated in HRS 342G. It includes responses to comments
received from the State of Hawaiʻi Department of Health (HDOH) and the public and was submitted by
the Mayor to the County Council for adoption. Final approval by HDOH is anticipated by the first quarter
of 2020.
A summary of the Plan recommendations are presented below.
ES.4 Chronology of Plan Updates
The County’s initial Plan, as required by state law (HRS 342G) was adopted on October 5, 1994. Updates to
the original plan were completed by the County and approved by the State of Hawaiʻi in 2002 and 2009.
2002 Plan
A key issue addressed in the 2002 plan update was the pending closure of the South Hilo Sanitary
Landfill (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 Hawaiʻi Regional Sort Station
(EHRSS), possibly by incorporating features of a material recovery facility (MRF).
• Procure a waste reduction facility for the East Hawaiʻi waste stream using either waste- to-
energy, thermal gasification, or anaerobic digestion technology. (See Appendix E for a
chronology of waste reduction study and procurement activities in Hawaiʻi County.)
• Establish a County recycling program with a long list of elements that have the potential to
increase waste diversion significantly.
After adopting the 2002 ISWMP update, the County took steps toward implementing these
recommendations, as follows:
• Expanded 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.
• Initiated development of elements of the EHRSS that could potentially serve a number of
strategic waste management functions.
• Issued two 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 located at the SHSL. In 2008, the
County Council rejected the recommended proposal, in part because the construction and
operation costs were higher than anticipated.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 ES-3
Since 2006, the County has taken three other important actions related to its solid waste management
system:
1. Completed a comprehensive engineering evaluation of its 21 recycling and transfer stations. This
evaluation concluded that 13 have serious failures requiring reconstruction to correct and
another six have serious problems that could be corrected without complete reconstruction.
2. Extended the capacity of the SHSL through sliver fill—an innovative engineering solution to
gaining and utilizing additional airspace. The County also implemented a comprehensive
compaction program.
3. Prepared an expansion feasibility study and capital cost estimate to assess whether undertaking a
7-acre landfill expansion immediately adjacent to the SHSL would be less expensive than long-
hauling waste to the County’s West Hawaiʻi Sanitary Landfill (WHSL) in Pu`uanahulu. The feasibility
study did not support the 7-acre expansion and this option was removed from further consideration.
2009 Plan
In 2009, the key focus of the 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, the 2009 Plan recommended 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.
• Reassess trucking waste to the WHSL site including further analysis of consolidating waste at the
ERHSS and associated hauling operations, haul routes, traffic issues, and equipment acquisition
plans.
• Avoid issuance of RFPs for waste reduction technology during the 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, the 2009 Plan presented a series of
recommendations regarding next steps on the path to zero waste, including expanded programs
targeted toward reducing the volume of landfill-bound waste and improving existing infrastructure. The
Plan also recommended reconstructing and upgrading one or more County recycling and transfer
stations each year.
2019 Plan
Subsequent to the 2009 Plan, the County has made many key decisions that will drive the functioning of
waste management on the island for years to come, notably the decision to truck waste (residuals) to
WHSL through the EHRSS (implementation 2019). Other decisions and actions that will have a lasting
impact on waste management and diversion include:
• Constructed two green waste facilities—one in Hilo on the east side of the island, and one
adjacent to the WHSL on the west side of the island.
• Constructed seven new reuse centers located at the County recycling and transfer stations.
• Planned a compost facility to process more than green waste (and wood pallets). The new
facility will process food waste, paper, and compostable plastics (planned operation 2020).
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
ES-4 August 2019
Since 2009, the County performed major upgrades to seven recycling and transfer stations—the
upgraded facilities are expected to operate sufficiently through 2029. The County is also in the process
of constructing a permanent recycling and transfer station in Ocean View. Although great progress has
been made, the need to improve facilities with major engineering deficiencies still remains.
With the planned shipment of residuals to WHSL, the current deteriorating global recycling market, new
facilities (reuse and compost facilities), and fiscal concerns, the County, in this Plan update, focuses on
waste diversion, with an emphasis on education, outreach, and public awareness. Outside of
maintaining or improving existing facilities, this Plan does not generally recommend the construction of
costly new facilities or operations. Instead, the County will assess how the existing facilities and
programs are functioning followed by a study to identify a solution that best suits the current and
projected future conditions. This includes seeking joint solutions with state and other Hawaiian
jurisdictions. For example, with the current market for plastics, the County has eliminated #5 plastics
(e.g., yogurt containers, margarine tubs), plastic grocery bags, and clam-shell-type plastic (e.g., salad,
bento boxes) in the mixed recyclable bins at the recycling and transfer stations. If the County were to
coordinate and negotiate with the City and County of Honolulu, there may be a temporary solution that
keeps these formerly recyclable materials out of the landfill until market conditions change.
ES.5 Consequences of Inaction
This Plan update outlines a series of options for the County during the next 10-year implementation
period. Some of these programs may be challenging and perhaps even controversial because they
require changes to ingrained behaviors and increased costs. The status quo is not sustainable for a
variety of reasons—notably market conditions, aging infrastructure, fiscal responsibilities, and
environmental impacts. Some consequences of inaction would include the following:
• 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.
• No significant progress would be made in further reducing waste sent to the WHSL, thus
resulting in a missed opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the toxicity of
waste materials sent to the County’s sole landfill.
• The WHSL would fill up faster.
The County’s proposed strategy of incrementally pursuing waste reduction and diversion with continued
local landfilling of residuals will result in decisions that best serve the needs for generations to come.
ES.6 Summary of Recommendations
The primary purpose of the Plan is to develop waste management strategies through the period of 2019
to 2029. The County developed these through careful consideration by the County’s SWAC, which
comprises representatives from various stakeholders. In total, 82 recommendations covering nine solid
waste management programs were identified.
The SWAC categorized the 82 recommendations (and supporting implementation strategies) as high,
moderate, or low to provide the County DEM feedback on the solid waste planning initiatives that are
important to them as representatives of the community.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 ES-5
Table ES-1 summarizes the recommended strategies and ranking of importance for managing solid
waste in Hawaiʻi County. Considerations for ranking included:
Diversion Potential—What is the measure’s tonnage diversion potential from landfill?
Local Authority—How much control must the local government exert over the disposal management
system (e.g., service providers, infrastructure collection/transfer/disposal, and/or waste generators) to
accomplish the measure?
• Implied—indirectly through culture or practice: less likely to accomplish measure.
• Influenced—by policy, permit, license or ordinance: moderately likely to accomplish measure.
• Explicit—directly through contracts or operations: highly likely to accomplish measure.
Receptivity—What is the relative ease and level of effort to initiate and obtain local buy-in for the
measure? For example, does it involve promotional activities, recognition, no requirements on waste
generators, minor costs (generally easier), or does it involve setting mandatory requirements,
restrictions, or higher costs (generally more difficult)?
Environmental Outcome—What is the environmental effect, for example, in consideration of the
following: ecological toxicity, human heath, greenhouse gas emissions generated by raw materials
extraction and product manufacturing?
Staff Knowledge—How much staff knowledge or specific expertise is needed to implement the
measure? Can it be implemented by mid-level local agency staff without outside legal or contractor
assistance?
Community-Led Initiatives—How easy or hard is it for individuals or groups to initiate adoption or
implementation of the measure without actions required by the jurisdiction? Can a local non-profit or
group of interested residents carry out the activity (e.g., develop a “how-to guide”) or will it require
initiation by local jurisdiction staff or elected bodies (e.g., adopt a local ordinance)?
Outcome of Recommendation Prioritization
Ultimately, the majority of the recommendations and supporting implementation strategies were
ranked as moderate (45), followed by high (37), with only one recommendation identified as low. This
demonstrates that representative SWAC members agree that most of these actions are attainable with
the propensity to improve the County’s existing solid waste management program.
To further prioritize, each SWAC member was tasked to identify their top five recommendations or
themes. Recommendations that received a number one ranking were weighted (scored) higher than
those that received a number five ranking. Additionally, because some of the recommendations are
thematically similar, they were combined. Of the 82 recommendations, six recommendations or themes
were identified by more than one SWAC member as priorities. The top six recommendations identified
by the SWAC are:
• Conduct education, outreach, and public awareness (multiple recommendations).
• Regularly review and, when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract (Chapter 10,
Recommendation 2).
• Conduct additional household hazardous waste (HHW) collection events (Chapter 6,
Recommendation 5).
• Change County code to allow small businesses to drop off recyclables at recycling and transfer
stations (Chapter 8, Recommendation 5).
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
ES-6 August 2019
• Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental impacts
(e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts, in
addition to tonnage-based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals (Chapter 4,
Recommendation 5).
• Develop County policy and ordinances related to source reduction and recycling (Chapter 3,
Recommendation 1; Chapter 4, Recommendation 1).
Appendix B provides the average numerical scores for the low, moderate, and high rankings as shown in
Exhibit ES-1. It also provides all the outcomes from the top five prioritization exercise.
Exhibit ES-1. Prioritization of Plan Recommendations
Chapter Program Low Moderate High
Ch 3 Source Reduction
1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to reduce the
source of waste currently entering landfills, including:
– X –
• Develop a County ordinance that requires a waste reduction plan be submitted to
obtain a commercial or residential building permit.
– X –
• Work with other counties to develop Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy
statements or resolutions. As a component of EPR policy, implement a campaign to
develop EPR for difficult-to-recycle products, and lobby state and federal
lawmakers to advance EPR initiatives.
– X –
• Implement a County government source reduction program policies, procedures,
and incentive programs that will reduce waste streams currently being generated
within various County departments and agencies.
– X –
2. Investigate a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) program or other funding method. – X –
3. Improve the current reuse facility program. – X –
• Work with contractor to create a list for public distribution, which describes what
items are preferable donations.
– X –
• Work with the contractor managing the reuse centers to be more selective about merchandise, emphasizing items that are lightly used, clean, and in good condition.
Improve signage, organization, and display of merchandise.
– X –
• Provide more covered space at reuse centers. – – X
• Collaborate with the volunteer-based Laupāhoehoe Reuse Center to increase participation of volunteers.
– X –
• Continue public-private partnerships with organizations such as Goodwill Industries to develop reuse centers at existing outlets within the County.
– X –
• Consider expanding the program to other recycling and transfer stations and/or upgrade the Laupāhoehoe Reuse Center
– X –
4. Expand and improve public education and awareness programs. – – X
• Develop a business waste audit and education program to foster source reduction
within the local business community.
– X –
• Develop a visitor industry waste reduction education program. – – X
• Continue reuse education, outreach, and public awareness campaign to encourage
public participation and use of the reuse centers.
– – X Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit ES-1. Prioritization of Plan Recommendations (continued)
August 2019 ES-7
Chapter Program Low Moderate High
Ch 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets
Recycling
1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to improve
recycling rates.
– – X
• Thoroughly investigate mandates prior to implementation including assessment of
markets (should be well-established), operational viability (solicit input from
recycling and transfer station attendants, haulers, landfill operators), and
implementation in other jurisdictions with an emphasis on other Hawaiʻi counties.
– – X
• Establish a differential tip fee ordinance – X –
• Investigate the feasibility of establishing a mandatory curbside collection program
for some single-family residences.
– X –
• Establish mandatory source separation and recycling ordinance, which would
require all businesses and institutions to recycle selected types of materials. This
could include implementing landfill bans for select recyclables.
– X –
• Develop legislation that requires owners and managers of multi-family dwellings
and multi-tenant commercial buildings to provide recycling
– X –
• Conduct research and coordinate with legislators and waste managers within Maui,
Kauai, and Honolulu counties, to evaluate the potential for combining efforts to
develop a statewide landfill diversion strategy.
– X –
• Lobby the State to change school waste collection contracts to mandate that
recycling services are included.
– – X
2. Complete capital projects to facilitate implementation of expanded recycling programs. A
common theme expressed during discussions with the SWAC is that the County needs
improved facilities to manage recyclables.
– – X
• Modify infrastructure at recycling and transfer stations to accommodate recycling
processes.
– – X
• Improve signage at recycling and transfer stations to provide the public with
comprehensive information about recycling opportunities and procedures.
– – X
3. Expand the opportunities for commercial recycling. – – X
• Allow small businesses to use the recycling and transfer stations to recycle selected materials.
– – X
• Work with the HDOH Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch to modify recycling and transfer station operating permits to accommodate expanded recycling services.
– – X
• Expand education and outreach programs for both large and small businesses to foster participation in commercial recycling programs.
– – X
4. Expand opportunities to recycle in public areas and during public events. – – X
• Install additional recycling bins in parks and other public areas. – – X
• Conduct additional recycling events within the community each year. – – X
5. Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental impacts (e.g.,
greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts, in addition
to tonnage-based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals.
– – X
6. Annually or bi-annually assess existing local and regional markets for materials across the
waste stream; study service voids for missed opportunities to recover commodities.
– X – Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit ES-1. Prioritization of Plan Recommendations (continued)
ES-8 August 2019
Chapter Program Low Moderate High
Organics
1. Improve education and outreach programs that promote improved management of organics. – X –
• Ensure that the contractor responsible for administering the organics program is
meeting contractual requirements.
– – X
• Expand and further develop a master composter program (low priority). X – –
• Develop a training program and guidance materials for farmers and gardeners. – X –
• Implement a ‘Stop Wasting Food’ program that would benefit programs such as
local food banks.
– X –
• Partner to establish compost demonstration gardens at recycling and transfer
stations or other visible locations in the community
– X –
2. Onsite composting program (subsidized bins and distribution to residents and businesses) – X –
3. Landfill organics ban implementation study – X –
4. Organics management facilities and equipment – – X
• Add food waste drop-off bins at recycling and transfer stations that already collect green waste
– X –
• Formulate compostable bag ASTM D6400-compliance legislation – X –
• Add organics/yard waste disposal to existing brochures/signage – X
• Expand the number of drop-off locations for green waste and/or food waste at
recycling and transfer stations
– X –
• Continue operation of mulch facilities at WHSL and SHSL – – X
• Investigate organics collection programs, including a residential curbside collection
program and recycling and transfer station drop-off facilities. As part of this
investigation, perform pilot food waste demonstration projects with the potential
for eventual expansion into full-scale food waste management programs.
– – X
Ch 5 Education, Outreach, and Public Awareness
1. Implement a 3-year education and social marketing program to educate the public and
business community about landfill diversion initiatives and opportunities.
– – X
2. Conduct a waste management attitude residential survey. – X –
3. Ensure County has staffing levels commensurate with the needs of the public outreach
program.
– – X
Ch 6 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) / Electronic Waste (E-Waste)
1. Ensure enough staffing to operate HHW/ e-waste programs successfully. – – X
2. Implement HHW/ e-waste education, outreach, and public awareness program. – – X
3. Research and evaluate elements of successful e-waste/ HHW programs implemented in other
jurisdictions and integrate those successes into the County’s program
– X –
4. Explore e-waste take-back programs with State and manufacturers/sellers – X –
• Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to mandate and manage take-back programs for specific types of e-waste.
– X –
• Coordinate with other counties and the State to develop and implement e-waste EPR take-back programs.
– X –
• Coordinate with local retailers to facilitate implementation of take-back programs for e-waste.
– X –
• Assess legislative actions that may be necessary to improve e-waste programs
including demanufacturing, storage and handling, and funding equity.
– X –
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit ES-1. Prioritization of Plan Recommendations (continued)
August 2019 ES-9
Chapter Program Low Moderate High
5. Conduct additional HHW collection events (10 to 12 additional per year) – – X
6. Explore legislative actions for hazardous products and packaging take-back programs. – X –
• Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to mandate and
manage take-back programs for specific types of hazardous waste or packaging.
– X –
• Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to facilitate storage and handling
of hazardous products and packaging at various types of collection locations, and
funding equity.
– X –
7. Explore a public-private partnership for a local e-waste campaign (on-island demanufacturing). – X –
Ch 7 Special Waste
1. Continue to integrate a Do-It-Yourself Used Motor Oil program within the County’s public education and information program. – – X
2. Increase the number of Recycling and Transfer Stations that accept white goods. Continue to
explore the feasibility of removing the freon at the site to simplify the handling, loading, and
transport of white goods.
– X –
4. Continue to ensure that recycling facilities responsible for dismantling of white goods are trained properly for the recovery and recycling of Freon-containing appliances. – X –
3. Continue to promote tire recycling best management practices within the County’s public
education and information program.
– – X
Ch 8 Collection and Transfer
1. Retain the County’s system of recycling and transfer stations; however, also explore
alternative funding methods via a feasibility study as discussed in Chapter 3
recommendations (Recommendation 2).
– – X
2. Reconstruct one or more recycling and transfer stations annually. – X –
3. Consider ‘Satellite’ compaction units for recyclables at select stations – – X
4. Reduce operating hours at recycling and transfer stations and consider closing one or more
stations. – X –
5. Change County code to allow small businesses to drop off recyclables at recycling and
transfer stations.
– – X
6. Conduct an operational efficiency analysis to lower costs. – – X
Ch 9 Residuals Management
1. Consider recovery and treatment technology (e.g., waste to energy (WTE), pyrolysis) if: (1)
other waste diversion approaches (e.g., proposed compost facility in Hilo, shipping of market-
driven unrecyclable materials to the City and County of Honolulu) are cost prohibitive, (2) it
can be demonstrated that it is environmentally and economically feasible, and (3) the
technology has a verifiable and viable commercial track record (a minimum of 5 years) for
handling municipal solid waste.
– X –
2. Investigate the feasibility of a landfill with a sorting and reuse area for construction and
demolition materials.
– – X
3. Update infrastructure at the WHSL and EHRS. – X –
4. Engage in dialog with the State/Counties about joint solutions (e.g., Discuss with City and
County of Honolulu, the shipping of market-driven unrecyclable materials to their H-Power
WTE plant).
– – X
Ch 10 Administration and Funding
1. Prepare a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis. – X –
2. Regularly review, and when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract. – – X
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
This update to the County of Hawaiʻi Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (the Plan) presents the
County’s existing waste management practices and programs, explores opportunities for
implementation of waste diversion policies and practices, and outlines potential options and
recommendations for improving the waste management program. In addition, the Plan presents
information on the status of active and closed landfills, historical information regarding the County’s
evaluation of waste reduction technology alternatives during the past decade, and closure of South Hilo
Sanitary Landfill (SHSL) and transitioning to solid waste disposal wholly at the West Hawaiʻi Sanitary
Landfill (WHSL). The County of Hawaiʻi (the County) produced this Plan in accordance with the
requirements of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes Chapter 342G (HRS 342G).
The information in the Plan is organized by chapter according to HRS 342G. Each chapter contains a brief
summary of the previous plan’s recommendations and a summary of their implementation status, a
description of the County’s existing waste management practices and conditions, a description of
options available to the County for improvement of the waste management program, and
recommendations for implementation for the next 10-years.
Development of this Plan update was guided by an 8-member Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC),
appointed by the Mayor. SWAC members participated in 13 meetings at which they reviewed the draft
Plan chapters, debated key issues, developed plan goals (see Section 1.1 below), and shaped
recommendations. In addition, input was requested from the public in a variety of forums including
monthly SWAC meetings; routine posting of all draft documents, agendas, and meeting minutes to the
County’s online records archive; and two public hearings and the public comment period to the draft
Plan. Appendix A includes the meeting minutes from the monthly SWAC meetings held during the Plan
update process.
The key recommendations included in this Plan update have consensus support from the SWAC and are
intended to balance the many interests of the various stakeholders within the County. The County has
taken the top recommendations developed during this process and will keep the stakeholders in mind as
these recommendations are implemented. This Plan update includes individual chapters that cover
various waste management topics as stipulated in HRS 342G. It also includes responses to comments
received from the State of Hawaiʻi Department of Health (HDOH) and the public (Appendix G) through
the draft review process. It was adopted by the County Council on X, X, XXX and received final approval
by HDOH on X, X, XXXX.
1.1 Goals of the Solid Waste Management Plan Update
This Plan presents not only recommendations, it also presents a vision for solid waste management
within the County for the next few decades. Consideration was given to the current state of waste
management technology in the United States and internationally, the history of waste management
practices in the County, and an assessment of successful waste management practices in other
jurisdictions. The objective was to develop County-wide solutions that consider the desires of the many
stakeholders, while balancing the fiscal realities of implementing the selected programs. It was
recognized that selected programs must be both implementable and sustainable to be successful. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
1-2 August 2019
The following goal statement and the goals that follow were developed during a series of meetings and
adopted unanimously by members of the County’s SWAC.
“The people of the County of Hawaiʻi understand they are a part of the global
community and can create a model for others. They value the environment, healthy
social relationships, fiscal prudence, and long-term goals coupled with specific, local
accomplishments. The following long-term goals will guide us as we develop an
implementable Plan.”
The goals presented below were used to guide the development of waste management options and the
resulting recommendations of this Plan update.
• Sustainability. To ensure that programs and actions meet the environmental, economic, and
social equity needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs.
• Increase Landfill Diversion. The County views waste as an inefficient use of resources, and seeks
to lessen discards to landfills by reducing waste, reusing (and repairing) still good stuff, and
recycling/composting by all County residents, visitors, businesses, and institutions.
• Efficient and Affordable. To balance funds available for managing solid waste with other County
priorities, the Plan identifies programs that get the best value (‘bang for the buck’) for County
ratepayers and taxpayers.
• Minimize Environmental Impacts. To improve the environment and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, the Plan emphasizes transportation efficiencies, supports material reuse and
recycling, and minimizes organic materials sent to the landfill.
• Litter-free. To eliminate illegal dumping on public and private lands, the Plan includes
legislation, education, and outreach programs.
• Sound Finances with Appropriate Incentives. To include financial incentives that will increase
landfill diversion, such as pay-as-you-throw (PAYT), while ensuring that the Solid Waste Division
(SWD) has enough funds to pay for the services it provides.
• Customer Service. To share aloha as well as information.
The goals listed above are intended to support all aspects of Plan implementation, including the
following:
• Policy. In County legislation and support for state legislation.
• Funding. Move towards diversifying funding sources.
• Operations. Reuse and recycling, household hazardous waste collection, residuals management,
recycling and transfer stations, and special events.
• Regulatory/Legal. Consistency and compliance with all federal, state, and County requirements.
• Education and Outreach. For County employees, residents, visitors, businesses, and institutions.
• Management and Employee Safety. Working in partnership with the United Public Workers
Union and the Hawaiʻi Government Employees Association.
The County acknowledges that the updates to this Plan could be challenging and will require a
significant amount of public education and stakeholder participation to be successful. The integrated
approach to solid waste management utilized by the County, the SWAC, and all contributors address the
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 1-3
overarching waste management goals of the community. The County will continue to foster
collaboration among the stakeholders for the implementation and ultimate success of the Plan.
1.2 Plan Implementation
With uncertainties regarding the recycling market, and the outcome of programs planned for operation
early in the planning period (e.g., shipping residual waste exclusively to the WHSL, opening of a new
organic composting facility in Kea’au), this Plan does not outline funding projections for the 10-year
planning timeframe. Instead, as described in Chapter 10 (Administration, Funding, and Implementation),
the County would:
1. Continue the current system of funding most operating expenditures using property taxes and
tip fees in the near term.
2. Study new funding strategies (e.g., PAYT, Enterprise Fund) to assess market fluctuations and
uncertainties, and to achieve less reliance on the general fund as aligned with Plan
recommendations.
3. Continue to fund major capital expenditures through general obligation bonds.
An initial draft Plan was distributed to stakeholders in December 2018 for comment, and a final draft
was made available to the public for a 60-day public comment period during X 2019. The draft plan was
then modified based on subsequent meetings with the SWAC and key staff with the County Department
of Environmental Management, SWD; comments received at public hearings during X 2019; and written
comments received during the 2-month public comment period. Comments and responses are included
in Appendix G.
1.3 Organization of this Plan
This Plan is organized into the chapters listed below. Each chapter contains a summary of the existing
conditions and waste management practices related to the specific topic covered, potential issues or
concerns, and options that the County may consider to improve the program. Each chapter concludes
with recommendations for implementation during the next 10 years.
• Chapter 2: Waste Stream Assessment. Provides an assessment of the County waste stream
including background information about population and employment, historical and forecast
waste generation, recycling, and disposal, as well as information about waste composition.
• Chapter 3: Source Reduction. Discusses existing source reduction activities within the County,
identifies current issues and concerns with respect to current source reduction practices, and
presents options and recommendations for achieving further source reduction.
• Chapter 4: Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets. Describes existing recycling and
bioconversion activities within the County; identifies current issues and concerns with respect to
current recycling, bioconversion, and marketing practices; and presents options and
recommendations for achieving the County’s recycling and bioconversion goals.
• Chapter 5: Public Education and Information. Discusses existing public education activities
within the County, identifies current issues and concerns with respect to public education, and
presents options and recommendations that will help enhance educational opportunities.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
1-4 August 2019
• Chapter 6: Household Hazardous Waste and Electronic Waste. Describes the current status of
the household hazardous waste (HHW) and electronic waste (e-waste) collection and disposal
system within the County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents options and
recommendations for achieving the County’s HHW and e-waste goals.
• Chapter 7: Special Waste. Defines special wastes and describes existing conditions, potential
improvements, and recommendations for special wastes including asbestos, used oil,
petroleum-contaminated soil, used batteries, sewage sludge, agricultural and farm-generated
waste, medical waste, used tires, white goods, and derelict vehicles.
• Chapter 8: Collection and Transfer. Describes current conditions of the existing solid waste
collection and transfer system within the County, identifies current issues and concerns, and
presents options and recommendations for achieving the County’s solid waste collection and
transfer goals.
• Chapter 9: Residuals Management. Provides current conditions of the existing residuals
management system within the County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents
options and recommendations for managing the residuals remaining after source reduction,
reuse, and recycling.
• Chapter 10: Administration, Funding, and Implementation. Discusses current conditions of the
existing administration and funding within the County, identifies current issues and concerns,
presents options currently under consideration by the County, and provides recommendations
for implementation.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 2-1
2. WASTE STREAM ASSESSMENT
2.1 Introduction
This chapter assesses the County waste stream, including background information about population and
employment, historical and forecast waste generation, recycling, disposal, waste stream projections, as
well as information about waste composition.
2.2 Population and Employment
This section provides historical and forecast information about population and employment in the
County. These variables, along with other factors such as increases in tourism and construction activity,
are elements that contribute to increases in waste generation within the County.
Historical resident and de facto population for the County is shown in Exhibit 2-1. The de facto
population is a measure used by the State of Hawaiʻi to account for the effects of tourism1. As shown,
the resident population of Hawaiʻi was 198,449 in 2016. The average annual resident growth has
decreased since 2000, with a peak average annual growth of 2.8 percent between 2000 and 2005 to a
more modest growth between 2010 and 2015 (1.2 percent). The ratio of de facto versus resident
population has remained consistent through the years.
Exhibit 2-1. Estimated Historical Population, Hawaiʻi County
Yeara
Persons Average Annual Growth Ratio
De Facto/
Resident Resident De Facto Resident De Facto
2000 148,677 167,063 – – –
2005 168,237 188,612 2.8% 2.0% 1.12
2010 185,079 202,682 1.9% 2.0% 1.09
2015 196,156 220,070 1.2% 1.7% 1.12
2016 198,449 222,485 0.6% 0.5% 1.12
a Source: State of Hawaiʻi Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (2016). Table 01.06 Resident Population, by County: 2000-2016
and Table 1.09 De Facto Population, by County: 2000 to 2016.
Exhibit 2-2 provides a forecast of Hawaiʻi resident population growth through the year 2040 in each of
the County’s nine council districts, and summaries for West Hawaiʻi and East Hawaiʻi. As shown, future
population growth is projected to be slow. This is also the same for the de facto population estimates,
which are projected to exceed resident population growth at a rate of 1.6 percent compared to
1.3 percent annual growth through 2020, and then is expected to follow the same growth rate
thereafter (through 2040).
1 De facto population is defined as the number of persons physically present in an area, regardless of military
status or usual place of residence. It includes visitors present but excludes residents temporarily absent.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
2-2 August 2019
Exhibit 2-2. Resident Population Forecast by District, Hawaiʻi County
District
2010 Census
(base year)1 2010-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 2035-2040
East Hawaiʻi
Hāmākua 6,513 6,871 7,421 8,091 8,576 9,048 9,500
Puna 42,326 44,654 47,556 52,578 55,733 58,798 61,738
North Hilo 2,041 2,153 2,326 2,535 2,687 2,835 2,977
South Hilo 50,927 53,728 58,026 63,262 67,058 70,746 74,284
South Kona 9,997 10,547 11,391 12,418 13,164 13,888 14,582
West Hawaiʻi
Ka’u 8,451 8,916 9,629 10,498 11,128 11,740 12,327
North Kohala 6,322 6,670 7,203 7,853 8,324 8,782 9,221
North Kona 37,875 39,958 43,155 47,049 49,872 52,615 55,246
South Kohala 17,627 18,596 20,084 21,897 23,210 24,487 25,711
Total 176,750 186,471 201,389 219,562 232,735 245,536 257,813
East Hawaiʻi 105,287 111,078 119,964 130,789 138,637 146,262 153,575
West Hawaiʻi 71,463 75,393 81,425 88,772 94,099 99,274 104,238
Forecasted Average Annual Growth Rate – 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0%
1 Baseline 2010 population by district, obtained from the Hawaiʻi Statewide GIS program (metadata source: US Census Bureau [2010]).
Source: State of Hawaiʻi Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (2018a). The 2010 population by district were multiplied by the County resident annual growth rate from the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism Table A-3. Hawaii County Population Projection, Selected
Components, 2010-2045.
Historical employment in the County is shown in Exhibit 2-3. Employment has grown in recent years,
from 79,100 in 2010 to 88,150 in 2016. The average annual 1.8 percent growth (2010 to 2016) in
employment exceeds the County’s average resident average annual population growth (1.2 percent)
during that same time frame.
Forecasted employment for the County is shown in Exhibit 2-4. Employment is forecast to increase at an
annual rate of 1.4 percent between 2020 and 2025, at an annual rate of 1.3 percent between 2025 and
2030, and dropping to an annual rate of 1.1 percent by 2040.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 2-3
Exhibit 2-3. Historical Civilian Employment in Hawaiʻi County
Year Civilian Employment
1980 40,850
1985 46,150
1990 56,150
1995 58,600
2000 70,150
2005 78,000
2010 79,100
2015 84,800
2016 88,150
Average Annual Growth
1980-1985 2.5%
1985-1990 4.0%
1990-1995 0.9%
1995-2000 3.7%
2000-2005 2.1%
2005-2010 0.3%
2010-2016 1.8%
Source: Hawaiʻi Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (2018b). Historical employment data spanning 1980–2016. Table A-30.
Total Civilian Jobs, Labor Force, and Employment for Hawaiʻi County, 1980-2016.
Exhibit 2-4. Forecasted Civilian Employment in Hawaiʻi County
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
To
t
a
l
C
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
J
o
b
s
YearsDra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
2-4 August 2019
2.3 Generation, Disposal, and Recycling
2.3.1 Historical
Historical generation, recycling, and disposal for the County, and the resulting diversion rates are shown
in Exhibits 2-5 and 2-6. Generation is the sum of recycling and disposal. As shown, since estimated fiscal
year (FY)2 2009–10, both recycling and disposal in the County have changed substantially. Recycling
tonnage reported to the County by local businesses and the amount of recyclables managed by the
County decreased from a 36.1 percent diversion rate in FY 2009–10 to 20.8 percent in FY 2017–18, and
disposal increased from 155,682 tons to 224,196 tons over the same period. Review of the County’s
annual solid waste disposal summaries dating back to FY 2009–10 shows a decrease in metal recycling
starting in FY 2012–13. The County-contracted scrap metal recycling facilities were required to remove
their stockpiles prior to permit expiration. With the facilities no longer in operation, the County limited
the scrap metal they would accept and diverted scrap metal to the private sector; thus, there is a
marked decrease in subsidized scrap metal recycling following FY 2012–13. For example, in FY 2014–15,
County data show 5,757 tons of scrap metal recycled, which is 10.0 percent of the total
recycling/diversion tonnage. In comparison, County data show 35,240 tons or 39.0 percent of the total
volume diverted or recycled in FY 2011–12. Therefore, although the recycling and diversion rates appear
to have decreased, this number is skewed because the County began sending most of the scrap metal
recycling to the private sector starting in 2013. Finally, Exhibits 2-5 and 2-6 do not account for non-
County-sponsored (private) recycling or diversions. These could include big-box stores (e.g., Costco,
Walmart) that ship combined bales of cardboard and plastic to either the West Coast to third-party
brokers or to the retailer’s distribution center. Contractors or non-profit groups also sell recycled
materials directly to brokers on the mainland.
Exhibit 2-5. Historical Generation, Recycling/Diversion, and Disposal and
Estimated Diversion Rate, Hawaiʻi County
Fiscal Year Generation Recycling/Diversion Disposal Recycling/Diversion Rate
2009–2010 243,719 88,037 155,682 36.1%
2010–2011 234,308 67,854 166,454 29.0%
2011–2012 243,457 90,508 152,949 37.2%
2012–2013 235,483 79,029 156,455 33.6%
2013–2014 221,915 55,025 166,890 24.8%
2014–2015 239,052 60,028 179,024 25.1%
2015–2016 246,679 57,921 188,758 23.5%
2016–2017 259,472 64,309 195,162 24.8%
2017–2018 283, 021 58,825 224,196 20.8%
Percent Change between FY
2009–10 and FY 2017–18
14.0% 1.6% 44.0% -48.0%
Average Annual Percent Change 2.0% 2.5% 4.6% -6.4%
Source: Multi-year data provided by County of Hawaiʻi DEM, Solid Waste Division.
Note: The table does not account for non-County-sponsored (private) recycling or diversions. These could include big-box stores (e.g., Costco, Walmart) that ship combined bales of cardboard and plastic to either the West Coast to third-party brokers or to the retailer’s distribution center. Contractors or nonprofit groups also sell recycled materials directly to brokers on the mainland.
2 The County fiscal year is from July 1 to June 30.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 2-5
Exhibit 2-6. Historical Generation, Recycling, and Disposal for Hawaiʻi County
As reported in the 2009 Plan, the 2008 resident and de facto population of the County generated
9.4 pounds and 8.3 pounds of solid waste per capita per day, respectively. Using the same methodology
as the 2009 Plan3, comparatively, 2016 waste generation dropped to 7.1 pounds and 6.4 pounds per
capita per day for respective resident and de facto populations. The reduction in pounds per day could
be attributed to the County’s adoption of the zero waste philosophy in 2008 aimed at significantly
reducing the volume of generated solid waste. For instance, the County has opened eight new reuse
locations where residents may donate household items for resale, thus reducing tonnage values for
disposal or recycling. The County also added a new convenience center (Ocean View), increased
opportunities for scrap metal recycling and yard waste collection at recycling and transfer stations, and
added two new facilities for processing green waste on both the east and west sides of the island.
Exhibit 2-7 provides a breakdown of total waste discarded at County recycling and transfer stations and
total commercial waste delivered directly to landfills between FY 2009–10 and FY 2017–18 for West and
East Hawaiʻi. As shown, disposal at recycling and transfer stations has grown faster in West Hawaiʻi
(approximately 35 percent) than in East Hawaiʻi (approximately 12 percent) during this period.
Commercial disposal has increased substantially over the past 9 years, experiencing percent change of
approximately 83 percent in West Hawaiʻi and approximately 19 percent in East Hawaiʻi. Commercial
waste comprises approximately 59 percent, while waste from recycling and transfer stations comprise
approximately 41 percent of the total disposed waste County-wide. Commercial waste accounts for a
much larger share of the total waste sent to landfill in West Hawaiʻi (approximately 70 percent) than in
East Hawaiʻi (approximately 48 percent).
3 Estimated 2016 solid waste generation divided by estimated 2016 resident population and estimated 2016 de facto population. Table 2-2 provides a breakdown of the estimated resident and de facto populations from 2000-2016.
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2009 –
2010
2010 –
2011
2011 –
2012
2012 –
2013
2013 –
2014
2014 –
2015
2015 –
2016
2016 –
2017
2017 –
2018
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
/
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Axis Title
Generation Recycling/ Diversion Disposal Recyling/ Diversion Rate
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
2-6 August 2019
Exhibit 2-7. Historical Disposal at Recycling and Transfer Stations and Commercial Customers
for West and East Hawaiʻi (in tons)
West Hawaiʻi East Hawaiʻi Total County
Fiscal Year
Recycling/
Transfer Stations Commercial
Recycling/
Transfer Stations Commercial
Recycling/
Transfer Stations Commercial
2009–2010 34,295 55,961 34,525 30,902 68,820 86,863
2010–2011 35,417 67,592 32,421 31,025 67,838 98,617
2011–2012 39,303 51,880 28,018 33,749 67,321 85,629
2012–2013 35,898 55,628 31,688 33,240 67,586 88,868
2013–2014 38,358 61,955 33,640 32,936 71,998 94,891
2014–2015 42, 162 64,442 35,016 37,404 77,178 101,846
2015–2016 44,000 70,967 36,529 37,262 80,529 108,229
2016–2017 46,022 76,892 35,956 36,291 81,978 113,183
2017–2018 46,442 102,442 38,737 36,606 85,179 139,048
Percent Change
between FY 2009–10
and FY 2017–18
35.4 % 83.1% 12.2% 18.5% 23.8% 60.1%
Average Annual
Percent Change 4.0% 6.4% 2.5% 2.2% 2.4% 5.8%
Note: Commercial includes waste delivered directly to landfills by commercial haulers, and some businesses, institutions, and residents. Source: Multi-year data provided by County of Hawaiʻi DEM, Solid Waste Division.
Historical generation in tons, resident and de facto population, and pounds per capita per day are
presented in Exhibit 2-8. As shown, the overall trend over the past 9 years through FY 2017–18 has been
minimal in all these variables (average annual change for all variables is equal to or less than 2.0 percent).
Exhibit 2-8. Historical Generation Trends in Hawaiʻi County
Fiscal Year
Generation
(tons) 1
Resident
Population2,3 Pounds/Capita/Day4
De Facto
Population2 Pounds/Capita/Day4
2009–2010 243,719 183,629 7.3 199,047 6.7
2010–2011 234,308 185,079 7.1 202,682 6.3
2011–2012 243,457 186,933 7.1 205,570 6.5
2012–2013 235,483 188,765 6.6 209,099 6.2
2013–2014 221,915 191,147 6.6 212,373 5.7
2014–2015 239,052 193,885 6.6 216,108 6.1
2015–2016 246,679 196,156 7.1 220,070 6.1
2016–2017 259,472 198,449 7.1 222,485 6.4
2017–2018 283,021 200,381 7.7 –5 –5
Percent Change between FY 2009–
10 and FY 2017–18
14.0% 9.1% 5.5% 11.7% -4.5%
Average Annual Percent Change 2.0% 1.1% -0.4 1.6% -0.5
1 Generation data for fiscal years 2009 through 2018 were derived from Annual Reports for Recycling and Diversion from all Transfer Stations and Recycling
Programs, provided by County of Hawaiʻi DEM, Solid Waste Division.
2 a Source: State of Hawaiʻi Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (2016). Table 01.06 Resident Population, by County: 2000-2016
and Table 1.09 De Facto Population, by County: 2000 to 2016.
3 FY 2017-2018 data estimated from U.S. Census Bureau (2018a).
4 Pounds per capita is the annual total generation divided by the annual de facto population.
5 Data available at the time (Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism) do not go beyond 2016 for de facto population.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 2‐7
FY 2017–18 disposal totals specific to each of the County’s 22 recycling and transfer stations are shown
in Exhibit 2‐9. Total disposal during 2018 at recycling and transfer stations ranged from a low of 509 tons
at the Kalapana station, to a high of 15,592 tons at the Hilo station.
Exhibit 2‐9. FY 2017–18 Disposal by Recycling and Transfer Station
Recycling and Transfer Stations Tons Percent of Subtotal Percent of Total
East Hawaiʻi
East Hawaiʻi Regional Sort StaƟon 1,192 2.5 1.4
Glenwood 1,907 4.1 2.2
Hilo 15,592 33.1 18.3
Honoka`a 4,154 8.8 4.9
Honomū 983 2.1 1.2
Kalapana 509 1.1 0.6
Kea`au 9,211 19.6 10.8
Laupāhoehoe 1,045 2.2 1.2
Pa`auilo 771 1.6 1.0
Pāhala 1,087 2.3 1.3
Pāhoa 7,318 15.5 8.6
Pāpa`ikou 1,597 3.4 1.9
Volcano 1,366 2.9 1.6
Other 330 0.7 0.4
Subtotal (East Hawaiʻi) 47,062 100.0% 55.3%
West Hawaiʻi
Ka`auhuhu (Hāwī) 4,247 11.1 5.0
Kealakehe (Kailua‐Kona) 12,089 31.7 14.2
Keauhou 5,922 15.5 7.0
Ke`ei/Nāpo`pop`o 1,276 3.3 1.5
Miloli`i 687 1.8 0.8
Puakō 2,011 5.3 2.4
Waiea 1084 2.8 1.3
Waimea 6,586 17.3 7.7
Wai`ōhinu/ Ka`u 3,496 9.2 4.1
Other 713 1.9 0.8
Subtotal (West Hawaiʻi) 38,111 100.0% 44.7%
Total 85,173 100.0%
Source: County of Hawaiʻi County DEM.
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
2-8 August 2019
2.3.2 20-Year Projection
To plan for future solid waste management needs, projections are made using a generation forecast
model. The County prepared the 20-year projection by examining forecasted de facto population, past
generation and diversion trends, and potential changes to those trends (Exhibit 2-10). The de facto
generation estimate for 2016 was applied as the baseline for disposal tonnage. The diversion rate
estimate (29 percent = average of approximately 5 pounds/day/per person) is based on the median
diversion rate from FY 2009 through FY 2017. The implementation of additional diversion programs and
other outside factors have the potential to increase or decrease the diversion rate in coming years
beyond the average annual diversion rate. These factors could include:
• Market stagnation. For example, China has recently set new limits on imported recycled
materials, significantly decreasing the amount of recycling accepted.
• Economic trends. An economic upturn typically results in increased waste generation, as well
with a waste generation decrease during an economic downturn. Because Hawaiʻi is a popular
vacation destination, economic trends can be particularly influential.
• County-wide reduction efforts. Ongoing efforts by the County and residents, businesses, and
institutions to reduce waste may help moderate waste generation in the future (i.e., yard waste
mulching facilities introduced during the last planning period).
• Availability of curbside collection infrastructure.
• Availability of educational program funding.
• Improvements to diversion rate calculations. Non-County program recycling – big box stores, for
example.
• Investment in new technology. For example, potential for privately- or publicly-funded recovery
and treatment facility (e.g., waste to energy [WTE], pyrolysis).
Because of the unpredictability of market and economic trends, Exhibit 2-10 shows a conservative
increased diversion rate of 8 percent through 2039. This is based on the potential for increased
diversion when the proposed compost facility is in operation (estimated for operation in 2020, see
Chapter 4 for further details). The waste composition study performed in 2008 estimated 16.3
percent of the waste going into the landfill as food waste (see Section 2.4 Waste Composition). Eight
percent conservatively represents a diversion of half of this total. This 8.0 percent diversion rate is
extended through 2039. Detailed data for Exhibit 2-10 are provided in Appendix C. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 2-9
Exhibit 2-10. Projected Disposal with 8 Percent Increase in Recycling/Diversion 2020- 2039
2.4 Waste Composition
Hawaiʻi County conducted a waste composition study in 2008, included as Appendix D (CH2M Hill 2008).
That study includes composition estimates for the overall waste stream and results broken down by
recycling and transfer station, commercial, and self-haul wastes4 disposed at the landfill. The results are
based on samples taken at the WHSL during May 2008. A similar study was performed at the SHSL in
2001 (Cascadia Consulting Group 2001). Results of the 2008 and 2001 waste composition studies and
the 2008 disposal data were combined to estimate the composition of waste that enters both landfills.
The results are combined to provide waste composition estimates for the total County disposal.
Exhibits 2-11, 2-12, and 2-13 show disposed composition estimates for nine waste categories for the
entire County, for West Hawaiʻi, and for East Hawaiʻi, respectively. When combined, organics and paper
comprise more than half of the waste stream. The organics category contains such components as food,
green waste, and textiles. Construction and demolition waste accounts for another 22.0 percent by
weight. The construction and demolition category includes such components as lumber and gypsum scrap.
The composition of waste disposed in West Hawaiʻi is similar to the composition of disposed waste in
East Hawaiʻi. Two differences that merit mention: 1) there are more organics disposed of in West
Hawaiʻi (35.3 percent) than in East Hawaiʻi (29.6 percent); and 2) there is more special waste disposed of
in East Hawaiʻi (5.2 percent) than in West Hawaiʻi (1.9 percent). Most of the special wastes disposed of
in East Hawaiʻi consist of industrial sludge, bulky items, and tires.
The waste stream study includes the amount of waste disposed for 58 different types of waste. County-
wide composition estimates for all 58 waste components evaluated during the study are shown in
Exhibit 2-14.
4 Self-haul refers to waste delivered directly to the landfill (as opposed to a recycling and transfer station).
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
PO
P
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
/
T
O
N
N
A
G
E
YEAR
Projected De Facto Population
Total Generation without Increased (8%) Diversion/ Recycling Rate
Total Generation with Increased (8%) Diversion/ Recycling Rate
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
2-10 August 2019
Exhibit 2-11. Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category for the Total County
Exhibit 2-12. Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category for West Hawaiʻi
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 2-11
Exhibit 2-13. Disposed Composition Estimates by Waste Category for East Hawaiʻi
Exhibit 2-14. Disposed Composition Estimates: Total County
Composition
Tons
Disposed
Percent of
Total Composition
Tons
Disposed
Percent of
Total
Paper 47,130 22.4% Construction and Demolition 46,702 22.2%
Cardboard 16,182 7.7% Concrete 5,128 2.4%
Bags 723 0.3% Asphalt Paving 2,212 1.1%
Newspaper 4,193 2.0% Asphalt Roofing 381 0.2%
White Ledger 1,540 0.7% Clean and Treated Lumber 22,984 10.9%
Colored Ledger 280 0.1% Gypsum Board 1,471 0.7%
Computer 92 0.0% Rocks and Soil 1,707 0.8%
Office 1,510 0.7% R/C Demo 12,819 6.1%
Magazines 2,424 1.2% Household Hazardous 527 0.3%
Directories 109 0.1% Paint 171 0.1%
Miscellaneous 8,634 4.1% Vehicle Fluids 20 0.0%
R/C Paper 11,443 5.4% Oil 54 0.0%
Glass 4,592 2.2% Batteries 117 0.1%
Clear Containers 1,476 0.7% R/C Hazardous 165 0.1%
Green Containers 1,296 0.6% Special 6,762 3.2%
Brown Containers 1,024 0.5% Ash 93 0.0%
Other Containers 307 0.1% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0%
Flat Glass 160 0.1% Industrial Sludge 2,826 1.3%
R/C Glass 329 0.2% Treated Medical 139 0.1%
Metal 16,388 7.8% Bulky Items 2,177 1.0%
Aluminum Cans 565 0.3% Tires 1,124 0.5%
Tin Cans 1,525 0.7% R/C Special 404 0.2%
Ferrous 7,441 3.5% Mixed 997 0.5%
Nonferrous 504 0.2% Mixed Residue 997 0.5%
White Goods 742 0.4%
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit 2-14. Disposed Composition Estimates for the Total County (continued)
2-12 August 2019
Composition Tons Disposed Percent of Total Composition Tons Disposed Percent of Total
R/C Metal 5,611 2.7%
Plastic 17,482 8.3%
#1 Containers 1,067 0.5%
#2 Containers 882 0.4%
Other Containers 818 0.4%
Film 6,170 2.9%
Durable 4,002 1.9%
R/C Plastic 4,543 2.2%
Organics 69,448 33.1%
Food 34,230 16.3%
Textiles 5,485 2.6%
Leaves and Grass 6,160 2.9%
Prunings 7,057 3.4%
Stumps 2,637 1.3%
Crop Residue 3 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0%
R/C Organic 13,875 6.6%
Total Tons 210,030
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 3-1
3. SOURCE REDUCTION
3.1 Introduction
Source reduction adopts practices that generate less waste. Source reduction strategies include changes
in product design and packaging, reduction of consumer purchases, and the reuse of materials or goods.
By decreasing the amount of waste that must be disposed of, waste reduction programs decrease the
environmental issues associated with waste disposal. Reusing a grocery bag, buying materials in bulk,
and reselling or donating unwanted and still usable materials or products are typical examples of
waste reduction.
This chapter describes the County’s source reduction activities, identifies current issues and concerns with
respect to current source reduction practices, and presents options for achieving further source reduction.
3.2 Background
3.2.1 Regulatory Context
As described in the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes Chapter 342G (HRS 342G), each County is required to
consider solid waste management practices and processing methods in the following order of priority:
1. Source reduction.
2. Recycling and bioconversion (including composting).
3. Landfilling and incineration.
HRS 342G-3 established a 25 percent waste reduction goal by 1995, and a 50 percent goal by 2000
through source reduction, recycling, and bioconversion.
Recycling and bioconversion practices were first detailed in the original Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan created in 1993 and in subsequent updated plans. In 2003, the County passed a
resolution with a goal to divert 50 percent of the solid waste from landfills by 2008 and 80 percent by 2013.
3.2.2 Resolution 356-07 (Zero Waste)
In 2007, the County adopted Resolution 356-07, “A Resolution to Embrace and Adopt the Principles of
Zero Waste as a Long-term Goal for Hawaiʻi County.” The resolution embraces the zero waste
philosophy of solid waste management and commits to taking the necessary steps to incorporate the
zero waste philosophy into legislation, policies, and actions.
The zero waste philosophy is based on the concept that current standards of waste management are
inefficient and unsustainable, and that waste can be virtually eliminated by emulating sustainable
natural cycles, where all discarded materials are treated as resources that can effectively be reused. It is
a whole-system approach that emphasizes a closed-loop production and consumption system by
1) reducing the volume and toxicity of waste through product and packaging redesign strategies;
2) reusing materials and products for alternative uses, as well as for their original intended use; and
3) recycling and composting all remaining materials for their best use. Within the zero waste framework,
materials that cannot be easily and conveniently reduced, reused, recycled, or composted are returned
to the manufacturer, who is ultimately responsible for product disposal. The zero waste approach
includes aggressive education of public and private entities because consumer choices are considered to
be the driving force in changing consumption and disposal patterns.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
3-2 August 2019
With a focus on eliminating waste at the source, one of the fundamental principles of zero waste is
redesigning products and packaging, by considering the entire life cycle of a product. In contrast to the
current emphasis on disposability, products and packaging within the zero waste framework are
designed with an emphasis on minimal use of materials, use of recycled and benign resources, longer
product lives, and maximum potential for every product to be repaired, reused, or recycled. Critical to
this principle is the concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR), a policy tool in which
manufacturers are held legally and financially responsible for the waste and environmental impact
associated with their product and packaging, rather than passing that responsibility on to the consumer.
Under EPR, manufacturers are mandated to ‘take back’ their end-of-life products and create closed
looped systems. As a result, EPR enforces design, production, and packaging strategies that consider the
quantity and type of materials required for production, product lifespan, and the ability with which
products can be disassembled and recycled.
In addition, zero waste emphasizes an aggressive combination of reuse, recycling, and composting.
Within the zero waste framework, all organic materials, including yard trimmings and food scraps, are
composted and treated as “biological nutrients” rather than being disposed of in landfills where they
can potentially contribute to future environmental liabilities. Instead of using revenues generated
through the tax base or other financial resources to build new landfills or incinerators, the zero waste
approach advocates for investment in recycling, composting, and reuse facilities, especially those that
accommodate the entire spectrum of reuse and recycling activities (for example, resource recovery
parks). By supporting the reuse and recycling of discarded products and materials, the zero waste
approach creates jobs and stimulates local economies. According to Eco-Cycle Solutions, recycling
creates an “average of ten times more jobs than trash [landfilling], composting creates at least twice as
many jobs as landfills, and reuse creates as many as 30 times more jobs than landfills” (Eco-Cycle
Solutions 2018). According to EPA’s 2016 Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report, recycling of
construction and demolition waste provides the largest contribution to job, wage, and tax revenue,
followed by ferrous and non-ferrous metals (EPA 2016a).
A Zero Waste Implementation Plan developed for the County in 2008 outlines suggested changes to the
way that solid waste is handled within the County (Recycle Hawaii 2009). As stated in Resolution 356-07,
the County recognizes “that zero waste is a long-term goal and that in the interim, programs may need
to be implemented that may be counter to the zero waste philosophy and are necessary to reach the
long-term goal of zero waste and that such programs should not be prohibited by the embracing and
adoption of the long-term goal of zero waste.” To this end, the components of the Zero Waste
Implementation Plan, which can be realistically achieved during the life span of this Plan, have been
incorporated into the Plan.
In conclusion, the County will continue to take incremental steps toward achieving zero waste in the
long term with the understanding that the ability to truly achieve zero waste is realistically challenging
for an island.
3.2.3 Review of 2009 Plan
Exhibit 3-1 provides a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2009 Integrated Resources and
Solid Waste Management Plan (2009 Plan) relative to source reduction, and a description of the actions
taken to achieve each recommendation.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 3‐3
Exhibit 3‐1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Source Reduction
2009 Plan Recommendation Status
Develop County policies or ordinances that
mandate certain actions be taken to reduce the
source of waste currently entering landfills.
2012‐01‐17 Ordinance 12‐1 Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance
adopted; 2013‐01‐17 implemented. 2017‐09‐29 Ordinance 17‐63
Polystyrene Disposable Food Service Ware Reduction Ordinance
adopted, to be implemented 2019‐07‐01.
Develop ordinances requiring that a waste
reduction plan be submitted.
Did not pass an ordinance; however, the County permit process
does require commercial, industrial, and multiple structure
demolition projects to develop solid waste demolition diversion
plans.
Develop EPR policy statements or resolutions. In 2007 the Solid Waste Division (SWD) drafted a resolution that
would mandate recycling at County offices. This has not yet been
implemented.
Implement a campaign to develop EPR for
difficult‐to‐recycle products.
Did not implement.
Implement a County government source
reduction program.
No staff available for program implementation.
Implement Pay‐as‐You‐Throw program or other
funding method.
Difficult to achieve a balanced community‐supported outcome in
advancing this recommendation.
Expand the current reuse program. The County has added additional reuse centers.
Expand reuse facilities. Added Hilo, Kealakehe, Pāhoa, and Wai‘ōhinu reuse centers; closed Ka`auhuhu (Hāwī) reuse center.
Develop public‐private partnerships. The County’s website, HawaiiZeroWaste.org, provides a listing of private reuse stores. The County contracted Recycle Hawaii to consult with large‐scale Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) construction sites to recommend how construction and demolition materials could be diverted from the landfill.
Expand and improve public education and awareness programs. No dedicated public education and awareness program since summer 2014. The County maintains the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website and provides facility tours, press releases, advertisements, and presentations.
Develop a business waste audit and education program. No staff available for audits. The County provides disposal and recycling information on the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website.
Develop a visitor industry waste reduction education program. No staff available for developing the visitor industry waste reduction education program. The County provides disposal and recycling information on the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website.
Develop a reuse education, outreach, and public
awareness campaign. Information is available on the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website
and Reuse Center vendors can promote program.
3.3 Existing Conditions
The status of source reduction efforts in the County is described below. This discussion includes 1) a
description of County‐operated or sponsored programs, 2) a description of other programs conducted
by private entities, and 3) an overview of County waste reduction staffing levels.
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
3-4 August 2019
3.3.1 County of Hawaiʻi Waste Reduction Programs
3.3.1.1 Backyard Composting
The County’s Zero Waste website includes links to guidance by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and other resources on backyard composting, and locations on the island where
vermiculture bins, worms, and accessories can be purchased.
3.3.1.2 Reuse Centers
Reuse centers are located at eight of the County’s recycling and transfer stations. The County contracts
out the management and operation of seven of these facilities, which include Kealakehe, Keauhou,
Waimea, Wai‘ōhinu, Hilo, Pāhoa, and Kea‘au. Laupāhoehoe is a volunteer-based facility. Materials
accepted are as follows:
• Furniture and furnishings.
• Working appliances (contingent on
space availability).
• Office equipment (non-computer or
electronics).
• Toys and baby items.
• Recreational items.
• Small kitchen appliances (e.g.,
electric coffee makers, toasters).
• Garden/farm items.
• Tools.
• Books, magazines, music and movie media (CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays, etc.).
• Crafts and craft supplies.
• School supplies.
• Clothing and fabric.
• Home construction and demolition materials (except for Kea’au, contingent on
space availability).
Items are available for free or sold at a modest price, and the revenue is used to partially fund operations
and education outreach programs. Reusable latex paint is collected at Hilo, Kea‘au, and Waimea reuse
centers. The latex paint collected at the select reuse centers and during designated household waste
collection events is sorted and available for purchase at a discount over the retail price of new paint.
Upon written approval from the County’s Contract Manager, the reuse center contractor may be allowed
to collect latex paint at additional reuse centers. No oil-based paint may be collected at any reuse centers
because it requires special handling. The reuse center contractor is also required to provide an area at
the Kea‘au and Hilo reuse centers to collect clean and dry reusable newspaper. The containers are
covered to store the newspaper, which is made into high-quality shredded material that is aesthetically
pleasing (e.g., flower growers use the clean and dry newspaper as packing material for island-grown
flowers shipped off-island). The Contractor must ensure that the newspaper is being reused.
Kea‘au Recycling and Transfer Station: Reuse Center
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 3-5
Exhibit 3-2 breaks down the tonnage of material recycled at reuse centers since FY 2009–10. The peak
timeframe for participation was FY 2017–18, which is likely due to the increased availability of facilities
(increased from one facility to eight facilities since FY 2009–10).
Exhibit 3-2. Tonnage Diverted at Reuse Centers FY 2009–10 to FY 2016–18
Year East Hawaiʻi (tons) West Hawaiʻi (tons) Total (tons)
2009–10 172.6 71.5 244.1
2010–11 206.9 148.7 355.6
2011–12 236.3 133.6 369.8
2012–13 241.0 145.3 386.3
2013–14 245.0 120.9 365.8
2014–15 275.2 69.8 345.0
2015–16 185.1 59.8 245.0
2016–17 182.2 58.6 240.8
2017–18 265.0 175.8 440.8
3.3.1.3 Reduction and Reuse Education
The County has an education program targeting waste reduction and reuse. Its main education
initiatives include:
• Information and resources provided through the County’s HawaiiZeroWaste.org website.
• Newspaper, radio, and television advertising.
• Brochures.
• Community outreach (e.g., promotion of zero waste event planning and reuse centers on
County’s HawaiiZeroWaste.org website).
• Community events.
• Sporting events.
• School programs (e.g., recycling site tours).
• Business education (e.g., HawaiiZeroWaste.org).
More information about these initiatives is provided in Chapter 5 Public Education and Information.
3.3.1.4 Solid Waste Demolition Diversion Plan
The County Department of Environmental Management (DEM) currently works with the County
Department of Public Works (DPW) and County Planning Department to assist developers with large
projects in finding alternative ways to dispose of demolition waste other than the landfill. The County
DEM also routinely comments on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessments
(EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs) for development projects, advising the project
proponents to consult with the DEM to determine the best way to dispose of demolition waste. The
DEM’s comments on NEPA environmental documentation often result in projects that are committed to
alternative methods of handling demolition waste in lieu of landfilling.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
3-6 August 2019
Common materials recycled through this program include roofing, steel posts, and gutters. Concrete
rubble from foundations or other structures is usually reused as fill material and road subgrade once the
rebar is removed. Asphalt, otherwise called “reclaimed asphalt pavement” is reused in asphalt
pavement mixtures, road base course, or utility backfill.
3.3.1.5 Procurement Policies
Public sector procurement can help reduce waste, foster reuse of products, and stimulate markets for
recyclable materials and compost. In addition, these procurement policies can serve as a model for
other entities, including private sector businesses and institutions.
Pursuant to HRS 342G-41-44, the County has a policy to “give preference to vendors who utilize
products with recycled content,” when purchasing paper and plastic materials (for example, office
paper, printed materials, plastic bags, and so forth), and has a policy to make double-sided copying
standard practice at County offices.
3.3.1.6 E-Waste Producer “Take-Back” Program
As of 2010, the state of Hawaiʻi legislature enacted Act 13 to encourage recycling of electronics, and
mandated manufacturers to establish, conduct and manage take-back recycling programs for “covered
electronic devices” (CEDs). Act 13 was revised in 2011 to include “covered televisions” (CTVs) [herein
referenced as e-waste]. The HDOH is responsible for implementing the program. County public
awareness campaigns educate residents on e-waste programs and promote collection events. The
County contracts for the collection of e-waste products, which are then shipped off island for proper
disposal or treatment. See Chapter 6 Household Hazardous Waste and Electronic Waste for more
information related to the e-waste take-back program.
As described in Section 3.3.1.2, seven reuse centers throughout the County allow residents to drop off
unwanted and still useful non-e-waste electronics such as small kitchen appliances for purchase at a
nominal fee.
3.3.1.7 Product Bans
Since the 2009 Plan, the County regulates the use of plastic bags and polystyrene foam food containers
to reduce landfilling of these products and for gaining the overall environmental benefits. Hawaiʻi
Ordinance 121, as codified in Chapter 14 of the County of Hawaiʻi Code (HCC), bans businesses from
providing plastic checkout bags to their customers and encourages use of environmentally preferable
alternatives, such as reusable bags. This law went into effect in 2013.
Pursuant to HCC 20-60, the County proposes to reduce the use of polystyrene foam food containers and
food service ware by restaurants, supermarkets and other vendors, eliminate the use of polystyrene
foam for packaging prepared and unprepared food, and in doing so promote the use of environmentally
preferable alternatives. Under this reduction plan, outside purveyors are encouraged, and not required
to use alternative packaging to polystyrene foam. On July 1, 2019, all food vendors and County facility
users (i.e., concession contracts with the County, renters of County facilities) using disposal food service
ware are required to use recyclable or compostable products. If not exempted and found out of
compliance, a fine may be imposed by the County; the amount ranges from $10 to $600 depending on
the circumstances. In preparation for the ban, the County established an education program for
businesses, nonprofits, and the public regarding compostable alternatives to polystyrene foam.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 3-7
3.3.1.8 Private Reuse Programs
In addition to the County reuse centers, there are several for-profit and nonprofit reuse facilities. For
example, Habitat for Humanity Restores are located in Kona and Waimea in West Hawaiʻi, and Hilo in
East Hawaiʻi; and emphasize reusable building materials, as well as products returned to local ‘big box’
stores, such as Wal-Mart. Home building items accepted by Habitat for Humanity include lumber
(greater than 4 feet long), kitchen and bathroom fixtures, doors, windows, concrete blocks and bricks,
latex paint, large appliances, and light and fan fixtures.
Re-use Hawaiʻi, a local nonprofit deconstruction company, salvages building materials for reuse on other
construction projects. Re-use Hawai’i opened their West Hawai’i location in 2018 in Kona. Their first job
involved dismantling the Kona Village Resort, which was destroyed by a tsunami in 2011. Re-use Hawaiʻi
sells lumber and other building materials at their redistribution center at a discounted price if the
materials have undergone a two-step quality control. The cost of the operation requires approximately
10 percent of its annual budget from outside sources with donations from local foundations and grants
from the State. These funds supported the company’s expansion from O`ahu to West Hawaiʻi (West
Hawaiʻi Today 2019).
There are also a variety of other reuse businesses throughout the island – thrift shops and consignment
stores, appliance stores, swap meets, and used book stores that sell used merchandise, such as
furniture, rebuilt appliances, clothing, housewares, and books. Many local businesses also accept
packing materials such as bubble wrap and foam peanuts.
The DEM website, HawaiiZeroWaste.org, provides a listing of for-profit and nonprofit reuse centers
throughout the island with store locations, contact phone numbers, and hyperlinks to available websites.
3.3.2 County of Hawaiʻi Staffing Levels
Successful delivery of local government waste reduction programs requires devoting an appropriate
amount of resources including staffing. The County has demonstrated its commitment to waste
reduction by assigning the following staff to County waste reduction and recycling programs:
• One full-time recycling coordinator.
• Two full-time equivalent (FTE) recycling specialists for the HI-5 recycling program.
• Three FTE recycling specialists.
The County recycling staff conducts most education and outreach activities. The County has a contract
with a consultant to help develop and enhance the education and outreach programs, as described in
greater detail in Chapter 5 Public Education and Information.
3.4 Issues and Concerns
As described above, several source reduction activities are conducted in the County, including programs
and initiatives by the County as well as other organizations. There is more that could be done by the
County and waste generators to promote changed behaviors that would ultimately reduce the quantity
of materials entering the waste stream. The need to implement additional programs and policies is
further established by the County’s commitment to greater diversion. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
3-8 August 2019
3.5 Options for Improvement
Pursuant to HRS 342G-26, an overview of various measures that could be implemented to increase
source reduction is provided below. These options were developed based on successful initiatives
implemented in other jurisdictions that may be applicable and appropriate for the County. Note that the
options focus on waste reduction and reuse; education, recycling, and composting programs are
discussed in other chapters of this Plan update.
3.5.1 County Source Reduction Practices
The County has an opportunity to serve as a model for the entire island and demonstrate their
commitment to waste diversion by implementing comprehensive source reduction policies for all
County operations. The County could make a more pronounced commitment to environmentally
preferable products. This effort could include an evaluation of current practices at all County offices and
buildings, and identification of opportunities for increased source reduction. All County employees could
be provided with documents providing information about the County’s commitment to zero waste, and
ideas of how each employee and department can reduce their waste.
Specific policies and activities that the County could adopt include the following:
• Adopt and implement an environmentally preferable purchasing policy and additional
environmentally preferable procurement guidelines. Set environmentally preferable purchasing
and recycled content as “defaults” for departments to use in departmental purchases of
supplies and equipment not centrally procured.
• Establish a Zero Waste Purchasing Committee with a mandate to develop the County’s
purchasing policy.
• Include measurable zero waste goals in job descriptions and annual performance evaluations.
• Establish a Green Building Policy and evaluate the extent to which those policies can be
encouraged or required for new private construction and major renovation projects.
• Use electronic mail, document storage, and retrieval systems to achieve a “paperless office.”
• Accept electronic submittal of all applications and required submittals.
• Provide incentives for staff members who develop and implement new initiatives that
reduce waste.
• Promote and encourage in-house composting programs.
• Encourage or mandate the use of reusable mugs, plates, and silverware and install dishwashers
in County facilities where feasible.
• Publish major accomplishments and progress of each department on the County website.
The federal government has undertaken various initiatives to include the environment in its purchasing
decisions. The County could consider EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement Guideline program as a model
for helping its employees purchase products that use materials recovered through recycling (EPA 2016b).
Cost Considerations. Many County actions could be accomplished at little or no cost. The initial review of
purchasing policies would require staff resources throughout many departments; however, additional
staff may not be required. Green building policies will increase the cost of construction somewhat;
estimates on the extent of likely increases differ, and many jurisdictions have successfully implemented
such policies. Purchasing policies can increase the cost of materials; however, this can be offset by
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 3-9
efforts to eliminate certain products from the waste stream (plastic flatware) or by reduction efforts
(goal of a paperless office). The net result would probably be a small percentage increase in costs for
many County activities and material purchases.
3.5.2 Business Waste Audits and Reduction Plans
The County currently provides a dedicated page to businesses on their HawaiiZeroWaste.org website.
Information on the dedicated business page includes guidance for the handling of hazardous materials
and promotion of a business waste reduction plan for environmental benefits as well as savings in
disposal costs. The web page also includes links to additional information from other websites including
the EPA (e.g., WasteWise Program, Procurement Guidelines), the City and County of Honolulu
Department of Environmental Services “How to Conduct a Waste Audit” guide, and Energy Star®. The
County would expand their business waste reduction program by teaming up with others
(e.g., grassroots organizations such as Recycle Hawaii) to conduct business waste audits, provide
outreach, or develop an updated business recycling and reuse guide (the latest version is reported to
have been produced by Recycle Hawaii in 2005).
As part of the County’s effort to work with local businesses to reduce waste, the County could conduct
outreach to local businesses to:
• Encourage retailers and their suppliers to take back products and packaging that are currently
difficult to reuse, recycle, or compost. Potential take-back programs could be publicized by
posting all cooperating retailers on the County’s website and publishing frequent articles and/or
advertisements in the local newspaper and County newsletter.
• Teach environmentally sensitive lean manufacturing practices to reduce or eliminate non-
reusable packaging, transport containers, and serviceware. This effort could target both
organizational processes and retail practices.
• Advertise on the County’s HawaiiZeroWaste.org website opportunities for material exchanges to
foster business-to-business connections to match unwanted material byproducts or
commodities for reuse or recycling as feedstock.
Cost Considerations. The cost of this option would differ depending on the speed of implementation.
County staffing levels would need to increase to implement and manage the program.
3.5.3 Construction and Demolition Diversion
As described in Section 3.3.1.4, the County DEM currently works with the DPW and County Planning
Department to assist developers with large projects in finding alternative ways of disposing demolition
waste other than the landfill, and similarly advises large development proponents through the NEPA
process. The County would expand the program to emphasize building deconstruction and support
local initiatives for adaptive reuse of materials generated during deconstruction projects. Initiatives
could include:
• Require demolition projects to publicize in the local newspaper to solicit salvage of reusable
items by deconstruction companies.
• Include a dedicated page on the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website that emphasizes construction
and demolition recycling and reuse. It could include “how-to” guidance on deconstruction and a
listing of available deconstruction companies on the island.
• Require contractors to separate reusable or recyclable construction and demolition debris from
non-recyclable materials as a component of permit conditions.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
3-10 August 2019
• Separate ceramic items, such as sinks and toilets from the waste stream, and utilize the crushed
material in construction.
• Construct a construction and demolition demonstration salvage yard in East Hawaiʻi.
Cost Considerations. The cost of this option would differ depending on the speed of implementation. At
least initially, there would be some added cost to businesses to conduct audits and change existing
material management methods. County staffing levels would need to increase to implement and
manage the program.
Chapter 9, Sections 9.7 and 9.8, discuss the option and recommendation to develop a Construction and
Demolition landfill with a sorting and reuse area.
3.5.4 Visitor Industry
Because tourism is one of the largest industries in the County, hotels, motels, and other lodging facilities
contribute a significant portion of the County’s waste. There are a variety of basic measures that these
facilities can implement to reduce their waste stream, including:
• Replace disposable products with reusable products (utensils, dishes, cleaning supplies).
• Buy in bulk, when possible.
• Offer newspapers only upon request.
• Change linens only upon request.
• Utilize soap and shampoo dispensers rather than disposable containers.
• Utilize air hand dryers or reusable napkins in public restrooms, rather than disposable.
• Change lighting fixtures to LED (light emitting diode) bulbs.
• Practice grasscycling.
• Implement onsite composting.
• Donate or sell lightly used furniture or appliances instead of landfilling.
This program could be implemented as a sub-element of a broader business waste audit and reduction
program (see Section 3.5.2), or as a stand-alone program. The County could seek partner businesses and
organizations within the visitor industry to build on existing waste reduction efforts by industry. At least
initially, there would be some added cost to businesses to change existing material management methods.
Cost Considerations. The cost of this option would differ depending on the speed of implementation.
County staffing levels would need to increase to implement and manage the program.
3.5.5 Reuse Facilities
As described in Section 3.3 Existing Conditions, the County currently contracts seven reuse centers, and
one reuse facility is managed by volunteers, which is far greater than the number of facilities in
operation at the time of the 2009 Plan. All reuse centers have been successful at diverting household
products and, to a lesser extent, construction (demolition and deconstruction) materials from the
landfills. The County has three options:
• Expand and develop more reuse centers.
• Improve programs at existing facilities.
• Increase promotion of the many for-profit and nonprofit thrift stores throughout the County.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 3-11
The Reuse Center at Laupāhoehoe is run by volunteers with assistance from the solid waste facility
attendants from time to time to remove large items. The County has considered upgrading the
volunteer facility at Laupāhoehoe and contracting the management; however, the amount of overall
waste diverted from the landfill is relatively low and resources are better used elsewhere. Instead of
investing in new facilities, the County is working with the contractor responsible for managing the
existing facilities to improve operations as follows:
• Develop and communicate to residents a list of the highest priority materials to maximize the
type and quantity of materials that can be accepted.
• Be selective about merchandise, emphasizing items that are lightly used, clean, and in good
condition.
• Improve signage.
• Provide more covered space.
• Improve organization and display of merchandise.
The County could also work collaboratively with the volunteer-based Laupāhoehoe site to increase
participation, which has decreased since the initial enthusiasm around the program. If the acceptance of
highest priority materials results in greater diversion, expanding the program to other recycling and
transfer stations, or upgrading the Laupāhoehoe Reuse Center could be considered.
The County could increase their support of other thrift stores (for-profit and nonprofit) by providing an
interactive map showing store locations and providing details on materials accepted on the
HawaiiZeroWaste.org website or through other promotional efforts such as radio or other media. This
support could focus on stores that divert construction demolition and deconstruction materials because
this is a significant portion of the waste stream (estimated at 22.2 percent in 2008).
Cost Considerations. The cost of expanding facilities would depend on the number of facilities
constructed, site-specific design considerations, and the resources devoted to staffing and outreach at
each facility. The cost of improving the functionality of existing facilities to increase waste diversion
would be nominal.
3.5.6 Establish Pay-As-You-Throw System for Residential Discards
Implementing a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) system creates a financial incentive for residents and
businesses to reduce their waste. As reported in the most recent EPA co-sponsored publication, PAYT
systems, also known as variable rates programs or user pay, ask households to pay more if they put out
more garbage for collection. The EPA asserts that the most effective way for local governments to
reduce residential solid waste, increase recycling, and decrease waste-related greenhouse gas emissions
is by implementing PAYT programs (EPA 2016c). A 2017 study of 20 municipalities in the State of Maine
concluded that communities with PAYT generated, on a per capita basis, 44.8 percent less trash than
those without PAYT. In this same study it was estimated that communities with PAYT generated
approximately 340 pounds of residential trash per capita of municipal solid waste (MSW) per year
compared to non-PAYT communities that generated approximately 645 pounds (WasteZero 2015a).
PAYT provides a powerful financial incentive for residents to reduce waste discards.
A good example of a smaller jurisdiction in the state of Hawaiʻi implementing a PAYT program is the County
of Kaua’i. In 2014, the Kaua’i County Council passed PAYT Ordinance 975. The ordinance went into effect in
July 2015. An important component of the program was the development of an implementation plan that
was funded through the EPA Region 9 Solid Waste Management Assistance Grant (County of Kaua’i 2018a).
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
3-12 August 2019
In the County, this program could be implemented in multiple ways:
• PAYT at County Recycling and Transfer Stations: Charge residents on a volume or weight basis
for garbage delivered to County recycling and transfer stations while allowing drop-off of
recyclable or compostable materials at no charge.
• Provide Universal Collection with PAYT Rates:
Implement universal collection for households in areas of dense populations and charge rural
residents on a volume or weight basis for garbage delivered to County recycling and transfer
stations, while allowing drop-off of recyclable or compostable materials at no charge.
Implement universal collection for households densely populated areas and charge a base
fee to all residents (including those who opt out of universal collection or rural populations
that are outside the universal collection zones), while allowing drop-off of recyclable or
compostable materials at recycling and transfer stations at no charge.
Implement universal collection of garbage for all households in the County.
Except for the universal collection program sub-option that would charge a base fee to all residents, the
above options have the additional benefit of eliminating misuse of the recycling and transfer stations by
non-residential generators. To successfully implement a PAYT program, it is advisable to develop a study
or implementation plan to fully understand the system that would work best for the residents of the
County. A discussion of each option follows.
3.5.6.1 PAYT at County Recycling and Transfer Stations
PAYT could be implemented at County recycling and transfer stations by establishing rates either
proportionally by volume or by weight, which would be charged for discarding materials at each station.
Another option could be a flat rate.
Option 1: Bag or Tag Proportional Pricing System
Typical volume rates include some combination of per-bag and per-vehicle fees. Because the County
would prefer to avoid security and other issues relating to collection of fees at recycling and transfer
stations, this system could be implemented using pre-purchased bags or tags, eliminating the need to
collect fees at the recycling and transfer stations. Residents would be provided a pre-determined
number of County-approved garbage bags, or tags that can be used for disposing of larger items.
Additional bags or tags could be purchased from the County or through local retail outlets.
To implement this option, all recycling and transfer stations would need to have a full-time attendant to
monitor residential disposal. In addition, the program would need the following:
• Adequate bins for dropping off readily recyclable materials at, or nearby, the recycling and
transfer stations.
• A small building or other structure for an attendant to use while monitoring incoming loads.
• Adequate space to allow for vehicle queuing at the recycling and transfer stations.
• An agreement with retail stores to sell pre-approved bags or tags on behalf of the County.
Option 2: Variable Rate Three-Can System
The County could consider charging residents based on the volume of cans (e.g., 12- [“micro can”], 20-,
32-, 64-, or 96-gallon) they dispose of at their local recycling and transfer station. In this option,
residents may haul their rubbish, green waste, and recyclables to their nearest recycling and transfer
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 3-13
station. The onsite attendant would visually count the number, size, and type of cans. Variable rates
would be enforced for the type of waste (green waste, rubbish, or recyclables) as well as the number
and size of the cans.
This option would require:
• Adequate space to allow for vehicle queuing at the recycling and transfer stations.
• A small building or other structure for an attendant to use while monitoring incoming loads.
• Collection of fees at the recycling and transfer stations.
Option 3: Variable Rate Scale System
The County could consider a PAYT system that is established by weight through the installation of scales
at the County recycling and transfer stations. An inbound and outbound scale would have to be installed
at the station. Because of the high initial costs of this option, scales could be installed at recycling and
transfer stations that experience the highest traffic and disposal volumes. Residents would drive onto an
inbound truck-mounted scale, dispose of their waste, drive onto an outbound scale, and pay the
attendant for the per pound weight difference.
This option would require:
• Installation of an inbound and outbound scale.
• Installation of a recording system.
• Adequate space to allow for vehicle queuing at the recycling and transfer stations.
• Collection of fees at the recycling and transfer stations.
Option 4: Multi-tiered Pricing
Multi-tiered pricing generates greater revenue for localities (EPA 2016c). Through this system, residents
are required to pay a monthly fee for baseline solid waste service. The County may require residents to
pay for every bag and/or cart they fill on top of this fee, or they may include up to two or three
bags/cans per week into the baseline fee (Solid Waste Association of North America [SWANA] 2007). If
residents exceed this amount, they will be required to pay a second tier for additional bags or containers
they fill on top of this fee. Residents must then pay a second tier to dispose of extra waste, which may
be based on volume (SWANA 2007). Recyclables and green waste could then be collected at a reduced
fee or for no charge.
Option 5: Automated Transfer Station Pay Station
The County could install self-service
electronic fee payment mechanisms at all
recycling and transfer stations that charge a
flat fee. The County could also consider
installing a self-operating compactor as a
component of the system, which would
charge customers based on weight.
For example, a gated customer-operated
drop box is in operation in rural Skykomish,
King County, WA. This facility allows
customers to drive up to an automated gate,
make payment at a self-service kiosk, and Automated Rural Drop Box Pay Station in Skykomish, WA Source:
King County (2018)
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
3-14 August 2019
then enter the gated area to dispose of their solid waste into two top-loading drop boxes, each with two
stalls. It does not have a self-operating compactor. Recycling facilities are also provided outside the
gated area, allowing customers to drop off recyclables without paying a fee. The waste ultimately ends
up being transported to a transfer station 50 miles away for eventual disposal at the regional landfill.
Because of its remote location, cameras are used to monitor activities, and staff make regular visits for
maintenance. King County’s Solid Waste Division has formed a partnership with the Road Services
Division in which staff working at the adjacent road services facility regularly monitor the site.
Some of the challenges related to the Skykomish self-operating system includes illegal dumping
(including in the recycling bins), little to no control of materials that require special handling (e.g.,
hazardous waste), exceedances of load limits, unwanted visitors (e.g., black bear, people scavenging
during afterhours), loss of revenue, and maintenance of bins for proper weight distribution. However,
the advantages of the Skykomish rural drop box includes rubbish collection for an underserved
community, the availability of recycling, opportunities to educate customers, and the partnership with
the Road Services Division.
In the County, potential complications of such a system could include:
• Upfront cost of fee payment technology and compactors at recycling and transfer stations
lacking these facilities.
• Upgrades to existing compacting systems for use by the public.
• Maintenance of fee-payment systems and security cameras.
• Administrative costs (although this would be realized in varying degrees with any PAYT
program).
• Potential safety issues (people operating compactors).
• Potential for illegal dumping.
• If unstaffed, issues with weight distribution in drop box.
However, the introduction of such a system would have the advantage of less reliance on the general
fund, and the potential reduction in recycling and transfer station staffing.
Conclusion
It is possible that not all recycling and transfer stations would have the physical space to accommodate
the infrastructure needs for a PAYT system – some stations may need to be closed, relocated, or
substantially modified to implement this program. There is the potential to consolidate “wastesheds” to
fewer facilities (i.e., closing some and enhancing others based on usage and/or distances from
population centers to the facilities). Chapter 8, Section 8.7.6, identifies potential recycling and transfer
stations for optional closure.
Implementation of these options would require an aggressive public education and information
campaign to ensure that residents understand the rationale for implementing the PAYT program.
Cost Considerations. Estimating the initial infrastructure costs for this option would require conceptual
designs at each of the County’s 22 recycling and transfer stations. The infrastructure cost could vary
considerably depending on site-specific conditions and the extent to which modifications are feasible
at each station. The County would need to modify its financial systems to account for the new
revenue source.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 3-15
3.5.6.2 Universal Collection with PAYT Rates
While not unprecedented, the County’s current system of providing recycling and transfer stations
distributed throughout the County is a relatively uncommon way of providing garbage collection
services to residents. PAYT rates could be implemented as part of a move to provide universal garbage,
recycling, and perhaps organics collection services to all County residents. Elsewhere in the United
States, residential collection services typically are either provided by local government or by the private
sector under a contract or franchise arrangement. The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi “Konno
decision” affirmed the rights of the United Public Workers (UPW) union to perform work that
“customarily and historically” had been performed by government workers. However, subsequent to
that ruling, the Hawaiʻi Legislature in HRS 46-36 provided for a “managed competition” process in which
local government and the private sector would compete on the basis of efficiency, effectiveness, and
price for new government services. Additional research would be needed to decide the best way to
proceed with universal collection if this is an option the County would like to implement.
PAYT collection rates can take many forms including using a variable can, metered bag, or metered tag
system. The key aspect of this system is to charge a progressive rate for each additional garbage unit
collected above the basic service level (for example, one can per week).
Like PAYT at County recycling and transfer stations, implementation of this option would require
implementation of an aggressive public education and information campaign to ensure residents
understand the rationale for implementing the PAYT program.
Significant upfront planning would be required to assess a wide range of implementation details. The
County would need to establish billing systems and a customer service organization, and modify its
financial systems to accommodate this new service. The County could elect to assess the potential for
reducing property taxes as an offset to the new revenue source.
Cost Considerations. The County of Kaua`i PAYT variable rates are $10 per month for a 64-gallon cart
and $18 per month for a 96-gallon cart. Service is once per week. Everyone pays a $6 base fee whether
they have County-provided collection service or opt out and only use the County-operated recycling and
transfer stations. They provide a 50 percent cost reduction for low-income households, both on the base
fee and the rubbish collection fee.
3.5.7 Expanded Home Composting Program
Since the 2009 Plan, the County has decreased emphasis on a public campaign
around home composting, which formerly entailed educational workshops and
distribution of backyard composting units. The County’s home composting
promotion is now primarily emphasized on the HawaiiZeroWaste.org website,
which includes links to EPA guidance and other resources on backyard
composting, and locations on the island where worm bins, worms, and
accessories can be purchased. The program could rekindle a more aggressive
promotion campaign and a target penetration rate of at least 25 percent of
single-family households within 5 years.
Cost Considerations. The County would have to consider the cost for purchase,
storage, and delivery of each unit. Existing staff resources would need to be used to develop the plan for
how best to distribute the units and to provide suitable promotion and user education.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
3-16 August 2019
3.5.8 Expanded Reusable Bag Program
As part of their educational outreach program, the County has conducted Bring-Your-Own Bag (BYOB)
promotional events at local grocery stores and at various community events such as Earth Day, during
which reusable grocery bags are given to interested residents. To expand this program, the County
could significantly increase the number of reusable bags that are distributed to residents, and expand
its outreach to encourage participating grocery stores to increase the financial discount for using
reusable bags.
Cost Considerations. This option would require additional staff time and funding for additional
materials.
3.5.9 Expand Source Reduction Education
A key to successful reuse programs is the education of the staff (government, private for-profit, and
nonprofit) who operate the facilities within the program. Once staff have been trained on the basics of
how these programs work, they will need to develop systems to implement programs for the public. The
methods for providing materials to markets include retail sales, dismantling for recycling, and ensuring
materials reach markets accessible to the public.
Chapter 5 Public Education and Information includes a series of proposed enhancements to the County’s
education and promotion programs.
3.5.10 Establish Extended Producer Responsibility Policy
As previously described, EPR is a policy tool that extends manufacturer's responsibilities to include
responsibility for life cycle costs of their products and associated packaging. This approach has been
successfully implemented in various communities throughout Europe and Canada, as well as parts of the
United States.
When considering the life cycle of a product, manufacturers should take into consideration the
environmental footprint of a product, from its beginning to end of life. Through EPR, the responsibilities
and life cycle costs of their products and packaging shift from municipalities towards manufacturers. For
instance, through EPR, producers analyze the natural resource, energy, packaging, and transportation-
associated costs and impacts of their products (MacKerron 2012).
In 2012, 32 states enacted greater than 70 producer responsibility laws, including topics such as
batteries, telephones, paint, pesticide containers, carpet, and fluorescent lamps. However, none of
these programs took into consideration product packaging (MacKerron 2012). Around the globe, British
Columbia mandated a fully funded EPR paper and plastic packaging program by manufacturers in 2014
(Resource Recycling Inc. 2016); after 1 year, the province reported a 77 percent recovery rate. In
Europe, since the European Union’s adoption of EPR in 1994, 25 member states have enacted national
packaging policies and achieved a 65 percent recycling rate in 2012 (EUROPEN 2018).
Some policy statements the County may want to consider include the following:
• Express support for state and federal policies to eliminate subsidies, internalize externalities for
virgin material production and wasting, and involve producers in taking physical and/or financial
responsibility for their products and packaging through reuse, repair, or recycling.
• Express support for state and County agencies to support product stewardship, by creating a
state/counties coalition to work towards EPR, along with other active states.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 3-17
• Express support for policies designed to relieve local taxpayers from the burden of managing
wastes they have no control over. This could include identifying specific product categories that
have the greatest impact on local programs.
• Express support for mandatory recycled content, as well as “cradle-to-cradle” product take-back
and recycling services. Insist that the cost of the programs be paid by manufacturers and
internalized into the cost of their products.
EPR framework policy and legislation can be drawn from successful programs implemented in California,
Oregon, Washington, and Minnesota, as well as other areas of the world including Belgium, the
Netherlands, and Germany.
Cost Considerations. To implement this option, the County would need to invest some ongoing staff
time and potential consulting assistance for research, policy analysis, and drafting legislation. The price
of some products affected by EPR programs could increase depending on exactly how EPR was
implemented.
3.5.11 Create a Zero Waste Fund
To encourage local innovation and participation, the County would fund community zero waste
initiatives with fees levied on landfill disposal. This funding would include leveraging private sector
investments by adopting supportive policies and providing technical assistance and support letters for
independent financing and/or grants. The more that nonprofits and private companies invest in
expansion of reuse, recycling, and composting programs, the less the County needs to invest. The
County could also identify and support proposals for state, federal, and foundation grants and loans for
local zero waste businesses and service providers.
For example, in Boulder, Colorado, the Boulder County Resource Conservation Division distributes
$50,000 annually as part of its Zero Waste Funding Program. Since 1997, they have awarded over one
million dollars for education and infrastructure initiatives to businesses, residents, and governments.
Cost Considerations. The cost of this option would depend on the extent to which the County elects to
fund this program. Some added staff time would be necessary to develop and administer the program.
3.5.12 Public-Private Partnerships with Community-Based Organizations
A survey of the reuse industry (e.g., Goodwill Industries, Habitat for Humanity) on the island would be
beneficial. Other nonprofits or businesses may be interested in participating in reuse programs within
the County. The County could convene a meeting of interested parties to determine the level of interest,
evaluate what challenges such a program would face, and identify potential mechanisms to assist with
initiation of the program.
Independent community-based organizations (CBOs) may see this as an opportunity. They are
potentially available to take on repairing and refurbishing as well as dismantling of discarded items into
recyclable commodities.
Cost Considerations. Some added staff time would be necessary to develop and administer the program.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
3-18 August 2019
3.6 Recommendations
Based on the analysis presented above, and discussions with the SWAC, the County plans to improve
source reduction as follows:
1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to reduce the
source of waste currently entering landfills, including:
Develop a County ordinance that requires a waste reduction plan be submitted to obtain a
commercial or residential building permit. Coordinate implementation with the County
Planning Department.
Work with other counties to develop EPR policy statements or resolutions expressing strong
support for initiatives that require manufacturers of certain products or materials to take
responsibility for the life cycle costs of their products. As a component of the EPR policy,
implement a campaign to develop EPR for difficult-to-recycle products, and lobby state and
federal lawmakers to advance EPR initiatives.
Implement a County government source reduction program by implementing policies,
procedures, and incentive programs that will reduce waste streams currently being
generated within various County departments and agencies.
2. Investigate a PAYT program or other funding method. A critical element of the County waste
management program is to provide incentives for the public to participate in source reduction
and other programs to reduce waste going to landfills. PAYT programs have proven to be a
highly successful and cost-effective method of reducing waste going to landfills in many similar
communities nationwide. After considerable deliberation by the SWAC about its advantages and
disadvantages, this Plan update recommends conducting a feasibility study regarding the
implementation of a PAYT program or other funding method. The feasibility study of a PAYT
program or other funding method would include the following components:
Suite of funding mechanisms and logistics for implementing programs (i.e., capital
improvements, administration, self-haul versus collection, or a combination of the two).
Education and public outreach campaign (including retail businesses) that would be
necessary for the implementation.
Pilot program that would be at no cost to the public to introduce the program and identify
ways in which the program can be implemented most effectively.
Training for County staff to implement the program.
“Phasing-in” of the program, which would span over several years.
Prevention of illegal dumping.
Plan for monitoring and evaluation of program results and participation.
Note: Chapter 8, Section 8.8 (Recommendation 1) discusses the continued operation and
maintenance of recycling and transfer stations until a decision on the best method of
collection and transfer is determined, and to also explore alternative funding mechanisms
via a feasibility study. Chapter 10, Section 10.6 (Recommendation 1) discusses a Solid Waste
System Financial Analysis.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 3-19
3. Improve the current reuse facility program. One of the most popular existing waste reduction
programs among County stakeholders is the operation of reuse facilities where unwanted
products that are still useful can be made available to others rather than discarded. Several
recommendations relating to improving the current reuse program include the following:
Work with the contractor to create a list for public distribution, which describes what items
are preferable donations.
Work with the contractor managing the reuse centers to be more selective about
merchandise, emphasizing items that are lightly used, clean, and in good condition. Improve
signage, organization, and display of merchandise.
Provide more covered space at reuse centers.
Collaborate with the volunteer-based Laupāhoehoe Reuse Center to increase participation
of volunteers.
Continue public-private partnerships with organizations such as Goodwill Industries to
develop reuse centers at existing outlets within the County.
Consider expanding the program to other recycling and transfer stations and/or upgrade the
Laupāhoehoe Reuse Center.
If improvements to the existing reuse facility program results in greater diversion, expanding the
program to other recycling and transfer stations or upgrading the Laupāhoehoe Reuse Center
could be considered.
4. Expand and improve public education and awareness programs. Stakeholders agreed that
education was a key element of implementing source reduction programs within the County.
The following are recommendations regarding development of educational programs:
Develop a business waste audit and education program to foster source reduction within
the local business community.
Develop a visitor industry waste reduction education program.
Continue reuse education, outreach, and public awareness campaign to encourage public
participation and use of the reuse centers. Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-1
4. RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, AND MARKETS
4.1 Introduction
Recycling and bioconversion involve reprocessing materials that would have been disposed as solid
waste into new and marketable products. Common recycled materials include beverage containers,
paper products, and scrap metal. Bioconversion consists of processing organic materials such as grass,
leaves, branches, untreated wood, or food to produce new products, such as compost and fertilizer,
using biological means.
This chapter describes existing recycling and bioconversion activities within the County, identifies issues
and concerns with respect to current recycling and bioconversion practices, and presents options for
achieving the County’s recycling and bioconversion goals.
4.2 Background
As discussed in Chapter 3, Source
Reduction, the State of Hawaiʻi
prioritizes solid waste management
practices and processing methods for
each county according to Hawaiʻi
Revised Statutes Chapter 342G-2 (HRS
342G-2). The second priority, as
discussed in this chapter, consists of
recycling and bioconversion (including
composting). Furthermore, as
discussed in HRS 342G-3 established a
25 percent waste diversion goal by
1995, and a 50 percent goal by 2000
through source reduction, recycling,
and bioconversion.
Recycling and bioconversion practices
were first detailed in the original Integrated Solid Waste Management plan created in 1993 and in
subsequent updated plans. In 2003, the County passed a resolution with a goal to divert 50 percent of
the solid waste from landfills by 2008 and 80 percent by 2013.
4.2.1 Zero Waste
In 2007, the County further enhanced solid waste practices and concepts by adopting Resolution 356-07,
a zero waste philosophy toward solid waste management. In 2008, the County passed Resolution 766-08
urging the state to enact legislation to shift costs and responsibilities for waste management from local
governments to manufacturers of products and create incentives for product redesign. In 2008, the
County contracted with Recycle Hawaii to conduct a zero waste implementation plan (Recycle Hawaii
2009). The Zero Waste Implementation Plan was completed in March 2009. The purpose of this plan
was to evaluate resource management options including reuse, recycling, composting, and special
discards management, among others, that may help the County achieve its waste reduction goals.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1995 2000 2008 2013
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
Year
Landfill Diversion Goals: State of Hawai`i
and County of Hawaiʻi
County Waste ReductionGoal County WasteReduction Goal
State Waste Diversion
Goal State Waste
Diversion Goal
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-2 August 2019
The Zero Waste Implementation Plan included input from 12 stakeholder meetings and a Zero Waste
Conference. These were held in September 2008 at multiple locations in the County to present zero
waste concepts, and receive input from local residents and business owners about ways to turn
currently discarded materials into resources. The plan received input from over 300 participants.
The recommendations of the Zero Waste Implementation Plan have been incorporated into this Plan
update, where applicable, based on consensus of the SWAC, and Solid Waste Division (SWD) staff.
Greater detail regarding the Zero Waste philosophy and the implementation plan is provided in
Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2.
4.2.2 Review of 2009 Plan
Exhibit 4-1 provides a summary of the recommendations from the 2009 Plan relative to recycling,
bioconversion, and marketing, and describes the actions taken to achieve each recommendation.
Exhibit 4-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets
2009 Plan Recommendation Status
Recycling
Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to improve recycling rates.
In 2016, via Resolution 709-16, the County Council requested the Departments of Environmental Management and Research and Development initiate a feasibility impact study related to extended producer responsibility and incentives. The request was not implemented due to staffing and financial constraints.
Establish a differential tip fee ordinance. In 2005, Ordinance 05-27 adopted a 25 percent of the landfill
disposal fee for green waste and acceptable organics [green waste must be separated from other solid waste to qualify for the
discounted disposal fee]. This was formerly codified in 2015 as
HCC 20-49(a)(2)(B) and implemented on July 1, 2015.
Establish an ordinance that mandates source
separation and recycling.
Difficult to achieve a balanced community-supported outcome in
advancing this recommendation.
Develop legislation requiring multi-family
dwellings and multi-tenant commercial
buildings to have recycling services.
Difficult to achieve a balanced community-supported outcome in
advancing this recommendation.
Change County procurement policies to require
the use of recycled materials.
Difficult to achieve a balanced community-supported outcome in
advancing this recommendation.
Work with County and state legislators and
encourage other communities in the region
[Hawaiʻian counties] to adopt zero waste goals
and plans.
Informal discussions have occurred.
Coordinate with legislators and waste
managers from other counties to develop a
statewide zero waste strategy.
Staff time was not allotted to this recommendation.
Lobby the state to change school waste
collection contracts to mandate that recycling
services are included.
Informal discussions with the state have occurred.
Complete capital projects to facilitate
implementation of expanded recycling
programs.
Did not implement due to funding constraints.
Expand recycling opportunities at recycling and
transfer stations.
Did not implement due to funding constraints.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit 4‐1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations (continued)
August 2019 4‐3
2009 Plan Recommendation Status
Improve signage at recycling and transfer
stations. The FY 2018–19 Recycling Program Educational Outreach
Consultant Scope of Services includes the redesign of new signage at recycling and transfer stations. The signs are being installed at the recycling and transfer stations.
Reconfigure the East Hawaiʻi Regional Sort
Station Reload Facility for use as a material
recovery facility.
Changed goals and direction. County will use the existing facility
as a transfer station with limited separation.
Construct a new material recovery (bailing and
storage) facility for West Hawaiʻi.
The County no longer plans to develop a material recovery facility
in West Hawaiʻi.
Allow small businesses to use the recycling and
transfer stations to recycle selected materials.
Did not implement. Implementation would require funding and an
ordinance to amend County code.
Modify the operating permits of the recycling
and transfer stations to accommodate
expanded recycling services.
Current operating permits allow more materials to be recycled
when and if funding becomes available.
Hire one full‐time staff member to serve as a
commercial recycling specialist. No funding available for this position.
Expand business education and outreach
programs. No funds allocated for this project except to provide information
on the website.
Expand opportunities to recycle in public areas
and during public events. The SWD offers recycling bins for events.
Install recycling bins in parks and other public
areas. The County has installed recycling bins in some parks and public
areas; however, most have been damaged or removed, and many
of the recyclables are diverted by individuals seeking income
through recycling (e.g., HI‐5 program).
Conduct additional recycling events within the
community each year. Did not implement, limited staff. County has reduced the type of
materials accepted due to market constraints (e.g., certain
plastics).
Implement and expand the Recycling Art
campaign in public schools. In FY 2015, the County canceled procurement of the Recycling
Education and Outreach Services contract. The previous contract
with the Recycling Education and Outreach vendor expired in
2014‐06‐30.
Bioconversion
Promote both large‐ and small‐scale private
organics composting operations.
The County is in the process of acquiring a site for a privately
managed County facility.
Improve education and outreach programs that
promote improved management of organics.
Organics education included in original Request for Proposal (RFP)
3298 and in the original contract. Current lack of funding for
business organics management.
Hire one full‐time staff member to serve as the
organics program coordinator.
Did not implement.
Expand and further develop a master
composter program.
The County has considered implementation of a master
composter program; it is still being considered.
Develop a training program and guidance
materials for farmers.
Did not implement.
Implement a "stop wasting food" program with
local food banks.
Did not implement.
Partner with other local groups to establish
compost demonstration gardens.
Did not implement.
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit 4-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations (continued)
4-4 August 2019
2009 Plan Recommendation Status
Initiate an onsite composting program for
residents and businesses by distributing subsidized units to both residences and businesses.
Earth Machine Composters and Backyard Composting Workshops
were provided under the Recycling Education contract, which has since been discontinued.
Conduct a study to evaluate the potential for
implementation of a landfill ban on organics. Did not implement.
Implement added organics management
facilities and equipment.
Did not implement.
Add green waste dropoff locations at recycling
and transfer stations.
Facilities were added to the Pāhoa, Volcano, Ke‘ei, and Waimea
Transfer Stations.
Process green waste at select recycling and
transfer stations.
Did not implement.
Develop an organics composting facility at the
West Hawaiʻi Sanitary Landfill or other sites.
The County has been actively engaged in planning for a
composting facility. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was
developed for a proposed site at a former rock quarry adjacent to
the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill, and was withdrawn from
consideration due to concerns over the location and the potential
impacts to the local community. An EA was then completed for a
compost facility on 40 acres in the Shipman Industrial Park in
Kea‘au, and land procurement for 20 of the 40 acres is currently
being negotiated. Design work is currently being completed for
the facility and the composting facility is slated for operation in
2020.
Investigate opportunities for pilot food waste
demonstration projects.
Did not implement.
Marketing
Enhance local markets for recyclable materials. The County encourages state or on-island reuse and end- markets
for recycled materials. Currently, green waste, glass, paper, and
tires are used locally.
4.3 Existing Conditions
According to the County Department of Environmental Management (DEM), the waste diversion rate,
signifying the quantity of recycled materials taken as a percentage of total waste generation, has
decreased from approximately 36.1 percent in FY 2009–10 to 20.8 percent in FY 2017–18. Exhibit 4-2
provides yearly data of waste generation, recycling, and disposal activities.
The FY 2016-17 diversion rate may be divided into categories to characterize the amount of recycling
and disposal by material. The two highest waste diversion rates occur in green waste and metal
recycling, at 63.3 percent and 14.2 percent, respectively.
Although the FY 2017–18 current diversion rate is 20.8 percent, there is likely a significant amount of
recycling being conducted independently by private businesses that is not being tracked or measured by
the County. These recycling efforts from the private sector significantly increase the overall diversion
rate, especially in the paper and plastic waste categories.
The status of recycling, bioconversion, and marketing efforts in the County of Hawaiʻi is described
below. As described in Chapter 2, scrap metal recycling facilities contracted with the County were
required to clear-out their stockpiles prior to permit expiration. With the facilities no longer in
operation, the County limited the scrap metal they would accept and diverted scrap metal to the private
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-5
sector–thus, there is a marked decrease in subsidized scrap metal after FY 2012–13. Therefore, although
the recycling and diversion rates appear to have decreased, this number is skewed since most scrap
metal recycling was diverted to the private sector starting in 2013.
Exhibit 4-2. Historical Generation, Recycling/Diversion, and Disposal and
Estimated Diversion Rate, County of Hawaiʻi
Year
Tons
Diversion Rate Generation Recycling Disposal
FY 2009–10 243,719 88,037 155,682 36.1%
FY 2010–11 234,308 67,854 166,454 29.0%
FY 2011–12 243,457 90,508 152,949 37.2%
FY 2012–13 235,483 79,029 156,455 33.6%
FY 2013–14 221,915 55,025 166,890 24.8%
FY 2014–15 239,052 60,028 179,024 25.1%
FY 2015–16 246,679 57,921 188,758 23.5%
FY 2016–17 259,472 64,309 195,162 24.8%
FY 2017–18 283,021 58,8251 224,196 20.8%
Percent Change FY 00–09 – FY 07–18
Total 13.3% 1.6% 44.0% -48.0%
Average Annual 1.7% 2.5% 4.6% -6.4%
Source: County of Hawaiʻi DEM.
Note: The table does not account for non-County-sponsored (private) recycling or diversions. These could include ‘big-box’ stores (e.g., Costco, Walmart) that ship combined bales of cardboard and plastic to either the West Coast to third-party brokers or to the
retailer’s distribution center. Contractors or nonprofit groups also sell recycled materials directly to brokers on the mainland.
4.3.1 County of Hawaiʻi /State of Hawaiʻi Programs
County of Hawaiʻi offers recycling services through various state and county programs. The County
utilizes recycling and transfer stations as collection points for the majority of recycled material from
residents. Recycled material accepted at these locations includes paper products, green waste, scrap
metal, metal cans, glass, certain plastics, and redeemable beverage containers through the State of
Hawaiʻi Beverage Container Deposit Program. Mixed recyclables and glass are placed in separate bins
through the 2-bin program. The County has also implemented the following measures:
• Maintains a limited number of recycling bins in some parks and public areas; however, most
have been damaged or removed.
• Provides technical assistance and bins to event coordinators looking to recycle at major events.
• Manages programs and facilities for green waste and composting.
To encourage recycling and bioconversion activities, the County provides public education and
awareness programs for residents. These education programs are discussed in Chapter 5 Public
Education and Information. Recycling also encompasses proper diversion of household hazardous
wastes, household appliances, and electronics; these programs are discussed in Chapter 6 Household
Hazardous Waste and Electronic Waste. Special Wastes, which require special handling or processing,
are discussed in Chapter 7.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4‐6 August 2019
4.3.1.1 County Recycling and Transfer Stations
The County operates 22 recycling and transfer stations for residents to drop off garbage and at 19 of
those stations, residents can drop off recyclables. The Ocean View Recycling and Transfer Station,
located in West Hawaiʻi, is the most recent addition, and accepts HI‐5 containers; however, it does not
accept 2‐bin recyclables. Most of the recycling and transfer stations currently have a 2‐bin recycling
area, which consists of dropoff bins for mixed recyclables (mixed paper, plastic, metal cans, and
cardboard), and a separate bin for container glass. Some of these recycling and transfer stations also
serve as collection points for other types of recyclable materials.
Exhibit 4‐3 lists the recycling and transfer stations and
the materials accepted at each location.
The County has expanded recycling activities at recycling
and transfer stations by expanding recycling and reuse
centers (RRCs) at various recycling and transfer stations.
The Kea`au Recycling and Transfer Station, was the first
to be developed into a full‐time recycling and reuse
center. These centers have been developed at the Hilo,
Kealakehe, Pāhoa, Waimea, Laupāhoehoe, Keauhou, and
Wai`ōhinu recycling and transfer stations.
Exhibit 4‐3. County of Hawaiʻi Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations
Recycling and Transfer Station MS
W
Gl
a
s
s
Mi
x
e
d
Re
c
y
c
l
a
b
l
e
s
Sc
r
a
p
M
e
t
a
l
Wh
i
t
e
G
o
o
d
s
Gr
e
e
n
W
a
s
t
e
Re
u
s
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
HI
‐
5
Re
d
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
Ce
n
t
e
r
East Hawaiʻi
East Hawaiʻi Organics Facility (EHOF)b – – – – – X – –
Glenwood X X X – – – – –
Hiloa X X X X X – X X
Honoka`a X X X X X – – X
Honomū X X X – – – – –
Kalapana X X X – – – – –
Kea`aua X X X X X X X X
Laupāhoehoe X X X X X – X –
Pa`auilo X X X – – – – –
Pāhala X X X X X – – –
Pāhoa X X X X X X X –
Pāpa`ikou X X X – – – – –
Volcano X X X X X X – X
West Hawaiʻi
Ka`auhuhu (Hāwī) X X X X – – – X
Kealakehe (Kailua‐Kona)a X X X X X X X X
Keauhou X X X – – – X X
Ke`ei X X X X X – – –
Miloli`i X – – – – – – –
Puakō X X X X X – – X
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit 4‐3. County of Hawaiʻi Site CharacterisƟcs for ExisƟng Recycling and Transfer StaƟons
(continued)
August 2019 4‐7
Recycling and Transfer Station MS
W
Gl
a
s
s
Mi
x
e
d
Re
c
y
c
l
a
b
l
e
s
Sc
r
a
p
M
e
t
a
l
Wh
i
t
e
G
o
o
d
s
Gr
e
e
n
W
a
s
t
e
Re
u
s
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
HI
‐
5
Re
d
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
Ce
n
t
e
r
Ocean View X X – – – – X
Waiea X X X – – X – –
Waimea X X X X X X X X
Wai`ōhinu X X X X X – X X
West Hawaiʻi Organics Facility (WHOF)b – – – – – X – –
aHilo, Kea`au, and Kealakehe recycling and transfer stations contain separate bins for newspaper and cardboard. b Green waste recycling only.
4.3.1.2 HI‐5 Beverage Container Deposit Program
The state of Hawaiʻi enacted a new Beverage Container Deposit Program in late 2004. Otherwise known
as the “Bottle Bill,” a 5¢ redeemable deposit is placed on each beverage container, as defined under the
law. Consumers may then return the container to redeem their 5¢ at any redemption center. Other
details of the program include the following:
A 1¢ non‐refundable container fee is assessed for program administration.
Redeemable containers are marked with a “HI5¢” or “Hawaiʻi 5¢” label.
The container size is limited to 68 ounces (2 liters) or smaller.
The beverage type consists of non‐
alcoholic drinks (soda, water, coffee,
tea, juice) and limited alcoholic drinks
(beer, malt beverages, mixed spirits,
and mixed wine).
The container material includes
aluminum, glass, bi‐metal, and plastic
(#1 and #2 only).
In 2009, the HI‐5 program’s state redemption
rate reached a high of approximately 79 percent representing 705 million containers. In FY 2015, the
container fee dropped from 1.5 to 1 cent per container resulting in about 68 percent redemption rate
representing 647 million recycled beverage containers (HDOH 2015). In FY 2017, the County’s estimated
HI‐5 redemption rate reached approximately 87 percent representing approximately 117 million
containers, down from about 89 percent the previous year (County of Hawaiʻi DEM 2017a).5
The County provides Certified Redemption Centers (CRCs) for consumers to redeem their HI‐5 beverage
containers at select recycling and transfer stations (see Exhibit 4‐3 for locations). Additionally, the
County loans out recycling bins for collection of HI‐5 beverage containers to organizers of any public
event. The recycling bins consist of an easy‐to‐transport, lightweight steel frame that uses a clear bag to
5 The redemption rate is estimated using data from HDOH on the number of deposit containers redeemed divided
by the number of containers sold on the Big Island during FY 2017 based on the de facto population.
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-8 August 2019
hold HI-5 beverages. The County-supplied recycling containers are secured by reservation and
availability is on a first-come, first-served basis.
4.3.1.3 Redemption Centers
Since June 2015, 93 CRCs were opened to the public in the state of Hawaiʻi. Segregated rates allow
consumers an efficient method of redeeming container refunds by weight (lb) instead of hand counting.
Rates are set by the HDOH. However, consumers also have the option of redeeming their containers by
hand count; CRCs must hand count hauls of 200 or less containers upon the request of the customer.
CRCs by city currently exist as follows: Hawaiʻi —19, Maui—12, Molokai—2, Lanai—1, Oahu—52, and
Kauai—8. Exhibit 4-4 illustrates the Office of Solid Waste Management’s last update to segregated rates
by material type.
Exhibit 4-4. County of Hawaiʻi Segregated Rates
Material Type No. of Containers per lb. Refund Amount per lb.
Aluminum 32 $1.60
Bi-metal 5.9 $0.295
Glass 2.4 $0.12
Plastic (17 fl. oz. or less) 26.3 $1.315
Plastic (mixed sizes) 18.8 $0.94
Sources: HDOH. 2015. Report to the twenty-eighth legislature State of Hawaiʻi : Annual report on solid waste management.
4.3.1.4 Green Waste Mulching and Dropoff Opportunities
In 2008, the County passed a resolution for an ordinance that prohibits paper and compostable organics
from the County Landfills by 2012 (Council Resolution No. 826-08). Thus, in 2016, the County contracted
with a private contractor to construct two mulch operation sites: The East Hawaiʻi Organics Facility
(EHOF) in Hilo and the West Hawaiʻi Organics Facility (WHOF). During FY 2016–17, a Notice to Proceed
was approved for the construction of these facilities through a private contractor, and they are now fully
operational. EHOF is located on Ho‘olaulima Road, which also leads to the East Hawaiʻi landfill and other
County-operated solid waste management facilities. WHOF is located in Pu‘uanahulu, adjacent to the
West Hawaiʻi landfill.
Residential customers may self-haul their organics to green waste bins at County recycling and transfer
stations (see Exhibit 4-3 for County-managed green waste recycling locations) free of charge. Residential
self-haul is restricted to 5 cubic yards or less and under 20,000 gross vehicle weight (GVW) with a
maximum of one load per day. For loads greater than 20,000 GVW or that surpass 5 cubic yards,
customers are routed to either the EHOF or WHOF. These facilities accept yard waste and untreated
wood pallets. Commercial entities, including landscapers and haulers, businesses, and government
agencies are required to dispose of their green waste at the EHOF or WHOF (County of Hawaiʻi DEM
2018a). These entities are charged a per ton disposal fee to offset expenses associated with green waste
handling and management, and must have a Solid Waste Facility Disposal Permit with an annual renewal
fee. The business fee is 25 percent of the MSW tipping fee at County-operated landfills. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-9
In relation to mulch, a minimum volume is available to residents for no charge, contingent upon
availability. For residential and commercial convenience, a mulch pickup area was added to the
Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Station,
in addition to mulch pick up at the EHOF
and at the WHOF. Mulch must undergo the
enhancement process before being
available for public use. This consists of a
minimum of 15-day processing of mulch,
wherein it undergoes a minimum of five
rotations held at a temperature of 131
degrees Fahrenheit to eliminate potential
invasive species or other unwanted
organisms (County of Hawaiʻi DEM 2018a).
The green waste program diverts green
yard waste and untreated wood pallet
material from the West Hawaiʻi Sanitary
Landfill (WHSL) and the South Hilo Sanitary
Landfill (SHSL). In FY 2017–18, green waste comprised approximately 73 percent of all waste diverted
from the landfills for approximately 38,000 tons (County of Hawaiʻi DEM 2018b).
4.3.1.5 Scrap Metal
Scrap metal is often the bulkiest and heaviest material collected at municipal recycling and transfer
stations. Recycling scrap metal reduces tipping fees, conserves landfill space, and conserves natural
resources by replacing the need for virgin raw materials to produce new metal goods.
Residents may haul their scrap metal (ferrous and non-ferrous) to various County-operated recycling
and transfer stations (see Exhibit 4-3). No commercial, government agency, or nonprofit may use these
facilities to manage their scrap (Section 4.3.2.4 describes privately owned and operated facilities that
accept non-residential scrap). No automobiles, auto/boat/motor parts (including but not limited to
engines, motors, transmissions, or other metals with fluids), propane/oxygen/acetylene tanks, or other
compressed gas cylinders are accepted at recycling and transfer stations. The scrap metal is sorted by a
HDOH-approved contractor and sold to brokers for shipment in domestic and international markets.
To assist with the removal of abandoned vehicles, the County operates an Abandoned Vehicle Removal
Program. Under this program, abandoned vehicles may be hauled by a contractor to the Hilo or
Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Station after certain procedures have been followed by the Hawaiʻi
County Police Department (HCPD) and DEM. Section 7.2.10 provides more detail regarding the
abandoned vehicle program.
In July 2007, the Hawaiʻi State Legislature enacted Act 197, which establishes new rules for scrap dealers
and redeemers to deter copper theft, a class C felony. The Act requires that dealers obtain a written
statement certifying the seller has the lawful right to sell the copper, and the seller must be 18 years or
older with valid identification. Paperwork received by the seller from the recycler must be notarized
before payment is issued. The County does not buy back copper (Section 4.3.2.4 describes private sector
copper recycling and redemption).
4.3.1.6 Tire Program
According to the State of Hawai’i, over 1 million new motor vehicle tires are brought into Hawaiʻi each
year with the majority being used to replace used tires and the remainder arriving on new motor
East Hawaiʻi Organics Facility (EHOF)
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-10 August 2019
vehicles (HDOH 2017). County Ordinance No. 07-182 (as codified in HCC 20-46) prohibits the disposal of
tires that are whole, cut, sliced, chipped, or shredded at any landfill and all island-wide recycling and
transfer stations. The County does not collect any tires at any recycling and transfer station or landfill. It
is illegal to drop off tires at any County facility. When consumers purchase a new tire, under HRS 342I-
22, they are also charged for its proper end-of-life disposal. Thus, tire companies are required to accept
and properly dispose of used tires from their customers. Currently, used tires generated in the County
are shipped to O’ahu for processing, either at H-Power or AES Hawai’i, Inc.
When left outside in the elements, old tires collect water and serve as breeding grounds for mosquitos
that carry various infectious diseases. In FY 2015–16, during the Dengue fever outbreak, the County
collected over 50,000 tires. Both County code and state statute are instrumental to the proper disposal
of old tires upon point of purchase.
4.3.1.7 Fats, Oils, and Grease Program
FOGs are accepted at the WHSL subject to a special handling fee. Restricted items include petroleum-
based oil, coolants, refrigerants, liquid paints and stains, and process water. Currently, FOGs are
accepted at various businesses listed on the County’s website on the green waste and motor oil web
pages. Residents can take limited quantities of household cooking oil to Pacific Biodiesel Logistics or
treat FOG waste at home, through solidification via absorbent materials such as kitty litter or
newspaper. Once solidified, this waste may be disposed of in the trash. Resources are also provided on
the County’s web page on how residents may convert their used oil into biodiesel.
4.3.2 Private Sector Programs
Many businesses in the private sector develop in-house recycling programs. These programs are often
not tracked by the County and may constitute a large percentage of recycled materials. Some larger
businesses have sophisticated systems to document the amount of recycled material generated, while
smaller businesses sometimes do not carefully track the amount of materials that they recycle. The
County plans to request data from the private sector to better understand the actual recycling numbers
on the island.
4.3.2.1 Curbside Collection of Recyclables
Businesses provide HI-5 beverage container redemption services at their business locations, community
centers, and schools, or through mobile redemption units. Contractors and nonprofit groups also pick up
paper products, such as mixed office paper, newspapers, and cardboard. The recycled materials are
generally sold to brokers on the mainland.
No island-wide or large-scale curbside recycling program is currently implemented in the County;
however, several companies offer collection of recyclables in limited areas of the County for both
business and residential customers. In addition to trash service, a few haulers are also providing
recycling collection service to their customers.
4.3.2.2 Large Retail Business Recycling
Large retailers, such as Walmart, Kmart, Costco, Home Depot, and others, maintain in-house recycling
programs at their stores. Cardboard and plastic (plastic bags and shrink wrap) constitute most of the
materials recycled at these large retailers. Recycling quantities may range from a couple of bales of
combined cardboard and plastic per week up to 20 bales per week for the largest retailers; each bale
averages approximately 800 to 1,000 pounds. Depending on the retailer, HI-5 beverage containers,
mixed paper, wood pallets, batteries, and light bulbs are also recycled at the stores.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-11
Data provided during interviews conducted with many of the retailers indicate that most of the
materials, especially cardboard and plastic, are shipped either to the West Coast to third-party brokers
or to the retailer’s distribution center. Other recycled materials are picked up by permitted haulers.
4.3.2.3 Green Waste
Green waste facilities on the island are primarily County-operated. Residents may dispose of their
organics at the six recycling and transfer stations that accept green waste if their volume is less than the
load restriction (see Section 4.3.1.4) and at the two organic facilities (EHOF and WHOF). The County also
promotes home ‘grasscycling’ where grass clippings are used as fertilizer, along with backyard
composting where small-scale organics are converted to soil or mulch at residents’ properties. The
County promotes home composting on their website. To manage larger volumes and to increase their
diversion rate, a compost facility that can process food waste, wood pallets, paper, and compostable
plastics is planned for operation in 2020.
In 2016, the Hawaiʻi Department of Agriculture issued a permanent rule, pursuant to Hawaiʻi
Administrative Rule (HAR) 4-72-13, placing a quarantine on ōhi`a lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha) and
prohibiting the transport of all ōhi`a-containing materials to prevent the spread of ōhi`a-wilt disease, an
infection caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fimbriata and leading to the mortality of ōhi`a trees (Friday
et al. 2015). Because contaminated soil, sawdust, and wood are transmitters of this fungus, transport of
these materials is prohibited, unless under permit. Invasive species found in compost include little fire
ants (LFAs) and Coqui frogs (County of Hawaiʻi DEM 2018a). Thus, these organics must be treated under
an enhancement process to restrict the spread of invasive species and other organisms.
4.3.2.4 Metals Recycling
Businesses in the private sector with solid waste permits to collect and sort scrap metal at their facilities
include Atlas Recycling, Business Services Hawaii, and Big Island Scrap Metal on both sides of the island;
as well as Mr. K’s Recycling and Redemption in Hilo. Atlas Recycling and Mr. K’s Recycling and
Redemption are licensed to buy back copper. The metal is sold to brokers for markets in domestic and
international markets.
4.3.2.5 Tires
Multiple haulers collect and bale tires and tire parts for shipment to the West Coast or O`ahu for
processing into ground and crumbed materials for use as fuel at the H-Power waste-to-energy (WTE)
facility. One contractor repurposes tires to make concrete tire blocks used in decorative walls. The
contractor is currently attempting to gain approval from the state of Hawaiʻi to allow contractors to use
the tire blocks as a component in structural walls.
4.3.3 Current Material Markets and Market Development Initiatives
Only a small percentage of materials is processed and reused locally, and the cost of the County’s
recycling program is highly dependent on remote market prices for recycled materials in Asia. Therefore,
Hawaiʻi recyclers are susceptible to market fluctuations due to leaner profit margins originating from
high shipping costs, and in recent years, the downward trend in recycling market prices. For example, in
2018, China’s government implemented new restrictions on what type of recyclables may be imported
into the country. China no longer imports low-grade plastics and unsorted paper. China also aims to
increase the quality of recyclables entering China by requiring low contamination. Although the Asian
market is in flux, the United States’ recycling rate for polyethylene terephthalate (PET #1) plastic bottles
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-12 August 2019
increased from approximately 28 percent in 2016 to about 29 percent in 2017. This indicates the
demand is strong enough to continue recycling this product, which is mostly used in textiles and bottles.
With these uncertainties, the County has had to reconsider its target market and list of recyclable
materials according to Section 20-31, Chapter 20 of the HCC. On December 1, 2018, the County
eliminated #5 plastics (e.g., yogurt containers, margarine tubs), plastic grocery bags, and clam-shell-type
plastic (e.g., salad, bento boxes) in the mixed recyclable bins at the recycling and transfer stations. Maui
County has also stopped collecting these materials in response to China’s ban. The County is currently
recycling PET #1 and #2 plastic containers that are in the form of a jar, jug, or bottle.
In comparison, Honolulu diverts 74 percent of waste from landfilling at their H-Power WTE facility
through incineration and energy recovery (HDOH 2015). During the development of the 2009 Plan, the
County did not intend to pursue this form of diversion because they agreed with Chapter 342G, HRS’s
definition that incineration does not constitute a form of recycling and considered it too costly to
implement. However, the County has not discounted the potential for some form of material recovery
and treatment for future implementation (see Chapter 9). With the onset of limited recycling
opportunities for some plastics and mixed paper, the County will consider other opportunities for
diversion that does not discount an alternative material recovery system.
Examples of local and mainland markets are described below.
4.3.3.1 Mulch and Compost Products
Local businesses, including landscapers, contractors, and public agencies, use mulch and composted
materials produced locally. Customers use compost and mulch for both residential and agricultural
applications. It is likely that 100 percent of the materials produced through recycling of green waste can
be handled locally. The County offers mulch free to residents at the EHOF and WHOF as well as the
Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Station in the mulch pickup area. A new business in East Hawai’i offers
food waste collection service for composting. They also provide workshops for home composters.
4.3.3.2 Cooking Oil, Fats, Oils, and Grease
FOGs are accepted at the WHSL for a fee. Restricted items include petroleum-based oil, coolants,
refrigerants, liquid paints and stains, and process water. Currently, businesses can dispose of FOGs at
various locations listed on the County’s green waste and motor oil web pages. The County encourages
residents to treat FOG waste at-home, through solidification via absorbent materials such as kitty litter
or newspaper. Once solidified, this waste may be disposed of in the trash. Resources are also provided
on the County’s website on how residents may convert their used oil into biodiesel.
4.3.3.3 Paper
Currently, much of the recycled paper and cardboard generated on the island is shipped to domestic and
international markets for reuse. Several local businesses accept newspaper for recycling and produce
shredded paper products used primarily by the local agriculture businesses. Businesses interviewed
indicated that 100 percent of the materials that they produce through recycling are purchased by local
farmers for use in growing and shipping of agricultural products and flowers.
4.3.3.4 Plastics
Some plastic containers (#1 and #2) are included in the HI-5 Redemption Program. As described in
Chapter 3, the County has enacted a Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance, regulating plastic bag and
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-13
polystyrene plastic products to reduce the volume of this material and thereby decrease landfilling and
pollution-associated costs. Number 1 and 2 plastics are baled and shipped to overseas markets.
4.3.3.5 Glass
Glass is being reused in the County and shipped off island for recycling. On island uses have included
crushing for use in local construction projects. Up to 10 percent of aggregate is replaced with crushed
glass for ‘glasscrete.’ Other uses for crushed glass include landscaping, backfill, and drainage, among
other things. Currently, the County plans to use crushed glass for the operational layer of new cells at
the WHSL.
Several smaller businesses in
the County use recycled glass
to produce artistic,
architectural, or educational
products; however, the market
for these products is somewhat
limited.
The potential exists to develop
local markets serving the
construction industry that
would recycle most or all the
glass containers generated in
the County. Doing so would
require marketing and
promotion efforts, changing
specifications and regulations,
and developing additional
processing infrastructure. Products such as glassphalt or reflective materials used in signage could
potentially be produced on the island, and require development of infrastructure, equipment, and/or
facilities to accommodate the manufacture of these materials.
The HDOH pays redemption center operators 2 cents per container for on-island use, and 4 cents per
container for remanufacturing, which translates to shipping and off-island processing because there are
no glass remanufacturers on the island. The SWD staff believe that paying more for off-island reuse and
remanufacturing than for on-island use is a barrier to developing local markets for glass. HDOH works
with each county to operate local glass recovery programs to increase the glass diversion rate from the
waste stream. Developing local markets for glass has several benefits, including saving natural resources
by not having to mine raw materials, eliminating diesel fuel use associated with shipping glass to off-
island markets, and creating local jobs.
The HDOH administers a state-wide glass recovery program funded by an advance disposal fee (ADF).
The department collects a 1.5 cent fee per non-deposit beverage glass container from those who
manufacture or import glass containers (excluding deposit beverage containers). Those who import or
manufacture fewer than 5,000 non-deposit beverage glass containers within a 1-year period are exempt
from payment of the 1.5 cent fee; however, are still required to register with HDOH. Exclusions from the
program include tempered glass containers, including drinking glasses, cups, bowls, plates, and ashtrays;
and/or glass containers holding less than 2.5 ounces intended for human consumption.
Pāhoa Recycling and Transfer Station
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-14 August 2019
4.3.3.6 Metals
There are limited facilities in the County for processing scrap metal. The Kealakehe Metal Salvage Facility
closed in 2016 due to onsite lead soil contamination. The bulk of the scrap metal generated in the
County is shipped either to O`ahu for processing and subsequent shipment to the mainland, or directly
to Asian markets.
In the past half-decade, the price of scrap metal experienced a downturn (Lasky 2018), primarily
because the high cost of shipping to distant markets has affected its value. While the scrap metal market
is expected to increase in the following years (World Steel Association 2017), this market remains highly
variable and subject to fluctuations. In addition to shipping costs, factors such as tariffs and product
bans will also affect prices.
4.3.4 County of Hawaiʻi Staffing Levels
Successful delivery of local government waste reduction programs requires devoting an appropriate
amount of resources including staffing. The County has demonstrated its commitment to waste
reduction and recycling by assigning the following staff to County waste reduction and recycling
programs in the DEM:
• One FTE (full-time employee) recycling coordinator.
• Two FTE recycling specialists for the HI-5 recycling program.
• Three FTE recycling specialists.
4.4 Issues and Concerns
As described above, a number of recycling, bioconversion, and marketing activities have been conducted
in the County, including programs and initiatives by the County as well as other organizations. Despite
these efforts, the County recycling rate hovers around 20 percent (County of Hawaiʻi DEM 2018c), which
is well below its 2013 target of 80 percent. As described in 4.3.2, private sector recycling programs are
often not tracked and may constitute a large percentage of recycled materials. However, more could be
done by the County and waste generators to treat materials as resources and further reduce the volume
of solid waste delivered to the landfills. The need to implement additional programs and policies is
further established by the County’s commitment to maximize diversion.
4.5 Options for Improvement
Pursuant to HRS 342G-26, the following subsections provide an overview of various options that could
be implemented to improve recycling and bioconversion and solidify markets. These options were
developed based on successful initiatives implemented in other jurisdictions that may be applicable and
appropriate for the County. Note that the options focus on recycling and bioconversion; waste reduction
and reuse are discussed in Chapter 3, public education is discussed in Chapter 5, and institutional
approaches to collection service delivery (i.e., public versus private) is discussed in Chapter 8.
4.5.1 Residential Curbside Collection and Processing of Recyclables
In this option, the County would collect recyclables from single-family residents or contract with a private
collection firm for the service. There is a wide variety of curbside recycling programs in use in North
America today. They can generally be grouped into two categories: multi-stream or single-stream systems.
A third type, co-collection, in which bags of garbage and recycling are collected in a single vehicle, is
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-15
becoming less popular because of contamination concerns and low participation rates. A brief discussion
of multi-stream and single-stream recycling and other important considerations is described below.
4.5.1.1 Multi-Stream Recycling
With multi-stream systems, households separate and place recyclables into rectangular containers,
bags, or bundles and place them at the curb. The collector lifts materials by hand into multiple
compartments on the collection vehicle. Glass is often separated from other materials to avoid high
contamination of fiber and fiber processing difficulties that can result when broken glass is present.
Most programs sort materials into two or three types of commodities, and five to seven material sorts
are done in some programs.
According to a 2016 study, single-stream systems (also referred to as commingled systems) produce 25
percent system loss on average for all steps in the process (mixed recycling facility, processor, mill, and
end user). The losses from a system where all recoverable materials are collected separately from each
other are much lower, at about 5 percent. In a multi-stream recovery system, where most materials are
kept separate from each other at the point of collection, a far greater amount of material collected is
made into new products or used beneficially; if completely separated, this conversion to new or
beneficial products can range between 90 and 99 percent [depends on the material, the level of
contamination, and the sorting and processing accuracy] (Ecology 2016).
Advantages
• More thoroughly separating differing types of materials generally results in higher quality
recycled material and thus, higher market prices.
• Can raise consumer awareness that sorted materials are valuable resources.
Disadvantages
• Requires more effort by households to sort materials.
• Requires a higher level of effort by haulers, resulting in higher collection costs.
4.5.1.2 Single-Stream Recycling
Single-stream or “commingled” recycling is a system in which all dry recyclables are placed into a single
container. The container is oftentimes lifted using a hydraulic lifting arm attached to a collection vehicle.
This more automated type of system lowers collection costs. The lowest cost per ton of material recycled is
typically achieved by single-stream recycling with fully automated collection in which a single driver can
collect material from many stops without leaving the cab of the truck (see photograph below). In a single-
stream system, only around 75 to 80 percent of the collected materials are made into new products with
20 to 25 percent ending up landfilled, burned in incinerators, or boilers [energy recovery] (Ecology 2016). Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-16 August 2019
Advantages
• Generally results in the highest rate of diversion
of materials from landfill.
• Simpler system for participants to use because all
materials are combined in a single bin and no
sorting is necessary.
• Lower cost per ton of material recycled because
of higher resident participation rates combined
with automated collection efficiency (lower
collection costs).
• Results in fewer injuries to collection workers
and corresponding workers compensation claims because no lifting or handling of materials is
required.
Disadvantages
• Much higher contamination of recyclables; significant effort is required to ensure that residents
maintain material quality.
• Requires sophisticated materials processing facilities and equipment, as well as good
communication with processors and end-use markets to ensure that manufacturing (raw
material quality) requirements are met.
• Fully automated systems require higher initial and long-term capital costs because mechanically
complex trucks are needed that have more rigorous long-term maintenance requirements.
4.5.1.3 Service Standards
Curbside collection is generally offered on a subscription basis, or made mandatory for some or all
single-family residents within a jurisdiction. The County is predominantly rural in character with
relatively small urban and suburban areas in Hilo, Kona, Waimea, and a few other locations. Many of the
rural areas within the County have steep, unimproved roads not suitable for collection vehicles. Thus,
mandatory curbside collection for all County residents is likely to be impractical. Further, longer
distances between collection stops will occur in many of the geographically dispersed small communities
in the County. A voluntary subscription service, for which not all residents would sign up, would
potentially make the distance between collection stops even longer. For program cost efficiency, it is
recommended that this option include designated zones where curbside service would be mandatory.
For the purpose of developing diversion estimates, a rough analysis of housing units in the 2010 Census
Designated Places was conducted. The result was an estimate of 72,894 households (US Census Bureau
2010) that would be served by the program, which is about 84 percent of the estimated 86,778 occupied
single-family households in the County in 2017 (US Census Bureau 2018).
Collection frequency could be weekly or bi-weekly. Weekly collection generally is more costly, and can
potentially result in somewhat higher diversion from landfill. The collection frequency could be
evaluated during a pilot program and determined at a later date.
4.5.1.4 Processing
The processing requirements for the collection program would need to be determined. The economics of
material recovery facilities are characterized by substantial economies of scale. It is likely that the
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-17
County’s most cost-effective strategy is to bale single-stream recyclables and ship them to the mainland
for processing (as is currently done by a privately-owned facility with mixed recyclables collected at
County recycling and transfer stations). The resulting requirements for a County processing facility would
consist of a covered building with space to store incoming materials, one or more balers for densifying
materials, and equipment and facilities to load shipping containers for transportation to markets.
It is likely that one or more new processing facilities would be needed to support this program. The cost
of developing and operating several smaller storage and baling facilities would need to be weighed
against the costs and other impacts of trucks hauling materials long distances to a central facility. The
most likely potential locations for such facilities would be in East Hawaiʻi (Hilo), one in West Hawaiʻi
(Kona), and one in the Waimea area.
4.5.1.5 Other Considerations
There are a number of other factors that would be considered when evaluating curbside recycling:
• Collection is typically performed through a contracting mechanism with a private service
provider, although many cities and counties collect recyclables using municipal workers. This
decision would need to be made with state contracting laws in mind.
• There are many ways of organizing the collection of garbage, recyclables, and green
waste/organics. The program must be integrated with other collection programs. If curbside
recyclable collection were implemented in the County, it would be costly to collect both at
curbside and at all 22 of the County’s recycling and transfer stations.
• Pilot programs and consumer research would be conducted prior to full-scale implementation to
develop data that can be used to refine and tailor the program to the needs of the various
communities within the County.
• Education and promotion of the program would be critical to success.
Diversion Potential. Curbside recycling has the potential to divert significant quantities of material from
County landfills. The extent of diversion could vary significantly depending on the type of program that
is instituted and other factors such as those presented in Exhibit 4-5. Some of the more successful
curbside recycling programs in the United States report collection rates of 800 to 1,000 pounds of
recyclable materials per participating single-family household per year. For example, in 2014, the City of
San Jose exhibited curbside collection of 894 pounds per participating household per year (City of San
Jose 2015), and Seattle reported dry recyclables collection of 1,086 pounds per participating household
per year in 2017 (Seattle Public Utilities 2017). Both jurisdictions have a single-stream system.
Exhibit 4-5. Example of Material Loss and Utilization Rates by Material Recovery
Collection System in State of Washington1
Collection System for Recoverable Material
Material Loss Rate
(percentage)
Material Utilization Rates
(percentage)
Commingled/Single Stream (Mixed recyclables) 16.6-31.0 69.0-83.4
Dual Stream (Commingled with glass on the side) 2.0-6.0 94.0-98.0
Source-Separated Materials1 1.0-4.3 95.7-99.0
Commingled Construction and Demolition Materials 18.7-26.0 74.0-81.3
Source: Ecology 2016.
1 Materials kept separate; common for large-scale commercial recovery and residential drop box locations or buyback centers.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-18 August 2019
In FY 2016, 14,887 tons of dry recyclables were collected from County recycling and transfer stations
(County of Hawaiʻi DEM 2017a), which is approximately 408 pounds per household per year. Using
results from the County’s 2008 waste composition study (Appendix D), assuming 72,894 households
(US Census Bureau 2018) would be served and material capture rates of 80 percent for most recyclables
(such as paper, cardboard, and containers), a recycling program could result in additional recycling of
11,910 tons, which is about 327 pounds per participating household per year, or about 735 pounds per
participating household per year, including materials currently being collected from County recycling
and transfer stations.
Cost Considerations. The cost of curbside recycling ranges significantly for different programs. Factors
that influence costs are similar to those that affect the amount of recycling such as:
• Costs increase with the frequency of collection (for example, weekly versus bi-weekly). In a
study conducted by the Solid Waste Association of North America, switching from weekly to bi-
weekly service can result in a 20 to 40 percent decrease in cost (California Recycle 2016). A 2014
cost-benefit analysis from the City of Austin revealed that switching from weekly to bi-weekly
trash collection resulted in a cost savings of approximately 33 percent for customers (City of
Austin 2015).
• Subscription versus mandatory service (mandatory collection has a higher total cost and lower
cost per household because the travel distance between stops is reduced).
• If recyclable materials are separated versus single-stream, more collection time is required at
each stop, thus increasing costs for collection.
• Cost of recycling-only versus a program that also includes curbside collection of garbage and/or
organics.
• Costs are higher in more rural service areas (because of longer distances and increased travel
time between stops).
• Shipping costs increase with distance to markets.
• Unstable recyclables market.
Information about the extent to which various factors affect the cost of recycling is shown in Exhibit 4-6.
The EPA reports that typical costs for curbside recycling range from $2.70 to $4.90 per household per
month (EPA 2016d). However, costs can be considerably higher depending on the contracted hauler in
the area and whether they own or operate a landfill or recycling and transfer station. All these costs
assume that there is a curbside garbage service in place. Should the County implement curbside
recycling in the absence of curbside garbage or green waste collection, costs would be considerably
higher because administration, billing, overhead, vehicle maintenance, training, and other costs would
be applied only to recycling and would not be spread over the cost of multiple services.
However, as illustrated in Exhibit 4-6, in a study conducted in Ontario consisting of 223 provincial
municipalities over a 10-year period, curbside operating costs are affected by various impact
parameters. For instance, while single-stream recycling exhibits 50 percent lower management costs
than multi-stream systems, single-stream systems also show 49 percent higher operating costs and a 9.6
percent lower market price for recyclables (Lakhan 2015). The County might consider similar factors
when determining the feasibility of a curbside program.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-19
Exhibit 4-6. Factors Affecting Curbside Recycling Costs
Program Feature
Cost
Increase or Decrease
Single Stream (Program Implementation by 1 Municipality) $4,101 to $5,122 increase
Curbside Collection $9,888 to $11,586 increase
Pay-As-You-Throw (Program Implementation by 1
Municipality)
$2,484 to $2,798 increase
Municipal Promotion and Education Expenditures
(per household) ($)
$1.20 to $4.80 increase
Population Density per Square Kilometer $44 to $58 decrease
Source: Lakhan (2015)
As discussed above, the cost of curbside recycling could vary significantly. A curbside recycling-only
system, without garbage or yard waste, and including material processing and marketing, would require
development of significant collection infrastructure and would be costly. The costs would likely be
significantly less if the service was combined with curbside garbage and/or organics collection.
4.5.2 Increase Green Waste Dropoff Opportunities at Recycling and
Transfer Stations
As discussed above, green waste can be dropped off at the EHOF and WHOF, and the Kealakehe, Ke’ei,
Waimea, Kea’au, Pāhoa, and Volcano recycling and transfer stations. This option would increase the
number of recycling and transfer stations that accept green waste.
Diversion Potential. The operation of the EHOF and WHOF, together with the acceptance of green waste
at various recycling and transfer stations, has resulted in an organics diversion rate of 73 percent of all
waste diverted from the landfill for approximately 38,000 tons in FY 2017-18 (County of Hawaiʻi DEM
2018c). Additional quantities could be captured with the implementation of a green waste disposal ban,
by allowing small commercial customers to participate in the program, and by expanding green waste
collection to include food waste.
Cost Considerations. The existing EHOF and WHOF will have continued operational and monitoring
costs, which will be in part offset by tipping fees. The introduction of a collection system for food waste
will also increase operational costs.
4.5.3 Residential Green Waste Collection and Processing
In this option, the County would collect green waste from single-family
residents or contract with a private collection firm for the service. The
choice of County collection versus private collection would need to be
made with state contracting laws in mind.
In this type of program, materials are typically collected in bags or plastic
bins provided by residents or the local government. Types of bags or
containers and associated advantages and disadvantages of each type of
container follow.
• Plastic bags. Relatively inexpensive, convenient; however, a
significant problem for processors because the cost of removing all plastic from the organics
results either in contaminated low-quality feedstock, extremely high-cost bag removal methods,
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-20 August 2019
or both. Grass in plastic bags can go anaerobic and become odorous when opened at the
compost facility. Most green waste collection programs now prohibit collection of green waste
in plastic bags.
• Compostable bags. Somewhat less convenient than plastic bins and
expensive over the long term for households, which is likely to lower
recovery rates. The bags compost well and avoid the contamination issues
associated with plastic bags.
• Plastic bins. Most programs now use plastic containers provided by the local
government, or in some cases by the user, and use rolling 30- to 90-gallon
carts that are easier to get to the curb than non-wheeled bins.
Bin contents are either loaded by hand (manual) or hydraulically (semi- or fully-automated) into the
truck. Most programs use trucks equipped with hydraulic loaders to limit lifting by collection workers,
thus reducing injuries and workers compensation claims.
4.5.3.1 Service Standards
Like curbside collection, it is recommended that any green waste collection program would be a
mandatory program for more densely populated single-family neighborhoods to increase efficiency and
reduce operating costs. Further, it is recommended that the program include rolling carts loaded by
using semi-automated or fully-automated equipment.
4.5.3.2 Processing Requirements
The County currently has a successful mulch program at the East Hawaiʻi Organics Facility (EHOF), West
Hawaiʻi Organics Facility (WHOF), and residential haul to certain recycling and transfer stations (see
Exhibit 4-3). Mulching produces a relatively low value product that is less desirable than compost or soil
products made from compost. Thus, mulch is available for free to residents at the EHOF, WHOF, or
Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Station (a nominal charge for assisted loading may be instituted). The
County is also in the process of developing a compost facility that can process both green waste and
food waste. After the compost facility is operational; the County would conduct a cost-benefit analysis
of coupling curbside green waste collection with existing method of self-haul to EHOF, WHOF, and
recycling and transfer stations.
4.5.3.3 Other Considerations
The other considerations that apply to curbside recycling also apply to curbside green waste:
• A decision would need to be made if collection would be provided by County workers or under a
contract with a private service provider consistent with state contracting laws.
• The program must be integrated with other collection programs and with the current green
waste services provided at County recycling and transfer stations.
• Pilot programs and consumer research would be conducted prior to full-scale implementation to
develop data that can be used to refine and tailor the program to the needs of the various
communities within the County.
• Education and promotion of the program would be critical to success.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-21
Diversion Potential. As discussed previously, green waste can be dropped off at the EHOF and WHOF,
and the Kealakehe, Ke’ei, Waimea, Kea’au, Pāhoa, and Volcano recycling and transfer stations.
Additional quantities could be captured with the implementation of a green waste disposal ban, and by
expanding green waste collection to include food waste.
Cost Considerations. The factors affecting the cost of curbside recycling discussed above would also help
determine the cost of green waste collection. Costs would depend on the other curbside services
provided. For example, the existing garbage and recycling transfer system network will impact the cost
of curbside recycling and its associated disposal tonnage.
4.5.4 Add Food and Other Organics to a Residential Curbside Recycling
and Green Waste Collection Program
As described previously, the County is in the process of identifying a
compost facility site that would accept yard waste, wood pallets,
food, paper, and compostable serviceware. The facility would be
constructed by a private contractor through a contractual agreement
with the County. The finished product would be sold island-wide,
with a minimum portion made available free to the public. The
compost facility would accept green waste and wood pallets initially
and then transition into accepting the food, paper, and compostable
plastics allowing time for the County to develop a program for collecting these materials.
Throughout the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, many large and small communities with a
commitment to zero waste are modifying their waste collection programs to include food and other
organics such as food-spoiled paper. Example cities include Kaua’i County, HI; Boulder, Colorado; and
San Francisco, CA:
• Kaua’i County, HI: Adopted a zero waste resolution in 2011 and plans to achieve a 70 percent
diversion rate by the year 2023. Implementation of PAYT program has incentivized residents to
reduce their waste generation. Also, a volunteer organization, Zero-Waste Kaua’i, supports the
ban of materials such as expanded polystyrene (commonly called Styrofoam®), and advocates
waste mitigation practices at outreach events and schools (County of Kaua’i 2018b).
• Boulder, CO: A zero waste ordinance was developed in 2015 where all single-family
homeowners had to subscribe to a waste hauling service by 2016, and where all multi-family
property managers had to provide proper waste disposal for tenants. This ordinance also
applied to businesses and stated that there must be proper signage on all bins for recyclables
and compostables. Boulder plans on achieving an 85 percent waste diversion rate by 2025 (City
of Boulder 2016).
• San Francisco, CA: The City plans to become zero waste by 2020; in 2012, an 80 percent
diversion rate was achieved. A mandatory recycling and composting ordinance was passed in
2009 where all residents and commercial businesses had to properly sort their waste in the
proper bins. In relation to residential curbside collection, the City enforces a program that
provides separate collection of single-stream recyclables, compostables, and trash in three
separate bins (EPA 2018a).
These systems require residents to learn new ways of managing food and other organics and program
managers must clearly communicate to residents what materials must go in each bin. Most of these
systems have a type of variable rate to encourage behavior that minimizes garbage. In general, after
initial pilot testing and consumer research, these programs have typically been well-received by
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-22 August 2019
residents. Current research efforts are focusing on ways to increase participation by residents; many
programs report a 35 to 40 percent residential organics participation rate (Wake County 2014; SAFE
2016; Hennepin County 2017). Recently, curbside organics recycling has proliferated. According to a
waste characterization study conducted by BioCycle of various cities in the United States, between 2009
and 2011, food waste collection expanded by more than 50 percent (Yepsen 2011). In fact, cities such as
Portland, Oregon, which also employ a PAYT system, exhibited an organics participation rate of 72
percent in 2013 (City of Portland 2014). Implementation of aggressive PAYT rates is one method
communities are using to improve participation rates.
4.5.4.1 Processing
These programs require more sophisticated composting systems. Once food is added to the organics
stream, composting must be done with some type of covered system with managed air flows to
minimize odors and prevent unsanitary feeding by birds, rodents, and other vermin. See Section 4.5.9
for more information about processing systems appropriate for food and other organics.
Diversion Potential. Using results from the County’s 2008 waste composition study, assuming 72,894
households would be served and a 50 percent capture rate of food and wet or food-soiled paper, it is
estimated that 20,232 tons of food and other organics would be collected. When combined with
recyclables and green waste, the combined system is estimated to result in additional diversion of
32,142 tons, or an amount equivalent to 16 percent of the 195,887 total tons of waste delivered to
recycling and transfer stations in 2016. When the 14,887 tons currently being recycled at recycling and
transfer stations are included, the program would result in an increase in diversion equivalent to 37
percent of total current waste delivered to recycling and transfer stations.
Note that this is considerably lower than the 50 to 70 percent diversion rates reported by other three-
stream programs. This is the result of the following two factors:
• Residents who live in multi-family dwellings and in very rural single-family dwellings would not
be covered by the three-stream program, they would deliver materials to the recycling and
transfer stations.
• The materials arriving at County recycling and transfer stations include materials rarely set out
at the curb by single-family residents on a routine basis, such as construction and demolition
debris.
To make an equivalent comparison to other residential communities, the diversion rate was adjusted for
these two factors. Including only the 72,894 participating households and typical curbside commodities,
the three-stream system could result in an estimated diversion of 68 percent.
Cost Considerations. Rates for three-stream collection service depend on the size of containers residents
subscribe to. As examples, San Francisco and Seattle charge approximately $45 per month for service
with 32-gallon discard and organics carts (City and County of San Francisco 2018; Seattle Public Utilities
2018); costs are higher if larger containers are desired. These costs include disposal,
processing/composting, administration, education, and other costs, including the cleanup and long-term
monitoring of closed landfill sites.
4.5.5 Add Food Waste Bins at Recycling and Transfer Stations
Around the United States, local governments are adding food waste bins to their drop-off facilities:
• In 2010, numerous counties in Twin Cities, MN, enacted food waste programs. Hennepin County
has combined their food waste collection locations with recycling and transfer stations
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-23
(Hennepin County 2018). Other counties in the area, such as Anoka and Ramsey counties, have
certain drop-off locations dedicated solely to residential food waste (Anoka County 2018;
Ramsey County 2018). Minnesota state law (HF403-SF383) requires yard and organic waste to
be disposed of in a compostable or Kraft paper bag, or in a reusable container.
• In Brown County, WI, a pilot program is being run where participants may bring their food waste
to one of two drop-off locations. Residents must register with the County to use these locations
for tracking purposes (Brown County 2018).
According to BioCycle’s annual report, in 2017 there were 67 drop-off programs located in 15 states
servicing approximately 6.7 million households. The report also included a survey where 25 out of 30
municipalities stated that they considered their program a success (BioCycle 2017).
Source: Ramsey County (2018). Organics recycling.
The County currently has green waste (yard waste, pallets) bins located at six County-operated recycling
and transfer stations. The County is currently considering the best-suited location for a composting
facility that will not only process green waste, but also food waste and soiled paper among other
compostable materials. Once constructed, food waste bins could be added to recycling and transfer
stations with existing green waste bins. The contract with the current licensed hauler of green waste
would then be modified to add food waste to the collection agreement.
To address odor and contamination-related concerns, certain practices would be implemented by the
County and program participants (Exhibit 4-7). The County could also consider proposing legislation
restricting the type of compostable bag that may be disposed of in the food waste bins. For instance,
legislation could mandate that residents use a certified compostable bag for disposal at drop-off
locations, according to the U.S. Standard ASTM D6400 specification, similar to Minnesota (HF403-SF383)
or California (AB1972-SB567) state law. Recycling and transfer station attendants may determine if a bag
meets this specification by looking for a Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) logo on the bag
(Biodegradable Products Institute 2018). If the bag does not contain this logo, or if it is not a Kraft paper
material, attendants may deny disposal of these uncertified bags into the food waste bins. By limiting
contamination in the organics, the ultimate quality and processing of the compost will be significantly
improved. To be effective, the program will require rigorous educational and promotional efforts,
particularly at the onset.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-24 August 2019
Exhibit 4-7. Organics Maintenance
Maintenance Residential Participants
County Recycling and
Transfer Stations
Freeze or refrigerate compostables X –
Use a BPI-certified compostable container liner and
change after each use X X
Line the bottom of compost containers with
shredded paper – X
Rinse compost containers regularly X –
The County may consider running a pilot food waste program similar to that in Brown County (Brown
County 2018). As part of the program, the County could formulate a recording system for the food waste
bins. At the recycling and transfer stations, participants who wish to deposit organics in the food waste
bins would be required to sign-in with the onsite
attendant. Thus, data pertaining to usage
frequency would be ascertained.
To launch the program, the County could hand out
a limited supply of countertop compost bins and a
roll of BPI-certified compost liners to residents on
a first-come, first-served basis, contingent upon
funding availability. As stated in Chapter 5, Public
Information and Education, the County plans to
expand signage at recycling and transfer stations.
As part of this initiative, visually enticing signs
could be added near food waste bins. Also stated
in Chapter 5, the County plans to update their
public information brochures. A brochure could be
formulated illustrating acceptable and
unacceptable items that may be placed in food
waste bins. These brochures could also be handed
out at the recycling and transfer stations and at
public outreach events.
Diversion Potential. With many residents already accustomed to participating in an organics program,
there is the potential for increased diversion of food (and other compostable products), particularly if
introduced as a pilot program where residents are already accustomed to hauling green waste (e.g.,
Kealakehe). After understanding functionality, additional quantities could be captured by increasing the
number of recycling and transfer stations that accept food and other compostable products, and the
implementation of a green waste and food waste disposal ban.
Cost Considerations. The addition of food waste bins will have associated maintenance, transportation,
and processing-related costs. However, by adding food-waste bins to recycling and transfer stations with
existing green waste bins, the County will reduce transport-related costs and maximize efficiency for
haulers.
Source: City of Charlottesville (2018) Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-25
4.5.6 Source Separation Ordinance (Mandatory Recycling) and/or
Disposal Bans with Differential Tip Fees
A growing number of local governments are adopting policies and legislation that prohibit disposal of
recyclable products and/or mandate source separation and/or recycling of those materials. For example,
in 2014 Honolulu mandated that commercial businesses and government recycle. Bars were required to
recycle glass, restaurants to recycle food waste, and businesses to recycle paper. In 2017, compliance
rates in Honolulu ranged from 74 percent for glass, 64 percent for office paper, and 74 percent for food
waste (City and County of Honolulu 2018a). In California, state law requires businesses that generate 4
or more cubic yards of waste per week and multi-family complexes (5 or more units) implement
recycling programs. They are also required to recycle their organic waste (e.g., food scraps, yard waste).
In support of the program, Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority provides free waste assessments to help
these entities improve their recycling programs. Because of the commercial recycling mandate,
Greenfield, located in Salinas Valley, exhibited a 152 percent increase in recycled material by the end of
2010 (Institute for Local Government 2011).
Once recycling opportunities for select materials are in place, some policies the County could consider
include the following:
• Require residents and businesses to participate in recycling and composting programs. An
ordinance could be developed that either requires residents and businesses to source-separate
recyclables or bans the combination of designated recyclable or compostable materials with the
garbage.
• Ban readily recyclable and reusable materials and products from landfills and/or any future
energy from waste facility.
• Ban single-use disposable products from public events and festivals and as many other places as
possible.
According to the EPA (EPA 2018b), best practices to consider when formulating a recycling system
include:
• Incentives and penalties: Incentivize residents by implementing a PAYT system or via adding
additional payments.
• Separate compensation from rates: Allows contractors to base their fees on the number of
customers or cost of service rather than flat customer rates.
• Align costs to rates: Instead of funding for solid waste programs to occur primarily via tipping
fees, rates could be charged for commercial recycling and composting once the area reaches a
high diversion rate.
• Limit or eliminate disposal payments: Limit or discard landfill or recycling and transfer station
contractor fees related to waste volume.
• Reward workers for more diversion: Train and reward workers for waste mitigation promotion.
• Require productive market use of yard debris and other organic materials: Require that organics
be composted at a compost or anaerobic digest facility, rather than being used as daily cover in
a landfill.
• Direct materials to local markets: Route recyclable materials for local use in the community on a
conditional basis.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-26 August 2019
• Education and outreach: Promote waste mitigation efforts in-person, via social media, and via
proper signage and literature.
• Equal capacity commercial bin size and frequency: Provide equal capacity for recyclable and
compostable bins in comparison to waste bins.
• Equal services for multi-family customers: Contract with multi-family units and waste haulers to
provide equal services to that of a single-family resident.
• Source separation requirement or preference: Develop contracts that specify how recyclable
and compostable material are separated, based on the area.
• Purchasing preferences (Green Vehicles and Products): Develop contracts that include hauler
best management practices related to zero waste such as through fuel-efficient vehicles, the use
of recycled plastic and paper products, etc.
• Innovations clause: Develop contracts to allow leeway in recycling programs for potential novel
disposal practices and technologies.
Diversion Potential. The County now has a 2-bin program for mixed recyclables (plastic containers,
aluminum cans, steel cans, paper, cardboard) and glass-only available at 19 of the recycling and transfer
stations. Green waste is also accepted at the facilities listed in Exhibit 4-3. Thus, residents currently have
the opportunity to recycle these materials.
These materials would be good candidates for inclusion in a source-separation ordinance or disposal
ban. Enforcement would be the main challenge because there is relatively little monitoring and no
enforcement authority currently in place at recycling and transfer stations. Prior to enacting the
ordinance, the County would conduct an extensive education and promotion program that highlights
the reasons for the ordinance and the recycling options available to residents. For a period of 6 months
to a year before enacting the ordinance, the County would have signage prominently displayed at each
station that announces the pending ordinance and clarifies recycling options.
Once enacted, it is recommended that initial enforcement be less stringent (that is, encourage, but not
strictly enforce compliance to minimize conflicts and the potential for illegal dumping). More strict
enforcement, such as fining those not in compliance, would require significant changes to the authority
and role of environmental management or security employees for the recycling and transfer stations, or
subcontracting this function to a suitable security provider. Such changes could be considered if less
stringent enforcement proves ineffective.
For the commercial sector, the County could consider a similar ordinance that would apply at its landfills
to readily recyclable materials such as cardboard, green waste, and metals. At its landfills, it would
accommodate the dropoff of all banned materials for recycling. Dropoff would be free (such as at the
recycling and transfer stations) except the County could charge a fee for metals that is less than the fee
for garbage (the County started offering this to the commercial sector for green waste in 2015). This
would help encourage diverting metals to private recyclers. The ordinance could be enforced by banning
these materials from the landfill, with a penalty of two times the regular disposal rate if loads are found
containing the banned materials.
In 2009, Seattle mandated food and yard service for all single-family residents, and in 2010 the recycling
rate increased by 2.6 percent. In a 2005 survey, only 25 percent of Seattle residents used an organics bin
while in 2010, the utilization rate increased to 72 percent (Seattle Public Utilities 2017). Similarly, a
green waste and mulch ban from Guam’s one operating landfill in 2013 resulted in support from
residents, due to the multiple potential applications of compost in the agricultural and commercial
sectors (One Guam 2018).
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-27
Cost Considerations. To implement this option, the County would need to increase staffing and
potentially seek consulting assistance to research, and draft policies and legislation. Additional staffing
would be likely required to handle the additional material diverted from the landfill as well as
enforcement.
4.5.7 Commercial Recycling and Green Waste Program
While there are some businesses and institutions that currently recycle, there is considerable
opportunity to increase recycling from the non-residential sector. Because current markets for most
recyclables are in Asia or the U.S. mainland, the cost of shipping recyclables to markets makes recycling
less cost-effective for businesses than it is in most U.S. mainland communities. It is likely that to increase
the rate of non-residential recycling, the County will need to take regulatory steps to drive the process.
Regulatory measures may include the following elements:
1. Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation Ordinance. Adopt a mandatory recycling ordinance that
requires all businesses and institutions to recycle an approved list of commodities. That list
could include cardboard, metals, green waste, and other select commodities.
2. Business Recycling at Recycling and Transfer Stations. Mandatory recycling could be expensive
for smaller firms that do not generate much waste (such as small offices or retail operations).
Thus, the County would change the permits that govern its recycling and transfer stations to
allow small businesses and institutions to drop off materials. Businesses would still be
prohibited from disposing of waste at stations. At stations where space is available, the County
would provide additional bins for source-separated cardboard to accommodate small business
recycling efforts.
If accommodating small business recycling at the stations is not acceptable or feasible, the
mandatory recycling ordinance would provide an exemption for businesses with less than a
certain threshold number of employees (for example, small businesses employing less than 20
persons).
3. Require Collection Firms to Provide Recycling Services through Licensure. License all garbage
collection companies with a condition of the license that stipulates they must provide an
approved recycling collection service. The required service would be tied to the list of
mandatory recyclables. If all firms are required to provide a recycling service, competition would
lead to competitive rates for hauling both recyclables and garbage.
4. Develop and Contract for New Processing Facilities. As discussed above for residential recycling,
the County would need to ensure that processing and marketing opportunities are available for
these materials. The same processing facilities could be used for residential and non-residential
recyclables. This would probably include the County issuing an RFP for these services either at
County-owned sites and/or allowing contractors to propose sites. Facilities would probably be
needed in West Hawaiʻi, East Hawaiʻi, and possibly in the Waimea area.
This option would require significant outreach to the business community, and a marketing and
technical assistance program. The option would include a reasonable phase-in period so that collection
firms can ramp up for the changed requirements. The County could consider implementing an incentive
program and/or recognition program for businesses that meet the recycling requirements.
If this program is to apply to state and federal government institutions such as schools, negotiations and
consultation with agencies will need to take place. For schools, collection contracts would need to be
revised to allow for recycling in addition to garbage collection.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-28 August 2019
Diversion Potential. Using results from the County’s 2008 waste composition study, assuming 80 percent
of business and institutions would participate and a 60 percent capture rate for readily recyclable
materials and green waste, this program could result in additional recycling of approximately
13,400 tons per year.
Cost Considerations. The County would need to dedicate staff to draft ordinances and to follow through
with the required legislative process to enact them, and set aside funds for the promotion and
education of the program.
4.5.8 Bioconversion of Food and Other Organics from Businesses/
Institutions
The County’s 2008 waste composition study estimated that discarded food makes up 34,000 tons, or 16
percent, of disposal at County landfills. The putrescible nature of food requires more costly and
sophisticated collection and processing infrastructure than green waste; however, there are many
successful examples on the mainland and elsewhere of organics management programs that
incorporate food and other organics as feedstock. This option discusses the potential for collection from
non-residential sources.
All material would have to be treated under the
enhancement process to restrict the spread of invasive
species and other organisms. In 2016, a contract was
signed with Hawaiian Earth Recycling to operate a
compost facility that can process organics including food
waste. Thus, it is expected that the County will have an
established treatment facility to process incoming food
waste and other compostable materials from businesses
and institutions in 2020. The County would need to take
the following steps to attract material to the facility:
• Price the tipping fee at the facility less than the
tipping fee at its landfills to provide a financial
incentive for businesses to separate food.
• Develop an outreach program that would work with collection firms and major food generators
to encourage participation well in advance of the facility operation date.
• Be prepared to establish an ordinance preventing food from disposal at major food generators if
the first two steps above are not enough to attract material to the processing facilities.
Diversion Potential. Food and other organics, such as waxed cardboard and wet or food-soiled paper,
could be collected from businesses and institutions that discard reasonably large quantities of food.
Existing hauling routes and schedules would need to be altered to provide a separate service for food
and other organics.
Businesses and institutions would need to change work practices to separate food and other organics
from garbage. Other communities have found that one significant challenge for businesses and
institutions has been finding space on the premises to set out a separate collection bin for organics.
Cost Considerations. The potential need for increased staffing to effectively communicate among County
staff, the collection company, and businesses and institutions.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-29
4.5.9 Processing Food Waste Options
Compared to a green waste processing operation,
processing food waste requires additional design and
operational features to prevent odors and the attraction
of birds, rodents, and other vermin. This is typically
accomplished as follows:
• Receiving food scraps in an enclosure and
allowing biodegradation via earthworms
(e.g., vermicomposting)
• Receiving collection trucks and preparing/mixing
feedstocks in an enclosed building with biofilters
and other features to manage air flow and
odors.
• Mixing and agitating feedstock daily (unlike
green waste where under certain circumstances
material can be stored for days at a time).
Organic material may be heated to remove
potential invasive species and other unwanted
organisms, and to speed up the degradation
process.
• The bioconversion process requires either more
sophisticated electronic controls and/or more
sophisticated and meticulous daily operations. Many systems conduct this step of the process in
enclosed buildings or vessels. A brief overview of four commonly used bioconversion
technologies for food follows.
4.5.9.1 Covered Forced Air
Some relatively recent innovations have taken place to lower the cost of bioconversion with food. These
systems include engineered fabric buildings with aluminum frames, air control, and biofilters for receiving
and feedstock preparation. The buildings typically range in size from 2,000 to 10,000 square feet.
Once feedstocks are prepared, the material is placed into outdoor windrows with a fabric membrane
covers (for example, Gore or Ag-Bag) and aeration systems, or into roofed pole buildings with concrete
bunkers, aeration systems, and organic covers (typically finished product). After approximately 30 days,
the feedstock is cured in windrows or piles either outdoors or under a covered structure.
These systems have lower capital costs than other systems; however, may require more knowledgeable,
experienced operators to maintain final product quality and minimize nuisance odors.
Membrane-covered system (Everett, WA)
Bunker with roof (Latah Co., ID)
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-30 August 2019
4.5.9.2 Bays, Beds, and Tunnels
Bays, beds, and tunnel systems are normally
constructed inside buildings, and are essentially a
variant of a turned windrow system. The feedstock
is placed either in a bay formed by two long
parallel walls, or in a four-sided reactor bed.
The walls of the bay or bed are generally about
6 feet high.
The material is turned down the length of the bay
or bed by a machine that is suspended above or
rides on rails along the top of the bay or bed.
Turning aerates the material, and additional
aeration may be provided by a forced air system in the floor of the bay or bed. The turning machine
gradually moves the material down the length of the bay or bed and is timed so that by the time the
material reaches the end, the primary composting process is largely completed. The product is cured in
turned windrows or aerated static piles. As with static piles, the mixture must be perfectly balanced
when it is added because there is no further opportunity for amendments to be added. However, odors
can be easily controlled because bays and beds are usually constructed inside buildings. Bays and bed
systems typically are more expensive than turned windrows and static piles; however, less expensive
than in-vessel systems.
4.5.9.3 In-Vessel Systems
In-vessel systems offer the greatest degree of
control over the composting environment. In-
vessel systems also have the smallest land
requirements, although they are the most
expensive technology to design, construct, and
operate. An in-vessel system is defined as one in
which the composting process is conducted inside
a type of sealed container (the vessel) where the
environment is highly controlled, and access is
restricted (may be aerobic or anaerobic).
In-vessel systems can be either flow or batch
reactors. Larger systems consist of permanent chambers installed within a building. Mechanisms are in
place to load raw waste into and to remove compost from the chambers. At a minimum, the system
includes monitoring systems for temperature and oxygen content and an aeration system. Smaller
systems involve the use of portable containers. Modular vessels, which are similar in appearance to
international shipping containers, are filled with raw organic waste, sealed, and attached to aeration
manifolds and monitoring equipment. Microbes biodegrade the material, and at the end of the primary
composting process, the container is disconnected, emptied, and the material is formed into turned
windrows or static piles to complete the composting process (curing). A common byproduct of the
system includes biogas that may be utilized as energy. The vessel is then available for the next batch of
feedstock.
Bed composting system
In-vessel system (Mariposa Co., CA) Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-31
4.5.9.4 Energy Recovery with Wet and Dry Anaerobic Digestion
Significant amounts of energy are contained in food and other organics currently sent to landfills. The
Hawaiʻi Clean Energy Initiative seeks to generate 70 percent of Hawaiʻi’s energy from renewable sources
by 2030 (HDOH 2015). The variability in energy prices and concerns over global climate change have led
to the development of anaerobic digestion systems for food and other organics. Anaerobic digestion is a
proven technology that has been used in the wastewater field for years. The process converts food and
other organics to biogas (that can be used to produce electricity or to power vehicles) and dewatered
digestate that can be composted and sold for agricultural uses.
In a wet system, incoming materials are loaded into an enclosed building for tipping, pre-sorting, and a
series of pre-processing activities to remove recyclable and non-recyclable inorganic elements from the
material. Feedstocks are then fed into a hydropulper, which is designed to separate the remaining
inorganics from the biodegradable elements and to convert the organics into an organic suspension. The
biodegradable organic elements are pumped from the hydropulper to a grit removal system to further
remove unwanted materials that may have passed through the hydropulper sieve. The grit-free
suspension is then pumped to the anaerobic digester where the digestible material is converted into
methane-rich biogas. Non-digestible material is segregated for final curing and stabilization into
compost.
Dry systems allow solid materials to be mixed into the
biomass, whereas traditional wet digesters make only
minimal use of solids. In a dry system, up to 50 percent
of the biomass can be solids such as green waste, wood
chips, or paper. Biogas is then transformed in block-type
thermal power stations into electrical energy and heat.
Like the wet system, the digestate residual is cured to
convert it into compost or other agricultural products.
The dry systems have the advantage of being relatively
cost-effective organics management solutions for
relatively small waste streams (as small as approximately
6,000 tons per year). A key to the cost
effectiveness of wet or dry systems is
proximity to a power user, and/or
relatively high prices paid for electricity
generation or fuels. The relatively high cost
of electricity in the County provides an
advantage for this technology locally
compared to other areas of the country.
Diversion Potential. Using results from the
County’s 2008 waste composition study,
and assuming capture rates of 50 percent
for food, 50 percent for wet- and food-soiled paper, and 10 percent for wood, this program could result
in additional diversion of 21,600 tons. Additional carbon may need to be obtained from green waste,
wood chips, or other sources depending on the type of processing system selected.
Cost Considerations. The cost of processing food wastes and other organics will vary depending on the
type of technology, market conditions, contract terms, permitting requirements, power purchase
agreements, and other factors.
Dry anaerobic system (Germany)
Wet anaerobic system (Germany) Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-32 August 2019
4.5.10 Establish a County “Buy Recycled” Policy
This option, also discussed in the draft source reduction section, is important for promoting markets for
recycled materials. The County could change its procurement practices to require the use of recycled
glass, organics, and other materials to the extent practicable. This would help support the development
of local markets for readily recyclable materials. The County would work with local businesses to identify
materials that can be reused and recycled as part of County operations.
Diversion Potential. Difficult to quantify; this is a program that would support additional recycling.
Cost Considerations. The County may need to pay a higher price for some recycled products, and would
need to devote staff resources to refining its procurement policies.
4.5.11 Marketing Partnership with Other Hawaiʻi Counties
The County’s geographic isolation makes it expensive to ship recyclables to most existing markets. The
County could team with the other Hawaiʻi counties and the state government to investigate joint
marketing and market development opportunities. This could include improved pricing for backhauling
containers to the mainland and overseas markets, funding pilot programs for new local end uses, or
joint marketing of materials to improve market prices and/or lower transportation costs.
Diversion Potential. Difficult to quantify diversion potential; however, this initiative could result in long-
term benefits.
Cost Considerations. The County would need to dedicate additional staff to develop and participate in
potential studies or pilot programs.
4.5.12 Establish Opportunity to Recycle Legislation
The County could consider developing new requirements for owners and managers of multi-family
dwellings and multi-tenant commercial buildings that ensure that all tenants have reasonable access to
recycling services and premises-based facilities comparable to single-family dwellings and small
businesses. Any such requirements would be best implemented following consultation with the local
building industry.
Diversion Potential. Difficult to quantify diversion potential, however this initiative could result in long-
term benefits.
Cost Considerations. There would be some cost associated with industry consultation and modifying
building codes to support the new requirements. The cost of buildings affected by the legislation could
increase somewhat; however, after there is familiarity with the new requirements, impacts on
construction project cost would be modest.
4.5.13 Maintain Active State and Regional Profile on Zero Waste Public
Policy
The County could work with state and federal legislators and encourage other communities in the region
to adopt similar zero waste goals and plans. This effort could include a coordinated effort with regional
cooperation to support state and national efforts to adopt:
• Extended producer responsibility.
• Deposit programs.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-33
• Funding of zero waste initiatives through state-wide or regional landfill surcharges and product
charges.
• Change school collection contracts to include recycling.
• Full cost accounting for waste disposal.
• Packaging levies (for example, on plastic bags).
• Minimum recycled content standards for additional products.
• Design for the environment programs.
• Green procurement and green building guidelines for the public sector.
• National measuring, monitoring, and reporting in achieving zero waste goals.
• New mechanisms for financial assurance for post-closure liabilities for landfills.
Diversion Potential. Difficult to quantify diversion potential; however, this initiative would result in long-
term benefits.
Cost Considerations. There would be cost associated with staff time spent on zero waste advocacy, and
modest expenses for supplies.
4.5.14 Other Potential Recycling Opportunities
There are other initiatives that the County could adopt to support recycling, including:
• Improve Recycling Opportunities in County Parks. The County could consider developing a
program to provide additional recycling opportunities in all County parks. This could mirror the
2-bin system used at recycling and transfer stations by placing small mixed-material bins and
glass-only bins adjacent to all garbage bins at each park. The effectiveness and cost of this
program would first be tested with a pilot program. Improvements could include the addition of
lock-kits to recycling bins as well as improved illumination systems to deter vandalism.
• Improve Recycling Opportunities on Downtown Streets. The County Public Works Department
collects trash in downtown areas of communities such as Hilo and Kailua-Kona. A pilot program,
similar to the one suggested above for County Parks, could be implemented to test the
effectiveness and cost of providing recycling opportunities at all trash collection locations.
• Expand the Promotion of Event Recycling. The County currently provides technical assistance
and event bins to event coordinators looking to recycle at major events. This program could be
expanded by developing a list of major recurring events, contacting event coordinators, and
working with those coordinators to develop plans to improve recycling. The County would
consider providing financial assistance for recycling bins and/or developing an ordinance that
requires event recycling and possibly the use of compostable or reusable cutlery. The County
could also consider requiring waste reduction and recycling plans for event and facility rental
permits.
• Establish a Recycle Art Campaign. The County could establish a Recycle Art campaign, similar to
the Art of Recycling School Competition, with the goal of coordinating the efforts of business
and public offices and schools to organize and conduct recycle art contests at various venues
once per quarter. Examples of places where recycle art could be displayed include bank lobbies,
grocery stores, government offices, libraries, schools, airports, and museums.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-34 August 2019
• Expand Visitor Industry Recycling. Hotels, resorts, and other businesses that service the County’s
visitor industry are major waste generators. The County could increase its efforts to work with
this sector to improve recycling opportunities.
• Explore Opportunities to Develop an Eco-Industrial Park. Eco-industrial parks are clusters of
complementary businesses that can make beneficial use of currently discarded materials and
products produced by others. Candidates are organics, building deconstruction, salvage, reuse,
and repair. Actions by the County could include passing favorable zoning ordinances and/or tax
relief to spur on this type of activity.
4.6 Recommendations
Based on the analyses presented above and discussions with the SWAC, the County plans to implement
the recommendations listed below to improve the County recycling program. The operating
expenditures associated with the recommended actions would likely be funded by a new funding
method (e.g., PAYT), property taxes, and tipping fees, and the capital expenditures would be financed by
general obligation bonds as discussed in greater depth in Chapter 10 Administration.
The recommendations are divided into two categories, those relating to recycling of non-organic
materials (Recycling) and those relating to diversion of organics from landfills (Organics).
Implementation of the recycling recommendations may be slower than initially anticipated because of
the impact that the world-wide commodity market volatility has had on County recycling revenues.
4.6.1 Recycling
1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to improve
recycling rates. In many communities nationwide, experience has shown that updated policies
and ordinances are necessary to support new programs designed to treat discarded materials as
resources and keep them out of landfills. After reviewing various options, the County decided
the following options are best suited to the specific conditions within the County:
Thoroughly investigate mandates prior to implementation including assessment of markets
(should be well-established), operational viability (solicit input from recycling and transfer
station attendants, haulers, landfill operators), and implementation in other jurisdictions
with an emphasis on other Hawaiʻi counties.
Establish a differential tip fee ordinance.
Investigate the feasibility of establishing a mandatory curbside collection program for some
single-family residences.
Establish mandatory source separation and recycling ordinance, which would require all
businesses and institutions to recycle selected types of materials. This could include
implementing landfill bans for select recyclables.
Develop legislation that requires owners and managers of multi-family dwellings and multi-
tenant commercial buildings to provide recycling.
Conduct research and coordinate with legislators and waste managers within Maui, Kauai,
and Honolulu counties, to evaluate the potential for combining efforts to develop a
statewide landfill diversion strategy.
Lobby the state to change school waste collection contracts to mandate that recycling
services are included.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 4-35
2. Complete capital projects to facilitate implementation of expanded recycling programs. A
common theme expressed during discussions with the SWAC is that the County needs improved
facilities to manage recyclables. The County plans to:
Modify infrastructure at recycling and transfer stations to accommodate and expand
recycling.
Improve signage at recycling and transfer stations to provide the public with comprehensive
information about recycling opportunities and procedures.
3. Expand the opportunities for commercial recycling. The results of the waste stream assessment
conducted for this Plan update (Chapter 2) demonstrated clearly that commercial businesses
and institutions currently dispose of large quantities of potentially recyclable materials. After
deliberation with the SWAC and reviewing programs implemented by other jurisdictions, the
County plans to implement the following actions to increase commercial recycling:
Allow small businesses to use the recycling and transfer stations to recycle selected
materials within limits manageable by the County.
Work with the HDOH Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch to modify recycling and transfer
station operating permits to accommodate expanded recycling services.
Expand education and outreach programs for both large and small businesses to foster
participation in commercial recycling programs.
4. Expand opportunities to recycle in public areas and during public events. Providing recycling
bins in public places and at public events is a very visible way for the County to demonstrate its
commitment to landfill diversion. The County plans to implement the following public area and
event recycling programs:
Install additional recycling bins in parks and other public areas.
Conduct additional recycling events within the community each year.
5. Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental impacts.
(e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts, in
addition to tonnage-based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals.
6. Annually or bi-annually assess existing local and regional markets for materials across the
waste stream; study service voids for missed opportunities to recover commodities. The
County could shape strategic action plans around the findings. This process would need to
consider community, environmental, and other factors; this would not just be a commodity-
driven effort. An initial assessment could consider other destinations for shipping recyclables
that have lost value in the current market. For example, the County could consider shipping
formerly recyclable materials (e.g., #5 plastics) to the H-power facility in Honolulu if determined
economically cost effective (i.e., cost savings, cost neutral) through close coordination and
negotiations with the City and County of Honolulu.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
4-36 August 2019
4.6.2 Organics
Waste stream studies conducted previously and, as part of this project, have determined that organics
comprise a relatively large portion of the waste entering County landfills annually. Diversion of organics
was identified as a priority by the SWAC; therefore, the County developed the following actions:
1. Improve education and outreach programs that promote improved management of organics.
Composting has many benefits and is one area where education and outreach has been shown
to be effective at reducing organics households and businesses send to landfills. After
considering various options, the County plans to implement the following education and
outreach programs:
Ensure that the contractor responsible for administering the organics program is meeting
contractual requirements.
Expand and further develop a master composter program (low priority).
Develop a training program and guidance materials for farmers and gardeners.
Implement a “Stop Wasting Food” program that would benefit programs such as local food
banks.
Partner with other local groups to establish compost demonstration gardens at recycling
and transfer stations or at other visible locations in the community.
2. Initiate an onsite composting program for residents and businesses by distributing subsidized
units to both residences and businesses. Data from similar communities indicate that the
lowest cost method of keeping organics out of landfills is to manage them on site. This
eliminates the need for costly collection or transfer of organics. This is particularly true for the
County with many homes in rural areas that cannot be served cost-effectively by collection truck
routes. This program would fund subsidized bins for onsite composting of green waste and food
waste.
3. Conduct a landfill organics ban implementation study.
4. Implement added organics management facilities and equipment. Although onsite programs
are beneficial, more centralized infrastructure is also needed to provide opportunities for those
residents and businesses that are not interested in managing organics on site. After reviewing
many options with the SWAC and other stakeholders, the County plans to implement the
following programs:
Add food waste dropoff locations at recycling and transfer stations that already collect
green waste.
Formulate compostable bag ASTM D6400-compliance legislation.
Add organics/yard waste disposal to existing brochures/signage.
Expand the number of dropoff locations for green waste and/or food waste at recycling and
transfer stations.
Continue operation of mulch facilities at WHSL and SHSL.
Investigate organics collection programs, including a residential curbside collection program
and recycling and transfer station dropoff facilities. As part of this investigation, perform
pilot food waste demonstration projects with the potential for eventual expansion into full-
scale food waste management programs.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 5‐1
5. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
5.1 Introduction
Public education is a critical component of a successful environmental program because it informs
citizens about proper solid waste management and reduction methods. The public’s understanding of
various reuse, recycling, and composting activities are improved through these education and outreach
events. Education programs also serve to inform residents of the wide variety of solid waste services and
opportunities provided by the County and other entities.
This chapter describes existing public education activities within the County of Hawaiʻi, idenƟfies current
issues and concerns with respect to public education, and presents recommendations that will help
enhance educational opportunities.
5.2 Background
5.2.1 Regulatory Context
In accordance with Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes Chapter 342‐G (HRS 342G‐26), the public education and
information section of an Integrated Solid Waste Plan shall describe the programs that will be used to do
the following:
1. Provide comprehensive and sustained public notice of the options for alternative source
reduction, recycling, and bioconversion, and for the proper handling of household hazardous
and special wastes.
2. Distribute information and educational materials regarding general solid waste issues through
the media, schools, and community organizations.
5.2.2 Review of 2009 Plan
Exhibit 5‐1 provides a summary of the recommendations from the 2009 Plan relative to public education
and information, and describes the actions taken to achieve each recommendation.
Exhibit 5‐1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Public Education and Information
2009 Plan Recommendation Status
Implement a 3‐year zero waste education and social marketing program to educate
the public and business community about zero waste initiatives and opportunities.
Did not implement due to
funding constraints.
Hire one full‐time staff member to serve as the zero waste program coordinator. Did not implement due to
funding constraints.
Implement a community‐wide social marketing plan. Did not implement due to
funding constraints.
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
5‐2 August 2019
5.3 Existing Conditions
5.3.1 County of Hawaiʻi Waste Reduction Programs
The County employs several recycling specialists who conduct basic educational activities along with
their other duties. In addition, the County contracts with several business entities to coordinate and
provide educational activities to the community. The County’s main education initiatives include the
following:
Website (HawaiiZeroWaste.org).
Newspaper advertisements.
Radio, television, and movie theater advertising.
Brochures/flyers/posters.
Community outreach.
Networking with existing non‐profit and community groups (e.g., Recycle Hawaii, Zero Waste Big
Island).
Community events.
Sporting events.
School and group tours of the solid waste/recycling facilities.
Business education (HawaiiZeroWaste.org).
Person‐to‐person interaction (emails, telephone calls, interaction with customers at the
recycling and transfer stations).
A brief description of each of these initiatives follows.
5.3.1.1 County Website
The Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division (SWD), has its own page on the
County’s government website. Two links are provided on the SWD’s dedicated page. The first link is to
the County Public Document portal, which directs the user to solid waste documents and standard
forms. The second link is for access to the County’s zero waste website, HawaiiZeroWaste.org. The
public document portal includes official solid waste documents and operational information, recycling
and transfer station locations and operating hours, guidelines, permits, and plans. The
HawaiiZeroWaste.org website is a comprehensive public education resource that emphasizes current
events and announcements, as well as providing tips and options for residents and businesses regarding:
Waste reduction, reuse, recycling.
Detailed facility (e.g., recycling and transfer facilities) information.
Zero waste initiatives.
Educational school‐oriented resources.
Event planning resources to increase recycling and reduce litter at special events.
Relating to social media, the SWD will occasionally post information to the Mayor’s Facebook page.
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 5‐3
Recycle Hawaii, a volunteer‐based organization, provides information on recycling and reuse services via
its own website. Their site includes general recycling, waste reduction, and reuse information along with
specific County program information.
5.3.1.2 Radio, Television, and Print Media Advertising
The County advertises a variety of waste reduction and recycling programs, including Christmas Tree
cycling, polystyrene ban, green waste/mulch, 2‐bin recycling, reuse centers, tire recycling, household
hazardous waste, e‐waste, and used motor oil programs. Forms of outreach include the Recycle Guide,
signage, flyers, printed media advertisements, banners, radio spots, television advertisements, and
movie theater advertisements.
The County is expanding the program to further
educate the public about various waste issues and
keep them informed of upcoming events.
The County contracted with four local radio
station operators in 2019, Spectrum Cable TV and
Internet, Regal movie theaters, daily newspaper
publishers, and providers of promotional products
with the intent to increase solid waste diversion.
Topics include proper recycling sorting as well as
information related to the do‐it‐yourself used
motor oil program and the harmful effects of
polystyrene foam (styrofoam).
5.3.1.3 Flyers
The County and their vendors have prepared flyers that cover a range of waste management topics for
public distribution. The flyers, which are the same as the signage posted at the recycling and transfer
stations across the island, address various programs that are provided by the County and their vendors,
including green waste recycling, composting, plastics recycling, household hazardous waste, used motor
oil collection, and the HI‐5 recycling program. The flyers are made available to the public at community
events, at the various recycling and transfer stations, and at other County solid waste facilities. They are
also available as digital pdfs on the County’s zero waste website. In early 2019, the County updated
flyers related to the used motor oil program; recyclable and non‐recyclable materials; and dedicated
flyers for cardboard/paper bags, paper/metal cans/plastic, and glass.
Recycling Education in Movie Theatres
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
5‐4 August 2019
5.3.1.4 Community Outreach
The County strives for transparency and in its ongoing efforts to further community outreach. More
staff time is devoted to outreach and networking with other groups (non‐profit, community, business)
whose goals align with waste diversion such as waste reduction, recycling, and composting.
There are clear benefits of collaboration when and where possible and appropriate: building support
for a program, disseminating new information, and perhaps, most importantly, it ensures community
messaging is accurate and congruent.
In keeping with this theme, the County is developing a Master Recycler Program in collaboration with
the non‐profits Recycle Hawaii and Zero Waste Big Island. This program will include all aspects of waste
diversion, not just recycling. This will be modeled after existing programs such as the Master Recycler
Program in Oregon (who have generously offered technical support).
The County has expanded their in‐house community outreach program by contracting with a
consulting firm to assist with the design and coordination of a program in FY 2019. To reduce
contamination in the waste stream, the County is emphasizing outreach related to proper sorting and
use of recycling bins.
As described previously, outreach includes the development of a mass media campaign promoting
waste mitigation and contamination reduction through the television, radio, movie theaters, and social
media. The SWD is developing a Facebook page as an additional opportunity for public connection.
Again, this is where networking with existing waste reduction and diversion‐oriented groups will provide
a much broader audience with accurate and real‐time information.
Transfer Station Thrift Store LLC, the company currently responsible for managing and operating the
reuse centers at several of the County’s recycling and transfer stations, are contractually obligated to
provide community education. The Transfer Station Thrift Store, LLC education program includes
partnering with Friends of the Children of West Hawaiʻi, a local non‐profit organization, to establish a
youth‐led education program. The education program includes a resource website (can be accessed via
the County’s HawaiiZeroWaste.org website); a printed brochure educating the public on landfill waste
and measures individuals and groups can implement to reduce waste; monthly community education
events at the minimum of one reuse center; and trained Youth Environmental Ambassadors that will
speak at community events to raise awareness about landfills and the need for waste reduction.
5.3.1.5 Community Events
The County participates in various community
events (e.g., University of Hawaiʻi, Hilo [UHH] Earth
Day Fair) throughout the year aimed at enhancing
environmental awareness. An emphasis has been
placed on the HI‐5 program through the installation
of HI‐5 recycle bins at larger community events such
as the Merrie Monarch Hula festival. Organizations
may reserve these bins for their events, subject to
availability. Expanded education material related to
waste mitigation will be promoted at local sporting
and civic events. A County booth will be present at
these events to inform the public of their facilities
and of landfill diversion practices as well as
providing current, up‐to‐date recycling information.
County DEM Booth: Hawai’i Academy of Arts
and Science in Pāhoa
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 5‐5
Promotional materials such as magnets, pens, pencils, and reusable bags—all bearing the
www.HawaiiZeroWaste.org address—are used to further spread the recycling message.
In addition, nonprofit local groups such as Keep the Hawaiian Islands Beautiful, Recycle Hawaii and
Hawaii Wildlife Fund, among others; participate in community events throughout the year, including the
Recycle Bowl and the Big Island’s Coastal Clean Up. As part of each event, recycling/reuse specialists are
available to engage with the public and answer questions.
5.3.1.6 School Programs
The County and its vendors organize a range of waste reduction and recycling programs for the local
schools. The County currently offers tours of the landfill, scrap metal and composting facilities, and the
recycling and reuse centers for school groups on an as‐requested basis.
For schools interested in formulating a school garden, curriculum is provided through the Kohala
Center’s Hawaiʻi Island School Gardens Network and the Center for Ecoliteracy. Recycle Hawaii has also
provided school curriculum and presentations related to zero waste,
recycling, and sustainability.
Keep America Beautiful’s Recycle‐Bowl (Keep America Beautiful
2018) encourages schools to participate in a competition that tracks
the weight of their recyclables for 4 weeks. This program encourages
schools to increase their recycling rate and to educate students and
teachers about waste reduction and sustainability.
The Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup Project
encourages schools and volunteers to participate in marine waste
removal along shorelines. By identifying sources of debris and
illustrating the harmful impacts of debris on marine life, students
and the public are inspired to properly dispose of their waste.
The Art and Craft of Upcycling through Recycle Hawaii encourages
schools and organizations to ‘upcycle’ materials by reclaiming,
recreating, or repurposing them. This program motivates
participants to practice sustainable practices by reducing and
repurposing their waste through a creative outlet. Submitted art pieces are showcased on the Recycle
Hawaiʻi website.
5.3.1.7 Business Education
The County has specifically helped businesses dispose of commercial waste, such as mercury‐containing
light bulbs. In relation to proper disposal, the County encourages the formulation of ‘Green Teams’
where a business designates a group of employees to manage and discuss opportunities related to
waste reduction that could ultimately result in cost‐savings for the company.
The County has established a polystyrene reduction education and outreach program to educate not
only the public about the Polystyrene Foam Container & Food Service Ware Reduction program but also
to provide the food service industry information and support during this transition. A flyer is available to
businesses explaining how the food service industry can meet the County requirements.
The County has also established a tire recycling educational program that targets both the tire
businesses and the public. Tire businesses have been inspected by a County contractor to see if they are
abiding with the state requirements. The contractor has provided information on the state requirements
County DEM: School Education
Program
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
5‐6 August 2019
along with posters. Radio and newspaper advertisements along with signs are used to inform the
businesses and the public of the program.
5.4 Issues and Concerns
As described above, the County currently invests resources into creative education and outreach
programs. However, given the County’s commitment to landfill diversion, additional effort could be
expended to further reduce the quantities of materials discarded in landfills. The County plans to
employ social marketing principles to guide the design and implementation of education programs.
Social marketing is the planning and implementation of programs designed to bring about social change.
Some of its key concepts include the following:
The ultimate objective of marketing is to influence action.
Action is undertaken whenever target audiences believe that the benefits they receive will be
greater than the costs they incur.
Programs to influence action will be more effective if they are based on an understanding of the
target audience’s own perceptions of the proposed exchange.
Target audiences are seldom uniform in their perceptions and/or likely responses to marketing
efforts and therefore should be partitioned into segments.
Marketing efforts must incorporate all of the “4 Ps,” that is:
Create an enticing “Product”—the package of benefits associated with the desired action.
Minimize the “Price”—the target audience believes it must pay in the exchange.
Make the exchange and its opportunities available in “Places” that reach the audience and fit its
lifestyles.
“Promote” the exchange opportunity with creativity and through channels and tactics that
maximize desired responses.
Recommended behaviors always have competition that must be understood and addressed. Because
the marketplace is constantly changing, program results must be regularly monitored, and management
must be prepared to rapidly alter strategies and tactics to optimize the effectiveness of the program.
Other key features of successful education programs that the County would strive to achieve include the
following:
Research different segments of the population who are targeted for programs.
Maintain a consistent “look” for the program.
Use a variety of communication methods.
Keep detailed records of efforts and results.
Evaluate the impact of education and promotion programs.
Cross‐promote solid waste management activities with other County environmental initiatives.
Relating to the contamination issue, new recycling signs have been developed and installed at the
recycling and transfer stations from early 2019 to middle 2019. The new recycling signs are consistent
with a standardized format, making it easier for visitors as well as residents to easily identify what and
how to recycle.
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 5‐7
The County is considering requiring proper signage at businesses and public events. The County plans to
expand its technical assistance for businesses to educate and inform them of proper disposal of their
solid waste, as well as to encourage their customers of proper recycling and composting practices. At
community outreach and school events, brochures and fliers are handed out to inform the public of
proper recycling and waste diversion techniques.
5.5 Options for Improvement
Substantial progress in advancing the County’s landfill diversion objectives will require enhancements to
the County’s current education and outreach programs. Implementation of these programs and
initiatives will require additional funding for outreach activities. This could be achieved either directly by
the County or by contracts with appropriate consultants, vendors, or government entities.
5.5.1 Develop 3‐Year Landfill Diversion Education and Social
Marketing Plan
To maximize the effectiveness of the County’s educational and promotional efforts, a 3‐year plan could
be developed that identifies the major goals and objectives of the County’s landfill diversion education
efforts, including specific programs and initiatives that will be implemented to obtain those goals. This
3‐year plan would provide a schedule or “blueprint” of activities that will be undertaken to support
waste reduction and recycling activities. It would help ensure effective use of staff time and budget as
well as offering a benchmark for measuring success.
The 3‐Year Landfill Diversion Education and Social Marketing Plan could:
State the County’s key messages (broad goals and specific objectives).
Identify specific demographic groups or geographical areas the County would like to reach with
its messaging. Identify educational programs tailored to target the specific types of materials
that are easy to recycle yet are not being diverted effectively, based on the results of the waste
stream assessment section of this Plan update.
Develop improved public awareness programs that publicize current and future waste
management and recycling programs.
Develop improved educational and promotional activities specifically geared toward new
programs and initiatives identified in this plan.
Evaluate the benefit of providing educational and promotional materials in other languages.
Identify how the County will measure the success of its efforts.
Estimate the costs of future education and promotion efforts.
Identify how to promote a change in administration and funding (e.g., PAYT program and fee
schedules for residents and businesses).
Leverage cultural importance of proper waste management on Hawaiʻi Island–for its community
and for tourism.
The plan would address immediate, short‐ and long‐term actions pertaining to the following programs:
Diversion as an overarching County waste management policy.
Residential waste reduction and reuse.
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
5‐8 August 2019
School programs for waste reduction, recycling, and composting.
Residential recycling.
Visitor industry waste reduction and recycling.
Business waste audit and education programs.
Other business waste reduction and recycling.
Construction and demolition waste reduction, reuse, and recycling.
Implementation of alternative funding mechanisms.
Cost Considerations. To implement this option, the County would need to budget for consulting time to
assist in the preparation of an education and promotion plan and development of program identification
and materials.
Recommendations from the plan would likely result in initiatives that would require funding in
subsequent years for plan implementation. The plan would be evaluated and updated every other year.
5.5.2 Conduct Waste Management Attitude Survey
The County would benefit from conducting a market survey to assess public attitudes about waste
management in the County. The survey would be used to assess perceptions, attitudes, and behavior of
non‐users and users towards the County’s programs and services. The results could be used to shape
messages to target audiences in different communities.
The survey would be conducted over the telephone by a firm experienced in conducting market
research. Respondents would be randomly selected from commercially available lists that are specially
prepared and which provide telephone numbers in the target geographic area (excluding fax numbers,
business numbers, and other non‐residential numbers).
Because non‐response tends to increase with survey length, the survey would not exceed 10 minutes in
length because this tends to be the upper limit of tolerance for surveys. Methods such as using a
predictive auto dialer (PAD) and a computer‐assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system would be
considered to ensure randomness and survey efficiency.
Cost Considerations. To implement this option, the County would need to budget for consulting time to
conduct the market survey. It would also require County staff time to deliver, analyze, and monitor the
survey. The specific amount of spending for the survey would be developed as part of development of
the 3‐year education and promotion plan.
5.5.3 Expand Existing Advertising and Marketing Efforts
The County currently advertises various aspects of its waste management program, such as recycling,
through television, movie theaters, radio, print advertising, and outreach at community or special
events. These efforts could be expanded to include zero waste programs and initiatives and incorporate
new themes or slogans implemented by the County. Expanded television and radio advertising could
include paid advertisements, as well as promotional opportunities such as news stories, talk show
interviews, and additional special event outreach.
Increasing the number and scope of County participation in community events is also recommended in
Chapter 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets. Expanding participation in community events will
create additional opportunities to distribute educational and marketing materials to both residents and
businesses.
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 5‐9
Cost Considerations. This option could be funded at a variety of levels. The specific amount of spending
on added advertising and marketing would be developed as part of development of the 3‐year
education and promotion plan.
5.5.4 Expand Public and Civic Outreach
The County plans to increase its presence at public outreach events. Events such as high school and
college sporting events as well as civic events such as fairs, festivals, and expositions. The County could
design a simple, easily transportable booth to further engage the public to learn about waste mitigation,
proper waste disposal, and about the recycling and transfer stations. Literature and brochures would be
handed out to the public at these events as well as small promotional items such as magnets,
compostable pencils, and note pads with the www.HawaiiZeroWaste.org address.
County presence at these events will spread the waste mitigation and sustainability message to the
public. Not only will the community learn how and where they can properly dispose of their waste, they
can also discover how they are better able to reduce their ecological footprint through recycling and
reuse. Expanded outreach at more events will also increase accurate waste disposal on site.
Cost Considerations. Presence at public and civil events would require County staff time, preparation,
and analysis.
5.5.5 Expand School Education Programs
The County has a school outreach program that includes several educational initiatives being
implemented in the public schools around the island. These existing educational programs could be
expanded to incorporate a multi‐level approach that is consistently implemented across a range of age
groups over time and would integrate zero waste concepts. Potential activities could include recycling
and composting initiatives, specific curriculum, field trips, guest speakers, and waste audits.
If the County incorporates recycling as a requirement for the hauling contractors that service schools, as
recommended in Chapter 4, it could create opportunities for schools to involve students with the
recycling effort on individual campuses.
Cost Considerations. This option could be funded at a variety of levels. Much of the expense would be
for added staff time for County staff or contracts with its education vendors.
5.5.6 Expand Business Education Programs
The County plans to further encourage partnerships and sponsorships by local environmental and
community groups to help them take ownership of waste management concerns and provide
recognition to them for waste reduction successes. The County could expand on its program of technical
assistance for individual business owners and business and trade groups, with a focus on reducing both
the quantity and toxicity of commercial and industrial discards to the landfill. The County could conduct
technical assistance that includes visiting the businesses, and suggesting ideas to further waste
mitigation practices, and better inform them of business recognition opportunities. County education
staff could collaborate with other agencies that interact with businesses about environmental issues
such as air, energy, water, wastewater, and disaster planning to leverage resources and avoid
duplication of effort.
Key steps in expanding the County’s business outreach programs could include the following:
Identifying major generators and generating sectors.
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
5‐10 August 2019
Developing a database of key contacts at individual businesses and organizations.
Identifying classes of readily recyclable materials and toxics generated by businesses.
Establishing priorities.
Developing strategy and preparing education and outreach materials.
Monitoring effectiveness.
Revising and refining the program annually based on results of effectiveness analysis.
County education staff could also look to businesses that provide advertising services (such as utilities,
transit, newspapers) and search for opportunities for free advertising.
Cost Considerations. This option could be funded at a variety of levels. Much of the expense would be
for added staff time.
5.5.7 Develop Visitor Industry Education Programs
Given the significant contribution of the visitor industry to the County’s waste stream, it would be
beneficial to develop focused educational and promotional programs that specifically target the visitor
industry. This could include developing brochures to provide in hotels; adding more recycling bins at
airports, beaches, and parks; and installing displays at airports. The County could also provide a list of
recommended actions to hotels and resorts outlining measures that they can implement to reduce
waste, and contact information for technical assistance. For example, a tip sheet for hotels and motels
could be formulated that illustrates best management practices in relation to waste mitigation.
Cost Considerations. This option could be funded at a variety of levels. Much of the expense would be
for added staff time.
5.5.8 Evaluate Effectiveness and Continue to Refine Education Programs
The long‐term success of the County’s education program will be dependent on the extent to which
educational and promotional materials can be continually modified to respond to changes in the
program. As part of this effort, the County would include ongoing evaluations of the progress and
effects of its source reduction and recycling programs. This effort would include evaluating the public’s
understanding of various programs, establishing benchmarks for success at current levels of effort, and
evaluating the effectiveness of education and promotional campaigns.
The information needed to evaluate the effects of an education and promotion program might be
gained through:
Analysis of recycling rates, monthly participation rates, and capture rates.
Analysis of levels of contamination in recycling programs.
Analysis of the extent of media coverage.
Personal interviews.
Soliciting opinions at community events and meetings.
Mail, telephone, or dropoff surveys.
Focus groups.
Mail‐back response cards.
Evaluation of the number of hits on the County’s website.
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 5‐11
The County could include evaluation as part of every education and promotion program. Results would be
communicated to appropriate audiences including elected officials, interest groups, and the public.
Cost Considerations. A good rule of thumb is that approximately 10 percent of the cost of a program is
spent on the program’s evaluation to make changes as deemed necessary to ensure success.
5.6 Recommendations
Based on the analysis presented above and discussions with the SWAC, the County plans to implement
the recommendations listed below. Many of the options discussed above and other education
initiatives, such as those in support of residential and business recycling, visitor industry waste
management practices, and organics and composting, are addressed in other sections of this Plan
update.
1. Implement a 3‐year education and social marketing program to educate the public and
business community about landfill diversion and recycling initiatives and opportunities,
including proper disposal and recycling processes to reduce contamination.
2. Conduct a waste management attitude residential survey.
3. Ensure the County has the staffing available commensurate with the needs of the public
outreach program.
Dr
a
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 6-1
6. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELECTRONIC WASTE
6.1 Introduction
Household products exhibiting corrosive, reactive, toxic, or ignitable properties are considered
“household hazardous waste” (HHW), as defined by the EPA. These products including, but not limited
to, automotive fluids, paints, oils, cleaners, pesticides, poisons, and batteries require special handling,
transport, and disposal or recycling methods. These types of wastes present special risks and disposal
methods.
Electronic waste (e-waste) consists of any broken or unwanted electronic devices. Computers, VCRs,
copiers, stereo equipment, televisions, cell phones, and monitors are examples of common e-wastes.
Like HHW, many e-wastes, such as cathode ray tubes (CRTs) from older televisions and monitors, include
components that are toxic and restricted from the landfill. This chapter describes the status of the HHW
and e-waste collection and disposal system within the County, identifies current issues and concerns,
and presents options for achieving the County’s HHW and e-waste goals.
6.2 Regulatory Background
The discussion in this section describes the regulatory framework for management of HHW and e-waste.
6.2.1 Summary of Household Hazardous Waste Regulations
According to the definitions in Hawaiʻi County Code Chapter 20 (HCC 20):
“Prohibited materials” include, but are not limited to, paint thinner or solvents; oil base
paint waste; automotive waste oil, antifreeze or lead acid batteries; pesticides,
herbicides or rodent and insect control chemicals; household cleaner, polish or wax;
contaminated soil; medical waste; propane, oxygen or acetylene tanks; diesel, gasoline
or alcohol; and, liquids or sludges in containers five gallons or larger, including liquid
cooking oil or grease unless mixed with a bulking agent so that it solidifies, and
hazardous wastes as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations parts 257, 258 and 261.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, commercial cooking oil waste and commercial FOG
waste are considered prohibited materials in any amount and any form.
In accordance with HCC 20-40, the County does not allow the disposal of hazardous wastes at recycling
and transfer stations or in the landfill. HHW are typically generated in small quantities; as a result, they
are exempt from federal and state hazardous waste regulations, according to the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 40 Part 261.4, and the State of Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules (HAR 11-261-4). However,
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes Chapter 342-G (HRS 342G) requires that integrated solid waste management
plans develop programs for the collection of HHW and specifies that the disposal of these materials is
the responsibility of the state. Businesses, public agencies, farms, and nonprofits must manage the
collection of their waste according to HAR 11-260-1; the County manages the collection of HHW.
6.2.2 Summary of E-Waste Regulations
As of 2010, the Hawaiʻi legislature enacted Act 13 to encourage recycling of electronics, and mandated
manufacturers to establish, conduct, and manage take-back recycling programs for “covered electronic
devices” (CEDs). Act 13 was revised in 2011 to include “covered televisions” (CTVs). The HDOH is
responsible for implementing the “Hawaiʻi Electronic Device Recycling Program.” Manufacturers of CEDs
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
6-2 August 2019
sold in Hawaiʻi must register with HDOH and pay an annual registration fee of $5,000 and must set up
recycling plans. Television manufacturers must follow the same protocol except for the fee, which is
$2,500 annually. Any manufacturer that sells both CEDs and CTVs are required to pay a combined
$7,500 in annual registration fees. The collected fees are used by HDOH to administer the program.
According to Chapter 339D, Electronic Waste and Television Recycling and Recovery Act, a “covered
electronic device” or “covered television” includes a computer, computer printer, computer monitor, or
portable computer with a screen size greater than 4 inches measured diagonally; and televisions with a
viewing screen greater than 9 inches intended for use by a household. The program does not cover
certain electronic devices including those that are a component of a motor vehicle, part of a larger part
of equipment (e.g., medical diagnostic equipment), or electronic devices in appliances (e.g.,
refrigerator), nor does it include telephones or global positioning system (GPS) units. Those covered by
the program include any household, government entity, business, or nonprofit organization exempt from
taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, regardless of size or place
of operation within the State.
6.2.3 Review of 2009 Plan
Exhibit 6-1 provides a summary of the recommendations from the 2009 Plan relative to household
hazardous waste and e-waste, and describes the actions taken to achieve each recommendation.
Exhibit 6-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Household Hazardous Waste
and E-Waste
2009 Plan Recommendation Status
Hire a Household Hazardous Waste/Electronics Waste specialist. Using existing staff to manage the program.
Implement HHW and e-waste public outreach and education programs. The County promotes HHW collection events when they are scheduled to occur. The County also promotes e-waste through flyers and information on the County’s HawaiiZeroWaste.org website.
Explore e-waste take-back programs with state and
manufacturers/sellers. Extended producer responsibility—Funding challenges.
Conduct research to assess what legislation may be
required to mandate and manage take-back programs
for specific types of e-waste.
Hawaiʻi Electronic Device Recycling Program (HEDRP) e-waste
recycling extended EPR program was implemented 2010-01-01.
Funding challenges.
Evaluate the elements of successful similar programs. Ongoing
Coordinate with other counties and the state to develop
and implement e-waste take-back programs.
Task Force meetings. Lacking in counties of Hawaiʻi and Kauai.
Coordinate with local retail businesses to facilitate
implementation of take-back programs for e-waste.
Did not implement due to staffing constraints.
Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to
facilitate storage and handling of hazardous waste
products and packaging at various types of collection
locations.
Did not implement due to staffing constraints.
Incorporate information about existing and new
hazardous materials and packaging take-back programs
in the community outreach and education effort.
Funding and organizational challenges. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit 6-1 Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations (continued)
August 2019 6-3
2009 Plan Recommendation Status
Conduct additional HHW collection events. Conducted two events at Wai‘ōhinu Recycling and Transfer
Station (2011-09-03 and 2012-09-08); despite broad awareness, campaign turnout was disappointing. Discontinued.
Explore legislative actions for hazardous products and
packaging take-back programs. Lack of administration support for EPR legislation; lack of
legislative support for improving e-waste take-back EPR.
Conduct research to assess what legislation may be
required to mandate and manage take-back programs.
Lack of administration or legislative support for EPR legislation.
Coordinate with local retail businesses to develop and
implement take-back programs.
Lack of business support for EPR programs.
Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to
facilitate storage and handling of hazardous waste
products and packaging at various types of collection
locations.
Did not implement due to staffing constraints.
Incorporate information about existing and new
hazardous materials and packaging take-back programs
in the community outreach and education effort.
No new hazardous or e-waste take-back programs to outline for
public education.
Explore public-private partnership for local e-waste
campaign.
Did not implement due to staffing constraints.
6.3 Existing Conditions
Household hazardous waste in the County is collected on specified collection dates at select recycling and
transfer stations during the year. E-waste is collected every Saturday on a rotating schedule at the Wai‘ōhinu,
Waimea, Kealakehe, and Hilo Recycling and Transfer Stations, and at one permanent location in Hilo.
The County provides public awareness and educates residents on HHW and e-waste programs,
promotes HHW collection events, and contracts for the collection of the hazardous products, which are
then shipped to the mainland for proper disposal or treatment. The following subsections describe in
greater detail the County’s existing e-waste and HHW program.
6.3.1 Household Hazardous Waste
An established HHW collection frequency of six HHW collection events per year are held at four of the
recycling and transfer stations.
Success at the Hilo and Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) recycling and transfer stations has caused unacceptable
traffic congestion during the HHW collection events. The Hilo and Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) recycling and
transfer stations each historically hosted two HHW collection events per year. The County plans on
maintaining the six collection sites, and relocating the Hilo and Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) HHW collection
events to accommodate traffic flow.
Future HHW collection events are currently scheduled for the following specific dates at these four locations:
• Hilo-Ho’olulu Complex (Francis Wong Baseball Stadium)—First Saturday of August and the first
Saturday of February, 7:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
• Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) High School—Second Saturday of August and the second Saturday of
February, 7:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
6-4 August 2019
• Pāhoa Recycling and Transfer Station—First Sunday of March, 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Waimea Recycling and Transfer Station—First Saturday of March, 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
HHW collection rates have remained consistent the past 5 years with a marked decrease from years
prior (FY 2010 to FY 2012 averaged 136 tons/year while FY 2013 to FY 2017 averaged 58 tons/year). This
difference is attributable to residents having greater opportunities for battery disposal at other non-
County-managed locations as well as the promotion of Do-It-Yourself Used Motor Oil Collection sites
available year-round to residents. Exhibit 6-2 displays the type and quantities of HHW collected from FY
2015 through FY 2017.
Exhibit 6-2. Household Hazardous Waste Collection, County of Hawaiʻi
(All data in pounds)
Material Collected FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Batteries (Automotive and Industrial)a 172,430 146,150 113,120
Aerosol Cans 510 915 1,160
Poisons 4,900 13,100 12,300
Acids 600 230 1,350
Bases 165 70 240
Paints and Solvents (Oil Based) 12,500 19,910 24,020
Batteries (Household) 2,400 4,000 3,200
Polychlorinated Biphenyls 10 22 –
Oil and Solvents (Halogenated) – – 400
Mercury 75 40 45
Fluorescent Lamps/Bulbs/Ballasts – 380 1,220
Compressed Gas Cylinders – – 360
Miscellaneous 1,175 100 200
Oxidizing Material 240 195 155
Oil (gallons) 3,105 5,310 5,860
Source: Date provide from the County of Hawaiʻi DEM, multiple years.
a After 2013, the County stopped accepting automotive batteries at the recycling and transfer stations due to high disposal costs. However, these batteries are accepted at County-run take-back days where residents may bring in their household hazardous waste free of charge.
The HHW program is free for County residents. It is advertised via signage and flyers at the recycling and
transfer stations, newspaper and radio advertisements, and on the County HawaiiZeroWaste.org
website. Social media outlets also promote the events such as local community Facebook pages, and
non-profits (e.g., Recycle Hawaii). Video feeds such as Big Island Video News promote the events at no
cost to the County.
Commercial entities may contact private contractors for hazardous waste storage, recycling, and/or
disposal. Residents who cannot come to one of the events or who have items that are not acceptable for
collection at the residential events, can contact private contractors to have their HHW disposed for a fee.
6.3.2 E-Waste
The “Computers, Electronics, & Printer Cartridges” page of the County’s HawaiiZeroWaste.org website
explains why e-waste should be recycled and provides resources for the public to learn more about the
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 6-5
state of Hawaiʻi Electronic Device Recycling Program. The website lists the locations where items can be
recycled free for residents and for a fee for both businesses and residents. The website also provides an
inventory of manufacturers and producers that have their own trade-in recycling programs where it is
possible that a consumer may get value for the e-waste item towards the purchase of new electronic
equipment (or in some cases, may get a return in value without making a purchase [e.g., mobile
telephones and accessories]).
The County also recycles more types of e-waste than what is supported by the Electronic Waste and
Television Recycling and Recovery Act. The County also recycles VCRs, CD/DVD players, stereo
receivers/amplifiers (no speakers), UPS systems, digital cameras, and mobile and landline telephones—
none of these items are listed as approved Covered Electronic Devices (CEDs) under the Hawaiʻi
Electronic Device Recycling Program (see Section 6.2.2).
E-waste is accepted at one permanent dropoff site in Hilo, Mr. K’s Recycle and Redemption, which is
open daily from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Residents can recycle their e-waste for free on Saturdays and
must pay a fee of $0.55 per pound on the other days. E-waste accepted includes televisions, computers,
laptops, monitors, printers/fax machines/multi-function printers, VCRs, CD/DVD players, stereo
receivers/amplifiers (no speakers), UPS systems, digital cameras, and mobile and landline telephones.
Microwaves and heating/cooling devices are not accepted. Commercial entities may also recycle
e-waste at Mr. K’s Recycle and Redemption; however, businesses are normally charged a fee of $0.95
per pound to recycle e-waste Sundays through Fridays, with a discounted rate of $0.55 per pound on
Saturdays. In June 2018, Mr. K’s Recycle and Redemption held a one-day special event allowing free e-
waste collection for everyone, including nonprofits, state/government agencies, and businesses by
appointment only. Approximately 73,624 pounds of commercial and 7,932 pounds of County
government e-waste were collected during this event.
Free residential household e-waste recycling collection also occurs on Saturdays, on an island-wide
monthly rotating basis at four locations:
• Wai‘ōhinu Recycling and Transfer Station—First Saturday of every month.
• Waimea Recycling and Transfer Station—Second Saturday of every month.
• Kealakehe (Kailua-Kona) Recycling and Transfer Station—Third Saturday of every month.
• Hilo Recycling and Transfer Station—Fourth Saturday of every month.
These collections are prohibited from accepting e-waste from businesses, agencies, and nonprofits.
Rotating e-waste collection sites are open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., only on their scheduled days. The list of
e-waste accepted at the County facilities, also collected at Mr. K’s Recycle and Redemption, are
described above. In addition to managing the permanent e-waste collection site in Hilo, Mr. K’s Recycle
and Redemption collects e-waste from the rotating dropoff sites, then repairs a small portion for resale
and/or recycles the material. Other local companies provide e-waste recycling services for a fee.
Many manufacturers and producers of electronics have programs that allow consumers to get value for
their products through trade-ins or to simply recycle their e-waste. The County’s website lists the
retailers and manufacturers with website links to these recycle/trade-in programs (e.g., Walmart,
Panasonic, Nokia). The County website also provides contract information for businesses that take-back
mobile telephones and accessories (e.g., Sprint, AT&T) and inkjet/toner cartridges (e.g., Office Depot,
Target). Local retailers who collect e-waste ship the e-waste to the mainland for recycling at certified
facilities. The mainland recyclers segregate the e-waste into glass, plastics, and metals components,
which are sold to waste management entities. Exhibit 6-3 presents the total quantity of e-waste
collected during the 2010 to 2018 fiscal years.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
6-6 August 2019
Exhibit 6-3. E-Waste Collected, County of Hawaiʻi
Fiscal Year
(July 1 through June 31)
Quantity Collected
(Tons)
2009-2010 383
2010-2011 200
2011-2012 No e-waste shipped to market
2012-2013 292
2013-2014 155
2014-2015 156
2015-2016 166
2016-2017 229
2017-2018 287
Source: County of Hawaiʻi DEM, Solid Waste Division. 2018.
As described in Chapter 3, there
are seven reuse centers
throughout the County sited
next to the recycling and
transfer stations. Though not
classified as e-waste, these
centers allow residents to drop
off unwanted and still useful
small electronic appliances that
still have some use left in them.
Residents can then purchase the
appliances for a nominal fee at
the center.
In 2006, 2008, and 2010; the
University of Hawaiʻi (UH), in
conjunction with Apple
Corporation, sponsored the Hawaiʻi Education and Government eDisposal Day. The event allowed
residents to dispose of their personal e-waste during a single-day event at locations in Hilo and Kona and
two events in Maui (Kahului and Līhue). In 2012, the event was expanded to allow 3 days of e-waste
collection from County, state, or federal military branches; small to medium-sized businesses (of less
than 100 employees); and non-profit organizations while continuing with single-day event for Hawaiʻi
households. It is estimated that over 5 million pounds of e-waste was collected statewide during these
events. The UH is no longer holding these community events; however, they are still recycling university-
generated e-waste on a quarterly basis and encouraging reuse through a university-supported “swap
meet.” The Apple Corporation is still supporting their efforts.
6.4 Issues and Concerns
6.4.1 Household Hazardous Waste
Household hazardous waste presents unique hazards to humans and the environment. Storage,
handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste require special procedures and equipment.
Reuse Center Electronics—Kea’au Recycling and Transfer Station Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 6-7
Currently, there are a limited number of locations for residents and businesses to dispose of HHW. The
distance to collection sites, and challenges associated with storage, handling, and transporting HHW
may be a disincentive for residents or businesses in rural areas to properly dispose of their waste.
If transfer or landfill staff identify HHW, they take steps to manage it appropriately and keep it out of
the landfill. County staff also respond to occasional reports of HHW discarded in remote areas of the
County. However, once in a garbage bag or bin, it is very difficult (and expensive) to identify HHW in the
waste stream. Despite the County’s current efforts to keep HHW out of its landfills, the 2008 County of
Hawaiʻi Waste Composition Study estimated that 527 tons of HHW was disposed of in County landfills in
FY 2008. Although the County added two new collection locations for hazardous waste in 2008, the
amount of hazardous waste collected has decreased. For example, FY 2010 through FY 2012, HHW
collected was approximately 243 tons, and for FY 2015 through FY 2017, approximately 191 tons6. With
an average of only 87 tons/year of hazardous waste managed between FY 2010 and FY 2017, and the
estimated 527 tons disposed of in County landfills in FY 2008, there is a marked need to increase funding
to educate the public about this program. [The County spent about $220,096 on its HHW program in FY
2017, of which approximately $11,000 was used towards advertising the program]. Thus, additional
education and more convenient opportunities to properly manage HHW would be beneficial. Potential
opportunities for improving the existing system are presented below.
6.4.2 Electronic Waste (E-Waste)
The County is charged $0.55 per pound by the vendor to collect, process, and market the e-waste. The
County pays for the residential e-waste program through state funding (electronic device recycling
fund7) and property taxes; however, there is no similar program to address e-waste generated by
businesses, schools, or government entities such as the military branches. Although the County provides
businesses with a reduced rate on Saturdays, the cost of e-waste disposal remains a disincentive for
many private businesses to recycle e-waste, and results in much of the business e-waste being sent to
the landfills. A lack of staff assigned to monitoring and enforcement at recycling and transfer stations
and landfills contributes to e-waste entering the landfills.
The state of Hawaiʻi’s Electronic Waste and Television Recycling and Recovery Program is a positive step
in reducing e-waste disposal although e-waste is not banned from landfills under state or Hawai’i County
laws. The City and County of Honolulu have a landfill ban on business and governmental e-waste, while
households are exempt. Stronger legislation may be required to deter residents or businesses from
disposing of e-waste in ways that result in the waste entering landfills. The HDOH 2016 Report to the
legislature underlines several concerns and challenges related to the Electronic Waste and Television
Recycling and Recovery Program:
1. The law gives manufacturers too much leeway in recycling programs they offer consumers. With
no criteria or performance standards tied to the manufactured-generated recycling plans (which
describe collection and recycling procedures), some manufacturers end up implementing
6 In FY 2009 through FY 2011, a large component of HHW was car batteries; they were not collected under the
HHW program in later years. The car battery tonnage was removed for a more accurate comparison to later years
of collection.
7 According to Chapter 339D, Electronic Waste and Television Recycling and Recovery Act, there is an electronic
device recycling fund, which is a culmination of fees, payments, and penalties as collected from manufacturers and
retailers. The funds are administered through the HDOH, and expended for the sole purpose of implementing and
enforcing the Electronic Waste and Television Recycling and Recovery Act.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
6-8 August 2019
inconvenient programs that require consumers to do much of the work to recycle their Covered
Electronic Devices (CEDs).
2. Most collection programs have been drastically scaled back, or eliminated because of budget
constraints, and comprehensive services are centered on O`ahu because of its population
concentration.
3. Some manufacturers do not put effort in establishing CED recycling programs (as evidenced by
the reporting of recycling 0 pounds of CEDs) and other manufacturers are only implementing
programs in Oahu, with no comprehensive services to the other islands.
The 2016 Report to the legislature suggests that statutory mandates for minimum e-waste recycling
goals and customer convenience are necessary to encourage a state-wide program that is both effective
and convenient. The HDOH’s plan is to continue to work with the Legislature to strengthen the program
with respect to consistency of service provided across the state, convenience of the recycling programs,
long term stability of the programs, and to setting recycling goals. The ultimate final disposition of e-
waste is an important factor to consider with e-waste recycling or disposal. Disposal or recycling of e-
waste by uncertified companies can potentially result in discarded e-waste being shipped to third world
countries where fewer desirable practices are implemented. Use of certified recyclers can increase costs
of recycling or disposal. The County’s current program (implemented through Mr. K’s Recycle and
Redemption) uses recyclers that provide certificates of destruction. The County spent about $165,000
($0.55 per pound) on its e-waste recycling program in FY 2017–18. State grants are available to help
defray the cost of recycling, the County received a $160,000 grant from the state for FY 2018–19 and will
receive the same amount in FY 2019–20.
The design of collection facilities for e-waste and HHW must consider special conditions within the
County, including invasive species concerns, and operating conditions in areas where the facilities are
established. Dangerous conditions (wet and slippery surfaces in high precipitation areas) and the
potential for export of invasive species (such as African tree snails or coqui frogs) must be evaluated
during design.
6.5 Options
An overview of various options that could be implemented to improve the management of HHW and e-
waste follows. These options were developed based on successful initiatives implemented in other
jurisdictions that may be applicable and appropriate for the County.
6.5.1 Install Permanent Collection Facilities at Recycling and Transfer
Stations
Permanent collection facilities at recycling and transfer stations would provide more opportunity for
residents to properly dispose of HHW, e-waste, and some special wastes. The facilities could be
incorporated into the standard layout design at selected stations. The County has constructed a special
waste collection facility at the Pāhoa Recycling and Transfer Station as a component of its upgrade;
however, it is currently unused due to staffing deficiencies. Guidelines could be developed for both
residential and business use of the facilities.
Facilities are designed with safe work practices in mind for operation of equipment such as forklifts or
trailers. Operational plans are established to minimize the risk of injury to workers. In areas with higher
rainfall, facility designs include covered or enclosed areas that incorporate measures to prevent invasive
species from entering waste storage areas or being transported off site with waste.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 6-9
Having fixed facilities at recycling and transfer stations would potentially reduce the amount of illegal
dumping, and would allow the County to set up a safer and more efficient system for storage, handling,
transport, and eventual disposal of the wastes.
Cost Considerations. Permanent facilities for HHW can range significantly in costs depending upon their
design and function. If permanent facilities are developed at multiple recycling and transfer stations, the
facilities could be smaller and would be less costly. Annual operating costs would depend on how often
the facilities are open and the extent to which the programs are successful in attracting HHW.
6.5.2 Implement Additional Collection Events
Additional one-day collection events, combined with promotional campaigns, could potentially increase
diversion of HHW, e-waste, and special waste from the landfills. Events could be designed to target a
single type or multiple types of waste. Similar to the currently scheduled events, the County could
sponsor events that are implemented on an island-wide basis, or community-specific events that are
rotated through various geographic areas. The County could conduct such events at fixed locations, or
conduct a mobile event utilizing trucks or trailers set up to transport specific types of waste. The County
could also set up events that are specific to either residents, agricultural businesses, or commercial and
industrial businesses.
For e-waste only, collection events could be accomplished using a trailer or container that would rotate
among various recycling and transfer stations. A schedule could be published that documents the days
that the service would be provided by location. As an example, a trailer could get to 12 locations each
year if it spent a set week every third month at a different station (that is, second week of January, April,
and July).
Cost Considerations. Costs for conducting such events would include cost of temporary facilities to store
wastes dropped off during the events, costs for promoting the events, and additional training costs for
staff who would manage the events and the storage and handling of the waste. Additional expenses
would include the cost of any subcontracted waste hauling or disposal firms used to transport and
dispose of the waste collected.
6.5.3 Establish E-Waste Take-Back Programs with Manufacturers
or Sellers
As described in Section 6.3.2, the Computers, Electronics, & Printer Cartridges page of the County’s zero
waste website (currently HawaiiZeroWaste.org) does a thorough job explaining why e-waste should be
recycled, and provides resources for the public to learn more about the Hawaiʻi Electronic Device
Recycling Program, which includes an inventory of manufacturers and producers that have their own
trade-in recycling programs. The County’s website lists the retailers and manufacturers with website
links to these recycle/trade-in programs (e.g., Walmart, Panasonic, Nokia). The County website also
provides contract information for businesses that take back mobile telephones and accessories (e.g.,
Sprint, AT&T) and inkjet/toner cartridges (e.g., Office Depot, Target). There are also opportunities for
corporate sponsorships (e.g., UH program with Apple Corporation, Hawaiʻi Education and Government
eDisposal Day) to promote e-cycling.
The County could potentially apply for grants from manufacturers, or work directly with sellers to
establish collection events to promote the concept of producer take-back programs and the general
importance of e-cycling.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
6-10 August 2019
Cost Considerations. The County already incorporates information about e-waste take-back programs
into their educational materials on their HawaiiZeroWaste.org website. They could expand this program
by working in conjunction with either sellers or manufacturers to establish take-back programs that
involve collection events (similar to the UH/Apple Corporation-sponsored Hawaiʻi Education and
Government eDisposal Day). It would require additional costs for the County to provide staff to initiate
and manage such programs. Some costs could potentially be offset by grants provided by the
manufacturers or sellers.
6.5.4 Implement Advanced Disposal Fee for E-Waste
The County could implement requirements to collect advance disposal fees on certain types of e-waste.
The fee would be collected at the point of sale and would be earmarked to support the management
and eventual disposal when the e-waste reaches the end of its useful life. Currently, only California has
implemented legislation requiring consumers to pay a fee upon purchase of equipment. The California
law applies to purchases of specific types of e-waste items known to contain materials that are
considered hazardous upon disposal (primarily televisions, computers, and other types of equipment
that use CRTs, liquid crystal displays, or plasma screens). The fee only applies when purchasing new
equipment and is used to recycle the types of products covered under the law. Retailers are required to
implement the fee system and can capture 3 percent of the fee to cover the costs of implementing the
program.
Cost Considerations. Implementation of this type of system would require the County to invest labor
costs to draft legislation supporting the requirements, and to implement a program to manage money
collected. It is anticipated that implementation of such a program could potentially result in revenue
that would partially offset costs the County would eventually spend to manage disposal of e-waste
generated at recycling and transfer stations or during collection events. Costs would be incurred by local
retailers and manufacturers to establish and administer the program. Consumers would ultimately pay
any added cost associated with the fee at the point of purchase.
6.5.5 Explore Public-Private Partnership for Local E-waste Campaign
(anything with a plug)
The 2009 Zero Waste Implementation Plan discussed the concept of hand-dismantling electronic
components (e-waste) to segregate high-grade metals and segregate working parts rather than shipping
materials off island as is currently the practice under the Electronic Waste and Television Recycling and
Recovery Act. Currently, e-waste collected on the island is shipped, typically without being pre-sorted, to
the mainland for proper disposal. An on-island e-waste campaign would present a potential opportunity
to create value-added products, jobs, and tax revenues in the County rather than shipping e-waste off
island to benefit another jurisdiction.
There are several ways to initiate on-island hand-dismantling of e-waste:
• Provide financial incentives for local dismantling to a company that is currently shipping bulk e-
waste off the island.
• Encourage a joint venture with companies that have established hand-dismantling operations,
or have designed their own e-waste processing equipment and may be seeking joint ventures
with non-profit organizations or for-profit businesses.
• Apply for a grant to promote green infrastructure jobs.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 6-11
In this option, the County would study different models for promoting local dismantling of e-waste and
convene a meeting of interested parties to determine the level of interest and what help might be
needed to move forward. The County could assist them in implementing a process on their own (perhaps
with some initial funding support) or issue a request for proposals to develop new services as needed.
Cost Considerations. The cost of an e-waste campaign could vary widely depending on the extent to
which the program would require County funding to initiate and sustain. The funding would have to
cover an initial study to investigate opportunities.
6.6 Recommendations
Based on the analyses presented above, and the preferences of the SWAC and County staff, the County
plans to implement the recommendations listed below. Proposed funding and the timing of
implementation for each program are described in Chapter 10.
1. Ensure enough staffing to operate HWW/e-waste programs successfully. The current County
staffing level is a limiting factor for the implementation of new waste management programs.
Whether new programs are implemented solely by County staff or involve subcontractors,
additional staff will be necessary to successfully initiate and manage new programs. To expand
the HHW and e-waste programs, it is recommended that the County review the staffing needs
to make the program successful.
2. Implement HHW/ e-waste public education, outreach, and public awareness program. As a
component of the additional HHW and e-waste programs, advertising will need to be increased
to make the public aware of the events and to encourage participation. The County would
expand the existing marketing programs through:
Providing event-specific announcements or advertisements.
Displaying additional signage at recycling and transfer stations.
Expanding outreach programs by conducting community-based educational events at
schools or other public institutions.
3. Research and evaluate elements of successful e-waste/ HHW programs implemented in other
jurisdictions and integrate those successes into the County’s program.
4. Explore e-waste take back programs with state and manufacturers/sellers. Take-back
programs by manufacturers and sellers of e-waste are a cost-effective method to divert e-waste
from landfills. Such programs can reduce costs of proper disposal for consumers, make it more
convenient for consumers to discard their e-waste, and ultimately, provide an incentive for
manufacturers to design less toxic and more recyclable products. It is recommended that
County staff:
Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to mandate and manage take-
back programs for specific types of e-waste.
Coordinate with other counties and the state to develop and implement e-waste take-back
EPR programs.
Coordinate with local retailers to facilitate implementation of take-back programs for e-
waste.
Assess legislative actions that may be necessary to improve e-waste programs including
demanufacturing, storage and handling, and funding equity.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
6-12 August 2019
5. Conduct additional HHW collection events. During the development of the 2009 Plan update, a
consensus was expressed by the SWAC that periodic HHW collection events were successful and
offered the best opportunity for both proper disposal of HHW and diversion of these wastes
from landfills. One of the most prevalent comments was that the number and locations of
collection events be expanded to create additional opportunities for proper HHW disposal. It is
recommended that the County establish 10 to 12 additional HHW collection events per year.
6. Explore legislative actions for hazardous products and packaging take-back programs. Take-
back programs by manufacturers and sellers of hazardous products are a cost-effective method
to divert these types of waste from landfills. It is recommended that County staff:
Conduct research to assess what legislation may be required to mandate and manage take-
back programs for specific types of hazardous waste or packaging.
Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to facilitate storage and handling of
hazardous products and packaging at various types of collection locations, and funding
equity.
7. Explore public-private partnership for a local e-waste campaign (on-island demanufacturing).
It is recommended that the County initiate a study of different models for promoting local
dismantling and refurbishing of electronics. As part of the study, the County would convene a
meeting of interested parties to determine the level of interest and identify ways that the
County can help facilitate development of a locally-based e-waste program. Depending on the
economics of on-island dismantling, the County could then evaluate the extent to which it
would provide funding to support implementation of a public-private partnership e-waste
program.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 7-1
7. SPECIAL WASTE
7.1 Introduction
As defined in Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules 11-58.01-03, “Special wastes” means any solid waste which,
because of its source or physical, chemical, or biological characteristics, require special consideration for
its proper processing and/or disposal. This term includes, but is not limited to, asbestos, used oil, lead
acid batteries, municipal waste combustion ash, sewage sludge that is non-hazardous, medical wastes,
tires, white goods, and derelict vehicles.
Special wastes typically comprise a significant portion of the total waste stream for most communities.
The South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL) accepts a wide range of special wastes; however, because the site
is projected to reach capacity during 2019, steps have been taken to decommission this facility. Thus, the
West Hawaiʻi Sanitary Landfill (WHSL) will receive the bulk volume of special wastes in the County. The
logistics of SHSL closure are currently being developed by the County (County of Hawaiʻi DEM 2017c).
7.1.1 Review of 2009 Plan Update
Exhibit 7-1 is a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2009 Plan update relative to source
reduction, and a description of the actions taken to achieve each recommendation.
Exhibit 7-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Special Waste
2009 Plan Update Recommendation Status
Include special waste dropoff and collection areas in the design of new or renovated recycling and transfer stations. Limited special wastes dropoff opportunities designed/implemented (White Goods).
Continue the current effort to modify convenience center permits to allow white goods recovery at recycling and transfer stations. Modified certain permits for White Goods acceptance.
Include information regarding the environmental benefits of properly disposing of scrap tires, and current disposal options in the County's education and promotion programs.
HDOH administers the tire/wholesaler scrap tire education program. The County implemented an educational program that targeted both the tire dealers and the public. The County also did multiple inspections of each tire dealer and provided information to the
dealer on proper tire management.
7.2 Background
Special wastes are generated by both residents and commercial businesses, and in some cases require
special handling or processing to comply with federal and state regulations. As shown in Exhibit 7-2,
certain types of special wastes can be disposed of in landfills, with varying levels of documentation
depending on the type of waste. Some types of special wastes cannot be disposed of in either the SHSL
or WHSL, and require transport to separate recycling, processing, or disposal facilities. The County
manages many types of special wastes by establishing dropoff or collection points, and then
transporting the waste materials to either the landfill or other recycling or disposal facilities.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
7-2 August 2019
The County Department of Environmental Management (DEM) sponsors household annual and bi-
annual hazardous waste collection events at select recycling and transfer stations for residential waste.
Special wastes accepted at these events include used oil (also accepted at six permanent collection
locations), lead-acid batteries, and medication. Waste must be from residential households. Commercial
and industrial-generated wastes are managed through the Hawaiʻi Department of Health (HDOH).
Exhibit 7-2. Special Waste Disposal Requirements
Accepted at East
Hawaiʻi Landfill
Accepted at West
Hawaiʻi Landfill
Special Storage, Handling, or
Disposal Practices Required
Asbestos-Containing Materials No Yes Yes
Used Oil No No N/A
Petroleum-Contaminated Soil No Yes Yes
Used Batteries (lead-acid) No No N/A
Sewage Sludge (non-hazardous) Yes* Yes Yes
Agricultural Waste Yes* Yes Yes (deceased livestock)
Medical Wastes No No N/A
Used Tires No No N/A
White Goods No No N/A
Derelict Vehicles No No N/A
*The EHSL is scheduled to close in 2019.
7.2.1 Asbestos
Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) are currently accepted for disposal at the WHSL in designated
areas within the landfill.
7.2.2 Used Motor Oil
The County sponsors a do-it-yourself used oil recycling program. The program is funded by the County,
made possible through the donated support of businesses collecting the used motor oil. Under the
program, residents can drop off used motor oil at no charge at any of seven collection locations. The oil
is accumulated at these collection centers, and then transported to recycling or energy recovery
facilities by waste hauling or disposal contractors. During 2015, 2,750 gallons (86.6 tons) of motor oil
were collected and either recycled or used in an energy recovery facility (County of Hawaiʻi DEM 2016a).
During the period from January through June 2016, 2,035 gallons (64.1 tons) of used motor oil were
collected (County of Hawaiʻi DEM 2017b).
Potential issues (public health and environmental) with used motor oil disposal include residents
disposing of used motor oil into the waste stream that enters the landfills, discarding containers of used
oil at the recycling and transfer stations, or discharging used oil to the ground surface.
7.2.3 Petroleum-Contaminated Soil
Soil affected by releases of petroleum products is currently accepted at the WHSL, if it has been
chemically profiled and determined to be non-hazardous. The contractor, Waste Management
Corporation, reviews chemical profiling data for petroleum-contaminated soil entering the WHSL, and
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 7-3
manages the placement and disposal of this material at the landfill. Petroleum-contaminated soil is not
accepted at the SHSL.
7.2.4 Used Batteries (lead-acid)
Used lead-acid batteries are typically recycled by distributors such as auto parts stores or auto service
centers. Prior to 2013, specific collection areas for batteries were set up at the Kealakehe, Hilo, and
Kea`au recycling and transfer stations. They were transported to their respective base yards and
eventually to scrap metal yards or handled as household hazardous waste (HHW). After 2013, the
County stopped accepting automotive batteries at the recycling and transfer stations. However, these
batteries are accepted at County-run HHW collection events where residents may bring in their HHW
free of charge.
Potential issues with used battery disposal include residents disposing of batteries into the waste stream
that enters the landfills, discarding used batteries at recycling and transfer stations, or in more remote
areas.
7.2.5 Sewage Sludge
Non-hazardous sewage sludge is accepted at the SHSL and WHSL for disposal. The volume of sewage
sludge entering the landfills is relatively small. The SHSL receives sewage sludge from the Hilo
Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the WHSL receives sewage sludge from two private wastewater
treatment plants. Other private facilities, including resorts and a private wastewater treatment plant
located in Waimea, recycle sewage sludge by composting the sludge on their properties.
7.2.6 Agricultural and Farm-Generated Waste
Agricultural wastes generated in the County typically include dead livestock, spoiled foods, and green
waste. Farm-generated wastes include containers of herbicides, pesticides, or other agricultural
chemicals. Currently, the County accepts livestock, or makes arrangements to assist the owner with
proper burial of deceased large animals (smaller animals such as cats and dogs are accepted at the
landfills). Green waste produced at farms is most frequently used by the farm owners. Green waste is
accepted for recycling at the EHOF and WHOF; residential green waste is accepted at select recycling
and transfer stations, as described in Chapter 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets.
The HDOH’s pollution coordinator provides guidance for the management and disposal of farm-
generated hazardous wastes. Relating to pesticides, conditionally exempt small quantity generators
(CESQGs) may contact the state’s pesticide branch for disposal information. Triple-rinsed chemical
containers are allowed in the commercial solid waste stream (HDOH 2013).
7.2.7 Medical Wastes
Under County of Hawaiʻi Code, untreated medical wastes are considered “prohibited materials” and are
not allowed to be disposed in landfills. Medical wastes that have been pre-treated at the generating
facility to remove pathogens and other hazards are permitted to be disposed in the SHSL and WHSL.
To prevent misuse and improper disposal of prescription drugs and sharps, various levels of government
have developed pharmaceutical take-back programs:
• The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) offers bi-annual free take-back days for
prescription and Over-The-Counter (OTC) pharmaceuticals.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
7-4 August 2019
• The County accepts residential prescription drugs at Kona or Hilo’s bi-annual HHW collection
events, or at Waimea or Pāhoa’s annual HHW collection event.
• The State of Hawaiʻi Department of the Attorney General, HDOH, and the Hawaiʻi County Police
Department (HCPD) administer the Hawaiʻi Medication Drop Box Program through federal
funds. Residents may dispose of their prescriptions in designated boxes located inside the Hilo,
Puna, or Kona (Kealakehe) police stations.
Sharps and needles are not accepted at these events. Residents may dispose of their sharps and needles
through their medical provider or by properly securing their syringes in a puncture-resistant container
and placing it in the garbage. Information on proper disposal of needles and pharmaceuticals are
provided on the County’s zero waste website.
Some businesses subcontract medical waste disposal to private businesses that specialize in medical
waste disposal. Waste disposal practices vary by facility or clinic; currently, there are no required
standard practices or documentation procedures. The HDOH is the lead regulatory agency tasked with
oversight. In FY 2016–17, an estimated 442 tons of treated medical waste were disposed of at County
landfills.
While medical waste management practices are generally effective, County staff members have, on
infrequent occasions, observed untreated medical waste at recycling and transfer stations or landfills.
7.2.8 Used Tires
County Ordinance No. 07-182, as codified in HCC 20-46, prohibits the disposal of tires that are whole,
cut, sliced, chipped or shredded at any landfill and all island-wide transfer stations. The County does
not collect tires at recycling and transfer stations or landfills; it is illegal for residents and business
owners to drop off tires at any County facility. Both residential and commercial scrap tires are typically
collected and disposed of by automotive service centers during installation of newly purchased tires.
Residents can also drop off tires at several local companies that are permitted by the HDOH to conduct
tire disposal facilities; these businesses charge a nominal fee to dispose of used tires. Scrap tires on
abandoned vehicles are transported by the scrap metal hauler are removed and then transported to a
recycling or disposal facility.
Tires generated in the County are shipped to O`ahu for crumbing and subsequent blending with coal at
the AES Hawaiʻi Inc. coal-fired power plant or processed in O`ahu’s H-Power waste to energy facility
(City and County of Honolulu. 2017). A smaller percentage of the used tires are recycled for use in
creation of artistic or industrial products. At least one business in the County has conducted a pilot
project that mixed scrap tires and concrete to create blocks for landscaping walls or fences. Nationally,
markets are increasingly being developed to use recycled products from tires, including steel alloys from
belted tires, rubber products such as playground surfaces or mats, and landscaping products. Local
markets for scrap tires are, however, still limited.
Although tires are relatively inert and do not break down quickly when discarded in the environment,
discarded tires can trap rainwater and provide an environment that mosquitoes, vermin, or invasive
species can thrive in, creating a public nuisance or potential public health concerns. There is a need to
promote tire recycling best management practices within the County’s public education and information
program.
7.2.9 White Goods (Large Appliances)
White goods (large appliances) consist of used appliances including dishwashers, ranges, refrigerators,
water heaters, freezers, and other similar domestic appliances. According to the EPA, steel and iron are
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 7‐5
the predominant materials in major appliances, and the recycling of these materials avoids the
environmental impacts associated with the mining and processing of virgin material (EPA 2016a). Thus,
recycling at scrap metal facilities is highly encouraged. Big Island Scrap Metal, located on both sides of
the island, Hilo and Kona, currently accept these items.
The County also promotes on its
website the Refrigerator Trade‐Up
“Rid‐A‐Fridge” Program that offers
residents the option to replace
and dispose of energy inefficient
appliances, contingent upon
funding availability. Through this
program, rebates are offered to
residents to replace their white
goods with more updated and
efficient models.
Residents may also drop off
unwanted white goods at various
recycling and transfer stations
(Exhibit 7‐3). Since 2009, the
County has expanded their white
goods recycling program by
adding reuse facilities to seven more recycling and transfer stations. Dropoffs are allowed at other
recycling and transfer stations to keep them from ending up in the transfer trailers and the landfill. The
County employees monitor the number of white goods to remain in compliance with permit
requirements, and regularly load and recycle them at a scrap metal facility. At those facilities, freon is
recovered and recycled in accordance with federal law from appliances such as refrigerators, freezers,
and air conditioners.
Exhibit 7‐3. Recycling and Transfer Stations that Accept White Goods
Recycling and Transfer Station White Goods Accepted Recycling and Transfer Station White Goods Accepted
East Hawaiʻi West Hawaiʻi
Glenwood – Ka`auhuhu (Hāwī) X
Hilo X Kealakehe (Kailua‐Kona) X
Honoka`a X Keauhou –
Honomū – Ke`ei X
Kalapana – Miloli`i –
Kea`au X Ocean View –
Laupāhoehoe X Puakō X
Pa`auilo – Waimea X
Pāhala X Wai`ōhinu X
Pāhoa X
Pāpa`ikou –
Volcano X
White Goods Collection—Hilo Recycling and Transfer Station
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
7-6 August 2019
Some retail outlets will pick up used appliances and transport them to scrap metal facilities when a new
(replacement) appliance is purchased with the delivery option. However, delivery to remote areas of the
island such as North Kohala or Ka`u is not offered by most retail outlets.
The difficulties associated with transporting bulky items such as white goods and limited recycling
options may consequently lead to Illegal dumping by residents. Options to improve the white goods
disposal process include changing the operation permit for more recycling and transfer stations to
accept residential white goods; establishing additional targeted collection days and locations in order to
increase the opportunity for residents to properly dispose of white goods; or having mobile collection
events.
7.2.10 Abandoned Vehicles
Abandoned vehicles are managed by the County Abandoned Vehicle Coordinator in conjunction with the
HCPD. According to HCC 24-199, abandoned vehicles (operational and non-operation) in public right of
way are subject to a $250 fine and vehicle removal-associated expenses.
Abandoned vehicles that have been reported to the HCDP are tagged, monitored, and evaluated to
assess if they are derelict. If after the monitoring period the vehicle has not been moved, it is considered
derelict; the vehicle is then hauled by a County-contracted towing company to one of the two waste
metal recovery facilities. If the vehicle is abandoned and not considered derelict, the vehicle is
impounded by the County, and an attempt is made to notify the registered owner. Automobile parts
may be recycled at the Kealakehe or Hilo Recycling and Transfer Station.
7.3 Recommendations
The current program for special wastes is somewhat limited by the County recycling and transfer station
infrastructure. It was agreed through consensus of the SWAC to include functional elements necessary
for proper handling of special wastes in new facility plans or designs. Permits will have to be modified to
allow the handling and temporary storage of special wastes at recycling and transfer stations, and staff
will require training to implement new programs correctly. Further study will be required to develop
programs that are adequately protective of human health and the environment. Based on the analysis
presented above, and discussions with the SWAC, the County plans to implement the following
recommendations to improve the special waste program:
1. Continue to integrate the Do-It-Yourself Used Motor Oil program within the County’s public
education and information program.
2. Increase the number of recycling and transfer stations that accept white goods. Continue to
explore the feasibility of removing the freon at the site to simplify the handling, loading, and
transport of white goods.
3. Continue to ensure that recycling facilities responsible for dismantling of white goods are
trained properly for the recovery and recycling of freon-containing appliances.
4. Continue to promote tire recycling best management practices within the County’s public
education and information program. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 8-1
8. COLLECTION AND TRANSFER
8.1 Introduction
The County currently operates a network of 22 recycling and transfer stations where residents can drop
off recyclables and solid waste. The County contracts with private firms to transport recyclables from
the stations to privately operated processing facilities.
Municipal waste is transported by the County’s Department of Environmental Management (DEM) Solid
Waste Division (SWD) staff to either the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL) or West Hawaiʻi Sanitary
Landfill (WHSL).
This chapter describes current conditions of the existing solid waste collection and transfer system
within the County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents options and recommendations
for achieving the County’s solid waste collection and transfer goals.
8.2 Background
The County of Hawaiʻi developed the transfer station system in the 1970s to provide a transition from
operating local dump sites to instituting a more centralized landfill system. The transfer stations were
initially constructed as inexpensive, temporary facilities to fulfill the immediate needs of residential
users by consolidating smaller residential loads into combined larger loads for transfer to landfills. The
recycling component of the transfer station was incrementally added beginning in the early 2000s, and
the County now refers to the facilities as “recycling and transfer stations.”
The 22 recycling and transfer stations operate under Solid Waste Management Permits issued by the
Hawaiʻi Department of Health (HDOH).
8.3 Review of 2009 Plan Update
Exhibit 8-1 provides a summary of the recommendations presented in the 2009 Plan update relative to solid
waste collection and transfer, and a description of the actions taken to date to achieve each recommendation.
Exhibit 8-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Collection and Transfer
2009 Plan Update Recommendation Status
1) Retain the County's system of recycling and
transfer stations. 2) A component of retaining the
system includes completing upgrades to address
structural deficiencies. 3) Provide expanded services
in support of zero waste initiatives.
1) County's MSW system retained. 2) Upgrades to several
recycling and transfer stations completed (see below).
3) Zero Waste initiatives include plastic bag/polystyrene
foam ban, addition of seven reuse centers.
1) Reconstruct one or more recycling and transfer
stations annually, including a new South Kona
recycling and transfer station at Ocean View. 2) The
County should also consider installing compaction
units for recyclables at selected stations. Consider
adopting a "satellite" system where compactors
would be installed at selected stations, which would
accept uncompacted recyclables from nearby
stations lacking compactors.
1) Reconstructed Pāhoa, Glenwood, and Volcano recycling
and transfer stations. Currently reconstructing Wai`ōhinu/
Ka`u recycling and transfer station. The Ocean View
Recycling andTransfer Station is being constructed.
2) Recycling compactor system not implemented. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit 8-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Collection and Transfer (continued)
8-2 August 2019
2009 Plan Update Recommendation Status
Implement full-time staffing and reduced operating
hours at recycling and transfer stations; consider
closing one or more stations.
Public demand requires more recycling and transfer
stations and longer days and hours of operation. Current
funding provides limited staffing levels.
Develop a system to license private collection firms.
In this program, all firms that collect garbage from
residents or businesses would be required to register
vehicles, document that the vehicles meet safety
requirements, and pay a nominal licensing fee (to
cover the cost of licensing).
Currently, collection firms must have an account/permit to
dispose at the landfill. A license program has not been
developed.
Change permits to allow small commercial
businesses to drop off recyclables at County recycling
and transfer stations. These permits would make it
much more convenient for small businesses in rural areas to recycle. To ensure efficient and safe
operations, only trucks below a certain size threshold
(for example, less than 1 ton) would be allowed to use the stations.
The increased cost of processing the material is a concern.
The County has not added enough funds to take material
from the businesses.
Conduct an operational efficiency analysis. Did not implement. No funds were available for operational efficiency analysis.
Develop a base yard facility and equipment maintenance facility for transfer vehicles at the SHSL. Constructed a new South Hilo base yard, and not the maintenance facility.
8.4 Existing Conditions
Currently, there is no curbside recycling or garbage pickup provided by the County. Most island
residents use the County recycling and transfer stations to dispose of their rubbish. The recycling and
transfer stations are geographically distributed for the convenience of island residents. A map showing
the relative size of each station as correlated to garbage received (FY 2017–18) is included in Exhibit 8-2.
Private companies provide curbside pickup within limited geographic regions of the island for a fee.
Based on residential credit information from the County8, it is estimated that about 6,000 households
currently subscribe to curbside service. This represents approximately 9 percent of the estimated 66,094
occupied households in the County in 2017. Fees for curbside collection quoted by private collection
firms appear to range between $20 and $40 per household per month. In 2018, the Honolulu, Kauai
County, and Maui County curbside pickup costs for residents were approximately $10, $12, and $18,
respectively.
There are several companies that collect garbage from businesses and institutions in the County.
Collection rates charged vary by company, the type of service provided, and the distance from the
collection point to the landfill.
8 The County provides credit against tipping fees to collection firms that document waste that is collected from
residences.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 8-3
Exhibit 8-2. Disposal at Hawai’i County Recycling and Transfer Stations FY 17-18
Source: County of Hawai’I DEM SWD
Note: Numbers under transfer station = tons of trash hauled in FY 17-18 and percent of total for County.
Use of the recycling and transfer stations to drop off recyclables or garbage is currently free for
residents. At 19 recycling and transfer stations the County employs a 2-bin system for recycling, with
limited stations providing a separate bin for cardboard. This system consists of separate roll-off
containers to accommodate the recyclables. Currently, most stations have stairs and platforms to allow
convenient customer access to the recycling bins. Select stations offer a HI-5 redemption center, and
reuse opportunities and/or facilities for the recycling of green waste and metals. The recycling services
provided at each station are shown in Exhibit 8-3.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
8-4 August 2019
Several of the recycling and transfer stations are used illegally by private recyclers or community groups
to drop off recyclable materials.
The County facilitates the use of the recycling
and transfer stations as collection points for
recyclables to the extent practicable, and
intends to eventually upgrade all of the
recycling and transfer stations to enhance
recyclable collection capabilities.
At the stations, residents deposit garbage
into chutes that lead to truck-mounted,
compacting containers (except Pāhoa), which
are then hauled by SWD staff to the landfill.
The County operates and maintains
stationary compacting units, truck-mounted
compacting units, and a fleet of trucks and compacting containers utilized in the operation of the
recycling and transfer station system, and provides part-time security monitoring.
Exhibit 8-3. Services Provided at Hawaiʻi County Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations
Recycling and Transfer Station MS
W
Gl
a
s
s
Mi
x
e
d
Re
c
y
c
l
a
b
l
e
s
Sc
r
a
p
M
e
t
a
l
Wh
i
t
e
G
o
o
d
s
Gr
e
e
n
W
a
s
t
e
Re
u
s
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
HI
-5
Re
d
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
Ce
n
t
e
r
East Hawaiʻi
East Hawaiʻi Organics Facility (EHOF)b – – – – – X – –
Glenwood X X X – – – – –
Hiloa X X X X X – X X
Honoka`a X X X X X – – X
Honomū X X X – – – – –
Kalapana X X X – – – – –
Kea`aua X X X X X X X X
Laupāhoehoe X X X X X – X –
Pa`auilo X X X – – – – –
Pāhala X X X X X – – –
Pāhoa X X X X X X X –
Pāpa`ikou X X X – – – – –
Volcano X X X X X X – X
East Hawaiʻi Organics Facility (EHOF)b – – – – – X – –
Glenwood X X X – – – – –
Pāhoa Recycling and Transfer Station
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit 8‐3. Services Provided at Hawaiʻi County Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations (continued)
August 2019 8‐5
Recycling and Transfer Station MS
W
Gl
a
s
s
Mi
x
e
d
Re
c
y
c
l
a
b
l
e
s
Sc
r
a
p
M
e
t
a
l
Wh
i
t
e
G
o
o
d
s
Gr
e
e
n
W
a
s
t
e
Re
u
s
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
HI
‐
5
Re
d
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
Ce
n
t
e
r
West Hawaiʻi
Ka`auhuhu (Hāwī) X X X X – – – X
Kealakehe (Kailua‐Kona)a X X X X X X X X
Keauhou X X X – – – X X
Ke`ei X X X X X – – –
Miloli`i X – – – – – – –
Puakō X X X X X – – X
Ocean View X X – – – – X
Waiea X X X – – X – –
Waimea X X X X X X X X
Wai`ōhinu X X X X X – X X
West Hawaiʻi Organics Facility (WHOF)b – – – – – X – –
Note: Hilo, Kea`au, and Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Stations contain separate bins for newspaper and cardboard.
8.4.1 Recycling and Transfer Station Features
The stations vary in size, population served, tonnage of waste collected per day, types of waste
accepted, and hours of operation. Site characteristics for each recycling and transfer station are
presented in Exhibit 8‐4.
Except for Miloliʻi and Ocean View recycling and transfer stations, rubbish is compacted typically three to
four times per day by SWD facility attendants who distribute their time between the different facilities.
The Miloliʻi Transfer Station has a roll‐off container that is hauled twice per week to the WHSL by the
SWD. Recycling and transfer station attendants clean and maintain the stations, operate the compactors,
periodically monitor haulers for prohibited materials, and report any unusual activity at the stations.
The recycling and transfer stations are permitted to accept only residential rubbish; commercial and
hazardous wastes are prohibited at all stations. Commercial businesses frequently use the stations due to
a lack of resources for enforcement and/or suitable alternatives for solid waste disposal. Without
adequate security measures and enforcement, it is difficult for the County to ensure that all permit
requirements are being met. Currently, 21 of the 22 stations are gated and have part‐time security guards.
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
8‐6 August 2019
Exhibit 8‐4. Site Characteristics for Existing Recycling and Transfer Stations
Recycling and
Transfer Station District
Approx.
Population
Served
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Number of
Chutes
FY 2016–17
Tonnage
(Tons/Day)
Gated Hours/Days of
Operation
East Hawaiʻi
Glenwood Puna 4,300 1.97 1 4.73 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Sun, Tues, Fri
Hilo South Hilo 42,000 72.7 4 40.90 6:30 a.m. ‐ 5:00 p.m.
Daily
Honoka`a Hāmākua 5,100 0.73 1 11.57 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Daily
Honomū South Hilo 3,400 0.84 1 2.71 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Mon, Tues, Sat
Kalapana Puna 1,200 13.2 1 1.22 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Mon, Thurs, Sat
Kea`au Puna 11,700 19.54 2 22.95 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Daily
Laupāhoehoe North Hilo 1,700 1.02 1 2.87 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Sun, Tues, Fri
Pa`auilo Hāmākua 1,800 0.85 1 2.06 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Mon, Thurs, Sat
Pāhala Ka’u 1,700 0.75 1 2.90 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Sun, Tues, Fri, Sat
Pāhoa Puna 9,400 3.77 2 23.34 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Daily
Pāpa`ikou South Hilo 5,800 0.57 1 3.78 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Sun, Tues, Fri
Volcano Puna 2,000 2.19 1 3.81 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Mon, Thurs, Sat
West Hawaiʻi
Ka`auhuhu
(Hāwī)
North Kohala 6,000 17.28 1 11.85 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Daily
Kealakehe
(Kailua‐Kona)
North Kona 21,000 30.32 3 32.41 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Daily
Keauhou North Kona 8,500 5.47 2 15.09 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Daily
Ke`ei South Kona 5,600 11.6 1 3.14 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Sun, Tues, Fri
Miloli`i South Kona 700 0.17 1 2.12 Sunrise to Sunset (not gated)
Daily
Ocean View Ka’u Temporary site, formal recycling and transfer station on
County land in planning stages.
7:00 a.m. ‐ 3:00 p.m.
Saturday
Puakō South Kohala 5,600 8.9 1 5.52 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Sun, Tues, Fri
Waiea South Kona 3,300 2.28 1 2.65 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Mon, Thurs, Sat
Waimea South Kohala 11,700 0.31 2 19.19 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Daily
Wai`ōhinu Ka’u 3,000 31.65 1 9.06 6:00 a.m. ‐ 6:00 p.m.
Daily
Source: County of Hawaiʻi DEM (2017d)
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 8-7
8.4.2 Recycling and Transfer Station Maintenance, Repair and
Enhancement
Repairs and maintenance of equipment and infrastructure are currently provided by the County
Department of Public Works on an emergency or time available basis. Since 2009, major structural and
engineering deficiencies at the recycling and transfer stations have been identified. To prioritize the
stations with the most pressing needs for repair and enhancement, the County rated each station in four
areas: structural adequacy, functionality, safety, and regulatory compliance. Based on these ratings, the
County developed a 5-year repair and upgrade plan, in which major construction projects were planned
for select recycling and transfer stations, as explained in Exhibit 8-5. However, most of the recycling and
transfer stations lack upgrades to accommodate population growth within nearby communities and to
effectively accommodate recycling or reuse. The State Revolving Funds (SRF) is a source of financial
assistance on behalf of the water quality projects related to the recycling and transfer stations, many of
which involve leachate collection system upgrades.
Exhibit 8-5. Recycling and Transfer Station Condition
Recycling and
Transfer Station
Condition 2018 Status
Improvements Following Adoption of
2009 Plan
No
Deficiencies1
Minor
Deficiencies2
Intermediate
Deficiencies3
Major
Deficiencies4
East Hawaiʻi
East Hawaiʻi Organics
Facility (EHOF)
Operations began in 2013. In 2016,
enhanced mulching procedures were introduced per Hawaiʻi Administrative
Rule (HAR) 4-72-13 to restrict the spread
of invasive species
X – – –
Glenwood Reconstructed in 2015:
• Removed deteriorating retaining walls
• Added covered concrete docks for
drop boxes
Reconfigured the site for improved vehicular flow patterns
X – – –
Hilo 2017: Constructed and opened new reuse
facility – X – –
Honoka`a No improvements – – – X
Honomū No improvements – – – X
Kalapana No improvements – – – X
Kea`au Remodeled in 2011:
• Added reuse area, recycling drop-off
area, and green waste bins
• Reconfigured and repaved the site for
improved vehicular flow patterns
Replaced rubbish chutes
X – – –
Laupāhoehoe No improvements – – – X
Pa`auilo No improvements – – – X
Pāhala No improvements – – – X
Pāpa`ikou No improvements – – – X
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit 8‐5. Island‐Wide Recycling and Transfer Station Condition (continued)
8‐8 August 2019
Recycling and
Transfer Station
Condition 2018 Status
Improvements Following Adoption of
2009 Plan
No
Deficiencies1
Minor
Deficiencies2
Intermediate
Deficiencies3
Major
Deficiencies4
Pāhoa Reconstructed in 2011:
Includes sustainable building features
and materials (e.g., solar, water
catchment)
Designed for improved vehicular flow
patterns
Improved signage
Replaced drop‐off recycling roll‐off box
system with covered recycling bin bays
(seven total)
Constructed new building for HHW collection/office with restroom
Added public meeting area
Constructed a covered bay for MSW and
for green waste
X – – –
Volcano Reconstructed in 2015:
Removed deteriorating retaining walls
Added covered concrete docks for drop boxes
Reconfigured the site for improved
vehicular flow patterns
2015: Added green waste collection services
X – – –
West Hawaiʻi
Ka`auhuhu (Hāwī) No improvements. Removed reuse center. – – X –
Kealakehe (Kailua‐Kona) 2010: Reconfigured and repaved for improved vehicular flow patterns
2013: Constructed and opened new reuse facility
X – – –
Keauhou No improvements – – – X
Ke`ei No improvements – – X –
Miloli`i Expanded the concrete pad to
accommodate two bins. – – – X
Puakō 2010: Reconfigured and repaved for
improved vehicular flow patterns – X – –
Ocean View Temporary site on County‐owned park parcel. Phase 1 construction for the
permanent site, notice to proceed issued February 2019
– – – X
Waiea No improvements – – – X
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit 8-5. Island-Wide Recycling and Transfer Station Condition (continued)
August 2019 8-9
Recycling and Transfer Station
Condition 2018 Status
Improvements Following Adoption of 2009 Plan No Deficiencies1 Minor Deficiencies2 Intermediate Deficiencies3 Major Deficiencies4
Waimea • Reconstructed in 2010, upgrades
include:
Recycling area customer
accessibility improvements
Site reconstruction for improved traffic flow
• 2012: Opened the Waimea Reuse and HI-5 Redemption Center Building
• 2015: Added green waste collection
services
X – – –
Wai`ōhinu • 2017: Constructed and opened new
reuse facility
• Design-build project. Notice to Proceed
for reconstruction issued in 2018, first task is design.
X – – –
West Hawaiʻi Organics Facility (WHOF) 2013: Beginning of operation X – – –
1Recent/Planned upgrades are sufficient through 2029. 2Deficiencies can be corrected while station in operation. 3Deficiencies correctable without reconstruction
4Deficiencies require reconstruction
The County has placed a strong emphasis on waste diversion. Since 2009, the County has expanded its
green waste program. Green waste bins have been added to various recycling and transfer stations. In
2013, the EHOF and WHOF began operation. In their first year, these facilities collected 40,465 tons of
green waste representing 63 percent of diverted waste from the
SHSL and WHSL (County of Hawaiʻi DEM 2017a). Although these
facilities accept yard trimmings and untreated wood pallets, they do
not accept food waste. According to the EPA (EPA 2018c), food
waste composes 15.1 percent of MSW—a value exceeding yard
trimmings (13.3 percent) and wood (6.2 percent). Thus, in 2014, a
request for proposals (RFP) was released for a compost and green
waste processing facility that would accept food and yard waste
(East Hawaiʻi Organics Facility). The County plans to develop the
facility on the east side of the island as early as 2020.
To further the philosophy of waste mitigation and zero waste, the
County has also expanded reuse facilities. Reuse centers have been
installed at eight recycling and transfer stations (see Exhibit 8-3);
these facilities accept donated reusable items that are then sold for
reuse back to the public. Through reuse, negative environmental
impacts associated with landfilling and reprocessing are bypassed or
delayed. The County has garnered recognition for these improvements and updates. For example, the
Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) recognized the Pāhoa Recycling and Transfer
Station’s 2012 improvements for environmental and economic solid waste management. This station
accepts green waste, mixed recyclables, glass, and scrap metal, and includes an onsite reuse center and
HI-5 redemption center. Waste mitigation is also achieved through the County’s white goods program;
residents may bring clean empty household appliances to 13 recycling and transfer stations (see
Exhibit 8-3).
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
8-10 August 2019
8.5 Issues and Concerns
The County’s network of recycling and transfer stations provides convenient locations for County
residents to drop off recyclables and garbage. Residents who prefer curbside collection must make
arrangements with a local business providing the service.
When evaluating a curbside service program, the County would assess the need to continue operating
all 22 recycling and transfer stations. Curbside service would require significant additional capital start-
up and yearly operations costs, and the net cost increase could potentially be reduced by closing some
of the County’s existing recycling and transfer stations.
As discussed above, the County’s existing transfer system was established in the 1970s and most of the
stations require significant upgrades to address structural and functional deficiencies. As discussed in
Chapter 4, Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets, it would also be desirable to provide additional
opportunities to divert waste from landfill disposal. Many such opportunities would require significant
and potentially expensive changes to the existing infrastructure and operations at County recycling and
transfer stations.
8.6 Curbside Collection Implementation Considerations
This section provides a discussion of a variety of issues that would be considered when evaluating the
merits of the County implementing a residential curbside collection service, including:
• Institutional approaches to service delivery.
• Funding options.
• Service levels.
• Collection technologies.
• Services and service frequency.
Many of these issues were also discussed in Chapter 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets.
References to this chapter will be made as appropriate.
8.6.1 Institutional Approaches to Service Delivery
In the United States, residential waste collection services are provided by both the private and public
sectors. Although there are numerous ways to group or categorize different ways of delivering waste
collection services, the four most common types of service delivery arrangements currently used in the
United States:
1. No government-organized collection service.
2. Local government owned and operated collection service.
3. Non-competitive franchise collection service with rate regulation.
4. Competitive contract collection service.
This section provides a brief discussion that highlights the features of each service delivery arrangement.
8.6.1.1 No Government-Organized Collection Service
This is the method of collection currently in effect in the County, where customers either deliver their
own waste to a processing or disposal facility, or select a private business to pick up recyclables and/or
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 8-11
waste at the curb. In many communities, “going to the dump” has long been part of a routine for some
residents. Many of these individuals would prefer to make the time to deliver waste materials on their
own rather than pay for collection services.
Historically, many communities have given residents the option to either sign up for curbside collection
services or to self-haul their materials. The main advantage to self-haul collection is that the (typically
smaller) percentage of residents who prefer to self-haul their waste may do so without being charged
for a service they do not want or need.
In most industries, having many firms compete for business tends to result in efficiencies and lower
costs for consumers. However, this is usually not the case for residential collection of garbage because
the benefits of competition are usually overcome by the inefficiencies of having multiple haulers driving
down the same street each day.
Trucks must drive greater distances between stops resulting in fewer stops per collection day leading to
increased costs. In other words, residential collection service costs can be reduced by regulatory
structures that ensure that a product or service is delivered by a single entity.
Another disadvantage of this arrangement is that billing and other overhead costs will also be higher
than in-service arrangements in which billing is combined with billing for other municipal services and
handled by a single entity. Finally, as communities grow and housing density increases, public health and
social considerations become more important; garbage should be removed at least once every 7 days to
control flies and odors.
8.6.1.2 Local Government Owned and Operated
Local government collection is most typically performed by city
governments although collection is sometimes provided by counties,
especially where the county is the most basic level of government.
Advantages typically associated with local government collection include
the following:
• Local governments have some inherent cost advantages over
private firms, such as not having to pay income or other taxes
(the County does have to pay the General Excise Tax), the ability
to combine overhead costs for collection programs with other
existing programs (such as water, power, or sewer), not earning
profits, and lower costs of borrowing.
• Local governments may place a higher value on service to
customers than private firms.
• When local government collection is provided as part of a utility structure, rate increase
proposals are discussed in an open, public forum.
• Local government collection typically includes all households in a city or county allowing for
increased efficiency through the economics of contiguity (the contiguous alignment of
customers along a service route), and for larger jurisdictions, potential economies of scale.
While local government has some inherent cost advantages, the cost of local government collection is
often higher than when collection is provided by the private sector. A comprehensive national survey of
collection practices found that local government and privately provided service were of equal cost, on
average, for smaller local governments (with a population of less than 20,000), and that privately
provided service (with exclusive collection territories) was significantly (up to 37 percent) less costly for
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
8-12 August 2019
larger jurisdictions with populations of more than 50,000 (Stevens 1980). According to certain reports,
privatization of MSW collection may result in a cost savings ranging from 20 to 40 percent for local
government (NSWMA 2011). However, privatization may not always be less costly than government
collection, as the weak competition between collection companies often reduces cost savings. In fact, a
meta-analysis study conducted between 1960 and 2008 across the United States and nine other
countries determined no cost difference between public versus private collection (Bel and Warner 2008).
Some other factors that can lead to inefficiency and higher costs for local government collection include:
• Civil service requirements can hamper the ability of supervisors to motivate employees and, if
necessary, terminate underperforming employees.
• The lack of the profit incentive removes a powerful motivator toward efficiency.
• Work rule requirements can make it much more difficult for public sector managers to affect a
flexible response to changed conditions.
• The initial cost to purchase vehicles and containers and subsequent operation and maintenance
costs can be difficult for some communities to finance.
While local government collection can be cost competitive with the private sector, there are many
documented cases where local government has cut collection costs significantly by contracting out
collection services (Kenny 2013). In summary, it is likely but not certain that local government collection
would be somewhat costlier than collection provided by the private sector in the County. If the County
were to establish a collection service, it would be critical to ensure good, experienced, proactive
management, and the use of appropriate incentives to motivate the behavior of collection personnel.
8.6.1.3 Non-Competitive Franchise with Rate Regulation
In this type of service arrangement, collection is provided by private firms holding franchises that give
them an exclusive right to collect waste from all residences within a specified geographic area. The non-
competitive aspect of the franchise means that rates are negotiated between the hauler and the state
or local government. This is a common arrangement in many communities in the United States. As an
example, in the state of Washington, hauler rates are regulated by the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (WUTC) for jurisdictions that opt for this collection arrangement.
This method of providing collection service can foster a sense of partnership between the private and
public sectors. It is one of the most flexible institutional arrangements, because there is usually an
ongoing mechanism for negotiation between the public and private sectors. If conditions change it is
often easier to make adjustments to service levels, or add additional services such as curbside recycling
programs than other types of service arrangements. For example, local government collection programs
are often difficult to change because of civil service agreements. Contract collection is inherently less
flexible because a good contract specifies numerous details that are part of a legally binding agreement
that can be complex to alter. With an exclusive franchise, the jurisdiction retains flexibility to negotiate
change, and the efficiency advantage of contiguous routes.
One disadvantage associated with non-competitive franchises is the lack of competition to establish a
true, baseline cost of service. Without competition, local governments must rely on various regulatory
measures, rate comparisons with similar-sized operations, auditing methods, and negotiating
techniques to try and mandate that collection service providers establish reasonable pricing for services.
Often, these efforts result in only modest success; thus, competitive contracting for collection services
often is cheaper than a non-competitive franchise collection service. Finally, it is often difficult and
costly for governments to secure the expertise to effectively regulate the rates charged by haulers.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 8-13
8.6.1.4 Competitive Contract Collection Service
The competitive contract arrangement refers to a system in which a city or county goes through a
competitive selection process and awards a single contract to the successful firm for the exclusive right
to provide collection services in a designated area for a specified period. Assuming there are multiple
firms competing for the business, contract collection for exclusive collection zones usually result in
lower prices for residential collection services than the other institutional arrangements. This occurs
because firms must keep their prices low to be competitive.
However, contract collection is not always the lowest cost institutional arrangement for collection.
Higher costs can occur if local governments do not use adequate care in the development,
implementation, and administration of the contractual relationship with its contractor. Three key factors
that must be present for a community to ensure low cost, high quality service from a competitive
contract:
• The procurement process must be structured to ensure that multiple firms bid on the collection
zones, and that multiple firms will be willing to bid once the initial contract ends and must be
rebid.
• The procurement documents and, in particular, the contract must precisely specify the services
required.
• The contracting jurisdiction must devote significant resources to craft a good contract. Once the
contract is in place, additional resources are needed to actively monitor and manage contractor
performance.
Some disadvantages of contract collection include the following:
• There is added risk associated with contracting because it is difficult to foresee the future and to
devise a contractual relationship that protects the interests of the contracting jurisdiction yet
leaves the private sector the flexibility to profitably and creatively provide the requested
services.
• Customer service can suffer if the contract does not clearly specify service requirements and/or
if the contracting jurisdiction does not enforce contractual requirements.
• In some cases, intense competition or intra-firm marketing pressures result in firms bidding
prices below the true cost of service. In such cases the local government benefits from low
prices; however, there can be protracted difficulties in getting the contractor to perform in
accordance with the contract.
The County would need to address many issues when implementing curbside collection using
competitive contracts including the following:
• Deciding how many collection zones and contracts are appropriate to establish. To ensure long-
term competition and economies of scale, the County would need a minimum of two zones
awarded to two different contractors and probably a maximum of three or four zones.
• Developing a complex request for bids or proposals including a good contract that spells out
clearly the services to be performed and penalties for non-performance.
• Communicating daily with haulers about ongoing billing, customer service, and equipment or
logistical issues.
• Monitoring contractor performance.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
8-14 August 2019
In the County of Hawaiʻi, a 2004 Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi decision affirmed the right of
private sector unions to provide services traditionally performed by the public sector. The Hawaiʻi State
legislature has made provisions to allow for managed competition, in which both the public and private
sectors could compete for the provision of public services, such as collection (Supreme Court of the
State of Hawaiʻi 2004).
However, there is no process yet established for such a competition, and it is highly likely that an
attempt to enact such a process would result in litigation with an uncertain outcome.
8.6.2 Collection Technology
Curbside collection can use various levels of automation. The traditional
approach to collection relies on crews of two to three people to manually
toss refuse into collection trucks. To reduce crew sizes, some communities
have implemented semi- automated or fully automated collection systems.
This requires providing each household with a wheeled container that is
rolled to the curb on collection day. Automated collection trucks have
lifting mechanisms that empty the rubbish into the truck. This section
discusses the relative merits of manual, semi-automated and fully
automated collection systems, and their applicability to the County.
8.6.2.1 Manual Collection
Manual collection is the traditional method of collecting materials at curbside. Waste is typically
collected by two- or three-person crews in rear-loaded and side-loaded collection vehicles. This
arrangement is a common method of collection in the United States, although in some rural areas where
the distance between stops is great, one-person crews are sometimes used. Side-loaded vehicles use
compartment openings on the driver side of the vehicle rather than at the back, and therefore the driver
or crew member does not have to walk as far to unload waste into the truck. For this reason, side-
loaded vehicles can be operated somewhat more efficiently than rear-load vehicles when smaller (one-
or two-person) crews are used.
To reduce labor costs, many communities are modifying their solid waste collection program to add
some level of automation. According to the National Waste and Recycling Association, in 2013,
approximately half of all newly purchased waste collection vehicles were fully automated and manned
by one person (Rogoff 2015). In Hawaiʻi, the counties of Honolulu, Kauai, and Maui have transitioned
from manual collection to fully automated collection (City and County of Honolulu 2018b; County of
Kaua’i 2018b; Maui County Government 2008).
Automated collection vehicles reduce labor costs by allowing for smaller crews; however, this is at the
expense of higher capital investment in trucks. Therefore, automated collection is best suited to areas
with relatively high labor costs, and manual collection is best suited to areas with relatively low labor
costs. Insurance premiums are also higher with manual collection because many workers suffer injuries
to backs and shoulders by repetitively lifting waste into the truck. Thus, the appropriateness of manual
versus automated collection will depend on the relative cost of labor plus associated costs versus capital
costs, and the characteristics of local collection routes. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 8-15
8.6.2.2 Semi-Automated Collection
In semi-automated systems, the collector wheels the container
from the curb to the rear or side of the truck and attaches the
container to an automated hydraulic dumping unit (tipper).
These systems require special containers that are designed to be
compatible with the lifting units. Virtually all the heavy lifting
associated with rubbish collection is eliminated; thus, worker
fatigue and injury is reduced, and the vehicles can be operated by
crews as small as one person. Considering that solid waste
collectors have the highest injury rate of any industry nationally,
the benefits associated with eliminating lifting can be significant.
Although semi-automatic systems require more time per pickup than manual loading, service time per
crew member can decrease because semi-automated systems usually allow for a sizable reduction in
crew size. The wheeled containers used with semi-automated and fully automated systems are often
perceived by the customer as a more convenient, cleaner collection system, resulting in decreased litter.
For rural customers with long dirt driveways, larger, wheeled containers may be a drawback because
they are difficult to load into a personal vehicle to take to the set-out location. In rural areas, customers
could be allowed to set out smaller, 30-gallon cans to make it more convenient.
Semi-automated collection has been successful in some communities but unsuccessful and ultimately
canceled in others. This type of collection service typically failed due to slower route times, overly
stringent container set-out requirements, higher vehicle and container costs, or a perceived reduction in
the incentive to recycle because of the larger can sizes. Municipalities with successful semi-automated
collection programs devised ways to work around these problems. In some cases, it has been
determined that despite the challenges, overall collection costs were less than manual collection
because of the reduction in crew sizes, decrease in insurance premiums, and reduced injury rates.
Compared with manually loaded vehicles with two- or three-person crews, semi-automated collection
results in longer route times and higher capital costs. Manually loading rubbish into trucks from cans is
faster than using semi-automated loading systems. Labor costs can be reduced by reducing the size of
the crew per truck; however, capital costs are increased because more trucks may be required to pick up
the same quantity of waste.
Semi-automated (and fully automated) collection would be challenging to implement in rural areas of
the County because of factors not conducive to automation, including:
• Unimproved roads.
• Lack of curbs or sidewalks for set outs.
• Steep slopes.
• Dense vegetation.
A focused study would be needed to evaluate if semi-automated or fully automated collection
(described below) could be implemented effectively in the County. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
8-16 August 2019
8.6.2.3 Fully Automated Collection
Although fully automated systems are not as common as semi-automated systems, the number of
communities throughout the country that use fully automated collection
vehicles is growing. Fully automated systems use one-person side-loading
vehicles equipped with a lifting mechanism (collection arm) on the side of
the vehicle. The operator pulls up to the container at the curb and controls
the entire loading operation from the right-hand driver’s seat. The
collection arm allows the operator to grasp, empty, and return the
container without leaving the truck cab. In certain cases, such as
improperly positioned or obstructed containers, the operator may have to
leave the cab to respond to a problem.
Fully automated systems have similar advantages to the semi-automated
systems discussed in the previous section. Because virtually all lifting is
eliminated, the costs associated with worker injury and fatigue are greatly
reduced. In addition, there is usually an improvement in collection labor
efficiency because fully automated systems use a single person on each
truck and the driver does not have to get out of the truck as frequently.
Benchmark fully automated collection systems can collect from more than 800 households per day per
truck with a single driver. Since commercial containers compatible with fully automated systems are
available up to 300 gallons, some communities have lowered collection costs by incorporating
commercial accounts on residential routes.
Fully automated systems require cooperation by residents to set out containers in a prescribed way.
Implementing fully automated systems presents additional physical constraints as well. Single side of the
street routing is required (which will increase miles driven and drive time between accounts). Parking
restrictions may need to be instituted, and obstructions (for example, trees, and utility wires) may
present problems in certain areas.
Compared with manually loaded vehicles with two- or three-person crews, route times will be longer
and capital costs will be greater with either semi- or fully-automated collection.
However, labor costs would decline by reducing crew sizes to one (plus extra replacement drivers for sick
days, vacation, and holidays). The total operational collection cost will depend on a community’s labor
costs and route structure. Because capital costs will be higher and route times slightly longer, the main
source of savings compared to manual collection is in labor. Communities that have shifted to automated
collection typically have relatively high labor costs. This is an important factor in case studies of
automated collection that show an overall reduction in collection costs.
Compared to semi-automated collection, fully automated collection requires trucks that are costlier
with higher maintenance requirements. Those costs are typically overshadowed by the cost savings that
results from the reduced time per stop. Thus, in most cases, fully automated collection appears to be
more advantageous than semi-automated collection.
8.6.3 Service Levels
Curbside service is generally provided in one of two ways:
• Subscription basis—where residents have the option to either subscribe to the service or not.
• Universal collection—where all residents in a jurisdiction or a sub-area of a jurisdiction are
charged for curbside service regardless of whether they use the service.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 8-17
The advantages of a subscription service are that residents are given a choice of whether to pay for the
service. The disadvantage is that it makes collection costlier on a per household basis by lengthening the
distance between stops on a route. Universal collection has just the opposite set of advantages and
disadvantages: residents no longer have a choice and are required to pay for a service; yet, per
household costs are lower.
This issue was discussed in Chapter 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets. The County is
predominantly rural in character with relatively small urban and suburban areas in Hilo, Kailua-Kona,
Waimea, and a few other locations. Many of the rural areas
within the County have steep, unimproved roads not
suitable for collection vehicles. Thus, mandatory curbside
collection for all County residents is likely to be impractical.
Further, longer distances between collection stops will occur
in many of the geographically dispersed small communities
in the County. A voluntary subscription service, for which
not all residents would sign up, would potentially make the
distance between collection stops even longer. While there
is no binding constraint against implementing a subscription
service, the fact that the County has many geographically
dispersed rural communities suggests that designating
specific geographic zones where curbside service would be
mandatory would make more sense than mandating island-wide collection.
8.6.4 Service Frequency
Most collection systems now include both garbage and recycling and many offer green waste services.
Some communities are taking the next step toward zero waste and are diverting food and other organics
from the garbage at curbside. Considering the County’s commitment to increasing landfill diversion, if
the County elects to make the substantial commitment to begin offering curbside collection services, it
would make sense to offer curbside collection of recyclables.
Some communities in hot and humid climates offer garbage collection service twice weekly. This is
significantly more expensive than weekly collection and this practice seems to be less common; weekly
collection of garbage is typical in most communities.
Recyclables are typically collected either weekly or bi-weekly. Weekly collection generally is costlier and
may result in higher diversion from the landfill. However, as discussed in Chapter 4, the evidence of
increased diversion from weekly collection versus bi-weekly collection is weak and is not consistent in all
jurisdictions. Organics (e.g., yard and food waste) collection services are offered in a wide variety of
service frequencies including weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, and seasonally.
The most aggressive approach to diversion at curbside is a three-stream system in which food and other
organics (which could include green waste) is collected weekly and garbage and recyclables are collected
either weekly or on alternative weeks.
8.6.5 Funding Options
There are several ways that the County could pay for a curbside collection service, including:
• Property taxes.
• Direct billing.
• PAYT program.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
8-18 August 2019
8.6.5.1 Property Taxes
This is how solid waste management expenditures are currently funded. Thus, it would be relatively
simple for the County to continue with this method and would potentially streamline implementation of
a new service.
The main disadvantage of this funding method is that it would provide no information to customers
about the cost of the program. The lack of information for consumers about program costs would
indirectly eliminate one way of providing incentive to program managers to keep service costs low. To
educate the public on program costs, the County could separate the costs of waste management
services on property tax bills. This would be relatively simple for the County to implement and would
provide some information to customers about the cost of curbside collection, and potentially other
waste management services.
8.6.5.2 Direct Billing
The County could provide curbside collection and other waste management services in a similar manner
to utility services, such as water or electricity, and send bills directly to customers. This is a very common
arrangement in the United States. The main advantages of this type of system are to provide better
information to customers about the cost of the collection service, and to indirectly provide incentives to
provide services more efficiently.
To implement this type of system, the County would need to hire personnel, establish computer-based
systems for the program, and conduct considerable public education. Ongoing customer service would
need to be provided to address disputes about services and billing, and for collection of unpaid bills.
8.6.5.3 Pay-As-You-Throw
As discussed in Chapter 3, Source Reduction, PAYT can take many forms including using a variable can,
metered bag, or metered tag system. The key aspect of this system is to charge a progressive rate for
each additional garbage unit collected above the basic service level (for example, one can per week). In
other municipalities, PAYT has proven to be a highly effective method of reducing waste and increasing
the use of recycling and organics diversion programs.
Implementing a PAYT system for residential garbage collection service or at existing recycling and transfer
stations would require implementation of an aggressive public education and information campaign to
ensure that residents understand the rationale for implementing the PAYT program. Significant upfront
planning would be required to assess a wide range of implementation details. The County would need to
establish billing systems, a customer service organization, and modify its financial systems to
accommodate this new service. The County could elect to assess the potential for reducing property
taxes as an offset to the new revenue source. See Chapter 3 for a dedicated discussion of PAYT options.
8.7 Options for Improvement
The County’s system of recycling and transfer stations is a unique system that has served the County
well for more than 30 years. Options for improving that system follow.
8.7.1 Add Curbside Collection
The challenges associated with implementing curbside collection of recyclables (as discussed in Chapter
4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets) would also apply to collecting garbage. Mandatory curbside
collection of garbage for all County residents is impractical because of the County’s predominantly rural
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 8-19
character and the many areas with steep, unimproved roads not suitable for collection vehicles. Further,
longer distances between collection stops will occur due to the large number of geographically
dispersed small communities in the County. A voluntary subscription service, for which not all residents
would sign up, would potentially make the distance between collection stops even longer. For program
cost efficiency, it is recommended that this option include designated zones where curbside service
would be mandatory.
Cost Considerations. The cost of curbside collection of garbage would depend on many factors including
the type of collection vehicles used (manual versus semi-automated versus fully automated), the
number of rural households included in the program (increased distance between collection stops), and
the institutional arrangement (for example, public versus private). A collection study would be required
to further explore opportunities for this type of service.
The cost of curbside collection would be offset somewhat by reducing the amount of waste that would be
transported from recycling and transfer stations to landfills. This may be achieved by increasing the diversion
rate through increased recycling and composting endeavors. The County’s full complement of recycling and
transfer stations would be somewhat less necessary if curbside collection were implemented. However, it
should be recognized that the rural residents not easily served by curbside service are dispersed
geographically throughout the island and still need convenient locations to dispose of recyclables and
garbage.
8.7.1.1 Collection Sub-Options
This section explores several different opportunities for residential curbside collection as collaborated
between the County and the SWAC. While there are many possible methods of implementing collection
service, the sub-options considered in this section reflect current opportunities and constraints that
exist in the County, including:
• The County transfer system provides reasonably convenient service for all households, and
there is no County-sponsored curbside service.
• About 9 percent of County households receive garbage service from private companies that
compete for customers with little County involvement.
• Few companies currently provide curbside recycling for residences (in part because there are
very few locations they could take the materials collected).
• Universal curbside collection of garbage for all County residents is impractical because of the
County’s predominantly rural character and the many areas with steep, unimproved roads not
suitable for collection vehicles.
• State law may preclude the County from engaging in franchises or contracts with private sector
collection firms.
The following sub-options provide an increasing level of change, potential benefits and costs, and
implementation difficulty:
A. Retain existing system.
B. License all collection companies.
C. License existing collection companies and require every-other-week recycling.
D. County offer collection services using County crews.
E. Exclusive franchises for private sector collection.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
8-20 August 2019
Note that in all these options, collection service would be optional for residents. A universal collection
service would be more efficient than an optional service because it would result in more stops per hour
of collection. However, in most areas of the County the total cost for universal collection would probably
be quite high when combined with a means of providing service to the many rural residents that are
spread out widely throughout the County. To serve these residents, the County would need to retain
many of its existing stations (perhaps ten to 15 of the existing 22 stations) or provide an additional
collection service (such as bins located on main roads where residents could dispose of their waste). It is
possible that universal collection could be implemented in Hilo or in select areas on the western side of
the County at the same time recycling and transfer stations that serve those areas could be closed. This
could be evaluated at a later date; however, in most areas of the County, the sum total of universal
curbside collection and maintaining recycling and transfer stations for more rural areas is likely to be
cost-prohibitive compared to any advantages it might provide.
A. Retain Existing System
In this option, the existing system would be retained. Residents who would prefer curbside collection
would make arrangements with a collection company.
This system would have the advantage of simplicity by just continuing existing practices at no additional
cost to the County: those living in more urbanized areas of the County have the service available to
them. Some disadvantages of this option include:
• Many areas of the County are currently not served because of the difficulty of profitably serving
customers outside of more densely populated areas.
• The current collection system is relatively inefficient with both low route densities and the
potential for multiple companies collecting from homes on the same street.
• This system is somewhat less compatible with recycling because persons receiving garbage
collection still would have to go to a recycling and transfer station to drop off recyclables.
• There is currently no standardization of services and no control over the type and condition of
vehicles used by haulers.
B. License All Existing Collection Companies
In this option, the County would pass an ordinance requiring all companies collecting garbage or recyclables
from residents to obtain a “material collection license.” The County would place certain conditions for
obtaining a license such as: paying a small annual fee, obtaining a “license sticker” to be displayed on each
vehicle used for collection purposes, and require proof of annual safety inspections of each vehicle.
The County could then assist in the promotion of collection service by licensed haulers by listing haulers
name and phone numbers on its website and in promotional material. This would inform the public about
the services available.
Other than requirements associated with licensure, collection companies would be free to engage in
operations as they see fit including where and when to offer service, the method of set-out, and the
price of the service.
There would be a small initial cost to prepare the ordinance and develop the licensing program, then a
small annual cost to license each vehicle. Part or all the annual cost of the program could be paid
through licensing fees.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 8-21
C. License All Existing Collection Companies and Require Bi-Weekly Recycling
This option is similar to Option B, with an additional requirement that licensed haulers also offer a bi-
weekly recycling service, and submit documentation about the method of collection for County
approval. Materials collected must match the list of materials accepted in the County’s 2-bin recycling
system at its recycling and transfer stations.
To implement this option, the County would need to ensure there are places for haulers to deliver
recyclables; at a minimum, facilities would be needed on the west and east sides of the island. This
could be accomplished at the South Hilo sort station, or at a private facility or facilities on the west and
east sides of the island, and possibly Waimea.
This option would have the advantage of increased recycling. It would, however, increase the cost of
curbside service and probably result in some customers discontinuing collection service.
D. County Collection Services Using County Crews
In this option, the County would establish a new section of collections, and implement weekly curbside
collection of garbage and every-other-week collection of recyclables County-wide. Private sector
collection from 1-unit detached housing would no longer be allowed. It is assumed that this would be an
optional service available in areas of the County that could be reasonably served by a collection vehicle
(The 2009 Plan estimated that this would be about 70 percent of all 1-unit detached housing). The County
would need to ensure that processing facilities are available for the west and east sides of the island, and
possibly Waimea. Collection options would need to be studied further including an economic analysis.
Customers who do not sign up for collection service would continue to use the remaining recycling and
transfer stations.
This option would have significant implementation challenges, some of which include:
• Hiring additional staff and procuring vehicles, carts, and equipment.
• Hiring consulting expertise with an individual or firm that has expertise in establishing a
collection operation.
• Establishing a billing mechanism to charge customers for the service.
• Establishing base yards for vehicles and carts in two or three locations on the island.
The County would need to estimate the cost of collection service, including start-up costs, and then
decide if it would be provided at cost or at a subsidized rate.
E. Exclusive Franchises for Private Sector Collection
In this option, the County would establish two to four franchises in which a collection company would
have the exclusive right to collect waste and recyclables from residential customers. Currently, it is
estimated that there are only about 6,000 customers that currently subscribe to collection service.
Considering that a single truck in a somewhat rural system can collect from 200 to 600 customers each
day on a route (depending on route density), the franchises would be small initially. Thus, more than a
few territories would be very inefficient to implement.
The service would be optional for residents, and presumably with an exclusive territory, costs would fall
compared to existing rates and the number of customers served would probably grow through time. All
companies would be required to offer a similar service, ideally using the same type of cart, with weekly
collection of garbage and every-other-week collection of recyclables. The County would need to ensure
that processing facilities are available for the west and east sides of the island, and possibly Waimea.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
8-22 August 2019
It is uncertain if this could be implemented under current state law. If the County were to implement
this option, the County would probably face a legal challenge from the union that serves County
workers. Thus, the County would need to test the legality of this approach. It might be able to proceed
by engaging in a managed competition process in which the County could also vie for franchises in
competition with private collection firms. The County would need to receive approval from the state to
engage in such a process. Thus, there is some legal work to be done prior to determining if this option
could be implemented.
Assuming implementing this option is legal, there are many ways that franchises could be awarded. It
would be challenging to develop a method of assigning franchises that is perceived as “fair” by all
existing collection companies: many (or all) of them are likely to oppose any particular franchise award
method. One approach would be to have firms bid a price per month for collection service in each zone
(i.e., bids would differ in each zone). The lowest price offered in a zone would be the winning bid. The
County could then set a County-wide rate that all residents would pay for collection services. The County
would then pay (or receive a payment from) the collection firm for the difference between the bid price
and the County-wide rate paid by residents for service in each franchise territory. The collection firm
would bill and collect the County-wide rate from residents who elect to sign up for the service.
The County would need to establish rate review capabilities and establish a process for firms to adjust
bid prices as costs change in the future. This would include reviewing the justification for any proposed
rate increases. The County would continue to set the actual rate paid by residents. That rate could be
set so that the County breaks even or it could subsidize the collection service as it prefers.
In this option, some County recycling and transfer stations would remain open for those that prefer to
not pay for curbside collection.
The main advantages of this option are providing a way of improving the efficiency of service provision
(only one firm passing down a residential street), standardized services County-wide, increased
recycling, and flexibility and choice for residents.
Some disadvantages of this approach include: existing collection firms would lose the ability to provide
services as they see fit, and significant administration and legal expertise would be required for
implementation and to regulate rates. Implementing this approach would require project management
and specific expertise. It would probably take the County a year or more to put into place and would
probably require hiring a project manager and/or using consultants to provide specific expertise.
Cost Considerations. The cost of this option would depend on many factors as described above.
8.7.2 Change Permits to Allow Small Businesses to Recycle at Transfer
Stations
In the 2009 Plan, the County attempted to change the operating permits for each station from a
convenience center to a recycling and transfer station. This change would have eliminated a 40-cubic-
yard per day delivery maximum and would have allowed non-residential customers to access the
stations. Yet, the County encountered difficulties in the permit change process with the HDOH.
If the County reconsiders the permit change process, this option would allow non-residential customers
to use the recycling services at each recycling and transfer station. Non-residential customers would not
be allowed to deliver rubbish at the stations. This policy would provide more convenient recycling
opportunities for small businesses throughout the County within limits manageable by the County.
Cost Considerations. Under this option, the amount of recyclables that would be delivered to recycling
and transfer stations is uncertain. The County would anticipate increased costs associated with handling
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 8-23
and transportation for increased tonnage. The County would also need to invest in additional signage,
education, and promotion of this new policy. This would require the County to identify a system to bill
commercial haulers for recycling at the recycling and transfer stations. Although the commercial haulers
would be required to pay into the recycling system, they would ultimately realize a cost savings in the
reduction of landfill tonnage.
8.7.3 Continue Progress Towards Reconstruction of Stations in Need of
Repair
As shown in Exhibit 8-5, 11 of the County’s 22 recycling and transfer stations have major engineering
deficiencies requiring reconstruction, and another two have intermediate engineering deficiencies that
can be addressed while the station is operational. As described in Exhibit 8-5, the County has made
improvements to the following facilities since the adoption of the 2009 Plan:
• Glenwood–Reconstructed in 2015.
• Kea`au–Remodeled in 2011.
• Kealakehe–Reconfigured and repaved in 2014.
• Ocean View–Planned and designed, phase 1 construction in early 2019.
• Pāhoa–Reconstructed in 2011.
• Volcano–Reconstructed in 2015.
• Waimea–Remodeled and reconfigured in 2010.
• Wai`ōhinu–Awarded contract for reconstruction in 2019.
Cost Considerations. If the County plans to implement a curbside service program, station upgrades and
reconstruction would be planned with this service in mind.
8.7.4 Increase Attendants’ Monitoring of Recycling and Reduce Operating
Hours at Recycling and Transfer Stations
The County could improve recycling by increasing attendants’ presence at the recycling roll-offs at each
station. The attendants would encourage customers to separate recyclables and provide information
about different ways residents could reduce the amount of waste going to landfills.
Currently, the County stations are open for 12 hours (except for Hilo [10.5 hours], Ocean View [8 hours]
and Miloli’i [sunrise to sunset]). The feasibility of reducing operating hours is challenging because the
County has concerns about reducing operating hours due to high public demand for disposal service.
The County could consider conducting a customer survey to provide feedback regarding staffing levels
and hours of operation to understand the needs of the customers and the cost of operation. Past
surveys have shown customers want increased hours for recycling and transfer stations however
including survey questions regarding additional recycling information / education at the sites would help
define future needs.
Cost Considerations. The cost of the initial survey to the residents would be a nominal fee. If it results in
the County providing full-time attendants at each station with existing staff, there would be station
attendant staff that could perform functions currently done by private security guards. Thus, the County
could significantly reduce or eliminate the cost of employing private security guards.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
8-24 August 2019
8.7.5 Add Full-Time Attendants, Reduce Operating Hours, and Implement
PAYT at Recycling and Transfer Stations
As discussed in Chapter 3, PAYT systems provide a powerful incentive to reduce waste and increase
reuse and recycling. It is possible that the introduction of a PAYT system at recycling and transfer
stations would be a step in incentivizing a curbside collection program. This option includes a PAYT
program, with full-time attendants and reduced operating hours.
The County would need to devote considerable upfront resources to educate residents about the
reasons for the new program and to explain how the new program works.
Further, it is recommended that this type of program be phased in with a 3- to 6-month grace period
during which bags or tags would be collected; however, no one would be turned away for not using the
appropriate bag or tag.
Illegal dumping is always a concern, although results from around the country have shown that long-
term increases in illegal dumping from PAYT programs are rare. The County may need to consider
increasing enforcement authority for the DEM or other County agencies to allow them to levy fines
against those caught engaging in illegal dumping practices.
Cost Considerations. See Chapter 3, Section 3.5.6.1 for details on the implementation of PAYT at
Recycling and Transfer Stations, including cost considerations.
8.7.6 Reduce System Costs by Closing Select Stations and Reducing
Operating Hours
In this option, the County would close some stations and reduce the operating hours of some stations
that remain open. The money saved could be used to increase waste reduction, reuse, and recycling or
used to lower the amount of money collected from property taxes for solid waste management
purposes.
This option would include closing the following ten stations (Exhibit 8-6):
Exhibit 8-6. Station Closure Options
Closed Stations Closest Remaining Station(s)
Glenwood Volcano
Honomū Laupahoehoe, Hilo
Kalapana Pāhoa
Ke`ei Keauhou
Miloli`i Keauhou, Oceanview, Wai`ōhinu
Pa`auilo Honoka`a, Laupāhoehoe
Pāhala Wai`ōhinu
Pāpa`ikou Hilo
Puakō Waimea, and new facility planned at WHSL
This option would require an aggressive public education program that stresses the reasons for closing
some stations. As discussed above in the PAYT option, the County would need to educate residents and
increase enforcement to prevent illegal dumping. It is likely that some residents would continue trying
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 8-25
to drop off waste at closed transfer stations for some time until residents become comfortable with the
new arrangement. The County would need to plan for this and increase its budget for enforcement and
cleanup crews.
Cost Considerations. With ten fewer stations, a reduction in operating hours, allowing for the added cost
of full-time attendants, and providing budget for increased enforcement, it is estimated that this option
could result in significant annual cost savings.
8.7.7 Lower Transportation Costs by Compacting Recyclables
In FY 2017–18, the County spent about $960,000 transporting recyclables from recycling and transfer
stations to processors. The transportation costs could be lessened thereby reducing the volume of
material transported by compacting recyclables prior to transportation from stations. Two possible
methods of compaction include:
• Convert one garbage chute to handle recyclables at larger stations with multiple garbage chutes
(Kea`au, Pāhoa, Hilo, Waimea, Kailua, Keauhou).
• Breakdown/flatten cardboard boxes.
• Use compactor drop boxes at stations for mixed recyclables.
8.7.7.1 Converting One Garbage Chute to Accept Recyclables
In this option for stations with more than
two chutes, one chute would be designated
for accepting recyclables only as depicted in
the adjacent photo). Once dropped into the
chute, materials would be compacted in the
County’s 75-yard compaction trailers, using
the same operational methods currently
used for garbage.
The Kea`au, Waimea, and Keauhou stations
each have two chutes for garbage, the Kailua station has three, Hilo station has four, and Pāhoa has two
transfer trailers. Where only two chutes are available, it may be difficult to devote one chute entirely to
recyclables; long lines may form during peak conditions for disposal. Signage would need to be changed,
public education would be needed, and a full-time attendant would need to be present on-site to ensure
that only recyclables went into the chute designated for recycling. This concept might work better at the
Kailua, or Hilo stations where converting one chute would leave multiple shoots still available for
garbage. Transportation cost savings from compacting at the Hilo Recycling and Transfer Station may be
small because mixed recyclables are transported a short distance for processing in Hilo.
In summary, this concept appears to be feasible at the Kailua station, and might be feasible at the
Kea`au and Waimea stations. The County would likely conduct a pilot program to test its effectiveness.
Mixed Recyclables Garbage
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
8-26 August 2019
8.7.7.2 Use Compactor Drop Boxes at Stations for Mixed Recyclables
The County could increase truck payloads and lower
transportation costs by installing stationary compactors
at each station for recyclables. This system would
include a compaction unit and a charging hopper (two
cubic yards is a typical size) that residents would place
their recyclables into. When the charging hopper is full,
an operator would activate compaction and material
would be pushed into an enclosed drop box.
For safety, the system should be key- or code-operated
so that only trained operators would be able to engage
the compaction unit.
Enclosed drop boxes come in many sizes, and a 40-cubic-yard box is recommended to allow containers
to stay at stations for longer periods of time before they needed to be hauled. The installation would
require pouring a concrete pad to support each compactor and building a safe and convenient platform
around the charging hoppers for customers. County equipment operators (or a station attendant) would
have to routinely operate the compaction units to compact recyclables as they currently do for the
County’s garbage trailers. In FY 2017–18, the uncompacted mixed recyclables hauled from recycling and
transfer stations averaged about 4.5 tons per 40-cubic-yard bin. This type of unit at County stations
could probably achieve an average compaction ratio somewhere between 3:1 and 5:1 for mixed
recyclables.
Cost Considerations. Converting garbage chutes to accept recyclables would probably require one
additional site attendant at each station (to ensure that materials are placed in the proper chute). There
would be a small initial cost for extra signage, education, and promotion.
The cost of compacting recyclables would need to be taken into consideration. If the County were to
install one compaction unit at each station and purchase various containers, the total initial capital cost
would be properly budgeted. In subsequent years, amortization of these units and containers would also
be equated into future budgets. When considering the added annual maintenance cost of about 5
percent of capital and labor costs for staff, it is uncertain if installation of compactors at all stations
would be cost-effective given the current recycling rates at County recycling and transfer stations.
However, it is important to note that many options considered in the Plan update (such as mandatory
recycling, PAYT, allowing non-residential recycling) would increase the quantities of mixed recyclables
accepted at stations. The larger the volume of recyclable materials transported, the more likely
compaction will be cost-effective. Another option to consider is installing the units only at selected
stations. The County could adopt a “satellite” system at which compactors would be installed at stations
that would accept uncompacted recyclables from stations more distant from processors.
8.8 Recommendations
Based on the analyses presented above and discussions with the SWAC, the County plans to implement
the recommendations discussed below. Implementation issues related to these activities are discussed
in Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
1. Retain the County’s system of recycling and transfer stations; however, also explore
alternative funding methods via a feasibility study as discussed in Chapter 3 recommendations
(Recommendation 2). Until a decision is made on the best method of collection and transfer,
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 8‐27
the County will continue to maintain and upgrade recycling and transfer stations to address
structural deficiencies and provide expanded services to divert waste from the landfill.
Note: Chapter 10, Section 10.6 (Recommendation 1) discusses a Solid Waste System Financial
Analysis.
2.Reconstruct one or more recycling and transfer stations annually. The decision discussed above
to maintain the County’s recycling and transfer system will require repair and/or reconstruction
of the recycling and transfer stations. After considering other County funding needs, it is
recommended that the County fund at least one reconstruction each year.
3.Consider ‘Satellite’ compaction units for recyclables at select stations. The County would also
consider installing compaction units for recyclables at selected stations. This would include
consideration of adopting a “satellite” system where compactors would be installed at selected
stations, and those stations would accept uncompacted recyclables from nearby stations with
no compactor.
4.Reduce operating hours at recycling and transfer stations and consider closing one or more
stations. Reduce operating hours at recycling and transfer stations, and consider closing one or
more stations. In Chapters 3, 4, and 6, a number of proposed programs are recommended for
implementation at County recycling and transfer stations. It will be imperative that County staff
are present during station operating hours to inform users of the various recycling, reuse,
organics, and other programs available. As more services are provided, it will become
prohibitively expensive to keep recycling and transfer stations open 10 to 11 hours per day, 362
days per year. The County could consider closing select recycling and transfer stations if the
benefits of increased services in some areas are deemed to be less than the cost of providing
that service. To start this process, the County would consider conducting a customer survey to
provide feedback regarding staffing levels and hours of operation to understand the needs of
customers.
5.Change County code to allow small businesses to drop off recyclables at County recycling and
transfer stations within limits manageable by the County.
6.Conduct an operational efficiency analysis to lower costs. The County would continue to
monitor the cost of its recycling and transfer network, including contracting with a third party to
conduct an efficiency analysis and identify potential opportunities to lower costs.
Dr
a
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-1
9. RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
9.1 Introduction
Residuals refer to materials remaining after source reduction, reuse, recycling, and bioconversion.
Residuals management is the final treatment and/or disposal of the waste that cannot be economically
used in any other way. The County of Hawaiʻi provides landfill disposal for residual materials at the West
Hawaiʻi Sanitary Landfill (WHSL) located in Pu`uanahulu and the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL)
located in Hilo. The SHSL is projected to reach capacity by 2019 and plans have been initiated for its final
closure. Refuse from the SHSL will be routed to the WHSL upon the SHSL closure. For residents, the
common forms of residual materials sent to landfill are household rubbish, or municipal solid waste
(MSW), and DIY construction and demolition waste. Businesses and institutions send a wide range of
different non-hazardous residual materials from their daily operations.
This chapter describes current conditions of the existing residuals management system within the
County, identifies current issues and concerns, and presents options for managing residuals after source
reduction, reuse, and recycling.
9.2 Review of 2009 Plan Update
Exhibit 9-1 below provides a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2009 Plan update
relative to residuals management, and describes the actions taken to achieve each recommendation.
Exhibit 9-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management
2009 Plan Update Recommendation Status
Develop a conversion technology facility. Between 2006 and 2014, the County issued several RFPs to
vendors who could potentially design, construct, and operate a
waste to energy (WTE) facility. The County’s evaluation of
proposals during this time determined that a mass burn WTE
facility was the most commercially and technically feasible
option. The County rejected a proposal in 2008 due to higher
than expected costs. Advanced diversion technology (e.g., WTE,
pyrolysis) must demonstrate that it is environmentally and
economically feasible, and the technology has a verifiable and
viable commercial track record (a minimum of 5 years) for
handling of municipal solid waste, before it will be considered
by the County.
Truck waste from the SHSL to the WHSL. The County plans to re-route waste from the SHSL to WHSL
during 2019.
Investigate the feasibility and cost of expanding the
SHSL. to a northwest parcel adjacent to the landfill
or to a rock quarry located next to the SHSL site.
Not implemented due to high costs and Hawaiʻi Department of
Transportation, Airports (DOTA) Division and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) restrictions on landfills within
10,000 feet of an airport using turbojet aircraft.
County to conduct a more in-depth evaluation of the
feasibility and cost of re-configuring the reload
facility at the SHSL and trucking waste to the WHSL.
The County conducted evaluations of trucking residuals to
WHSL. The County will continue to look at means and methods
to maximize the load.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
Exhibit 9-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations (continued)
9-2 August 2019
2009 Plan Update Recommendation Status
County to conduct a more in-depth evaluation of the
feasibility and cost of 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.
A study was performed and it was determined that this option is
unfeasible due to proximity to the airport, among other
considerations. Instead, residuals will be shipped to WHSL.
County to prepare a master planning document for
the WHSL and SHSL facilities.
1) The County is preparing a plan focused on reconfiguring
circulation, scalehouse location, and other facilities in anticipation for additional residuals entering WHSL from the SHSL. 2) In 2012, the County commissioned a Hilo Landfill
Feasibility Study. In 2017, the Cover System Alternatives Evaluation for SHSL was prepared, and in 2018 the EA and subsequent Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by the County Department of Environmental Management (DEM) on behalf of the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill Final Closure. Because it was determined in the Hilo Feasibility Study that expansion of the Hilo landfill is unfeasible, there is no need to proceed with a master planning document during this planning period. Near the conclusion of the 30-year monitoring and maintenance period of the closed landfill, there will be a need to develop a plan on behalf of the future use of this site.
County engage in a dialogue with other Hawaiʻi counties about the potential for mutually beneficial joint solutions.
Some contractual efforts with Waste Management have been made between Hawaiʻi Community College, University of Hawaiʻi, Kaua'i County, and County of Hawaiʻi
County conduct a feasibility study of remediating the
closed Kailua-Kona landfill. The County is still dealing with ongoing issues associated with
the closed landfill's subsurface fires. A feasibility study is still on the horizon for the required 30-year post-closure remediation efforts.
9.3 Existing Conditions
Currently, residual waste from the eastern part of the County is disposed of at the SHSL, and waste from
the western part of the County is disposed of at the WHSL. Residential residual waste is accepted at no
charge at 22 recycling and transfer stations and transported by County Solid Waste Division (SWD) staff for
disposal at both landfills. In 2018, commercial disposal of residual waste generally required a landfill
disposal permit through the DEM and a landfill tipping fee of $108 per ton. Per County of Hawaiʻi Code,
tipping fees may be waived when it is “in the best interest of the County,” including one-time events for
community organizations, nonprofit organizations, or private property owners who are remediating illegal
dump sites that they did not create. The status of each landfill is described in the following sections. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-3
9.3.1 South Hilo Sanitary Landfill
Closure
The SHSL is located in Hilo, approximately 1 mile
east of Kanoelehua Avenue and one mile south of
the Hilo International Airport. The landfill is
accessed via Leilani Street and an unnamed access
road. The County of Hawaiʻi owns and operates the
SHSL, and the DEM estimates that the landfill has
been in operation since the 1970s. The landfill
facility is located on approximately 40 acres, the
majority of which is used for municipal solid waste
disposal. The landfill is established on a former
quarry and is unlined. The landfill accepted
approximately 75,400 tons in FY 2017–18, an average of approximately 6,300 tons per month.
The County will permanently close the SHSL when it reaches capacity in 2019. In 2012, the County
commissioned a Hilo Landfill Feasibility Study, which determined that design and expansion of a landfill on
the Hilo side of the island was not feasible, and shipping to the WHSL was both feasible and cost effective. In
2018, an Environmental Assessment (EA) and subsequent Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was
issued by the DEM on behalf of the SHSL final closure and shipping to the WHSL. The primary drivers for
shipping to the WHSL include:
• Limited capacity at the existing SHSL.
• Significant constraints to expanding the existing SHSL (e.g., proximity to Hilo International
Airport).
• Significant constraints to establishing a new landfill in East Hawaiʻi.
Thus, the landfill will be closed and residual waste will be hauled from the East Hawaiʻi waste stream to the
WHSL in Pu'uanahulu (Exhibit 9-2). A 30-year closure and monitoring program has been developed for the
SHSL. Plans include slope stabilization, installation of a gas ventilation system, and an improved stormwater
system (County of Hawaiʻi DEM 2017c).
To continue to provide service to residents on the east side of the island upon the SHSL closure, the
County will convert the East Hawaiʻi Regional Sort Station (EHRSS) in Hilo to not only accept recyclable
and reusable material, but also MSW. On a limited basis, the County has started hauling residuals from
the EHRSS to the WHSL.
9.3.2 West Hawaiʻi Sanitary Landfill
The WHSL is located southwest of Waikoloa at Pu`uanahulu in the North Kona District (Exhibit 9-2). The
County of Hawaiʻi owns the WHSL and County personnel operate the landfill. The WHSL is operated by
Waste Management of Hawaiʻi under a contract with the County.
2018 South Hilo Sanitary Landfill
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
9-4 August 2019
Waste Management is currently responsible for
construction of new cells, environmental
monitoring, and closure and post-closure
activities.
The WHSL facility has been in operation since its
construction in 1993, and is located on
approximately 300 acres, of which 149 acres are
currently permitted for landfill activities. The
WHSL is a Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), Subtitle-D landfill9 (40 CFR Section
257.2) as administered through Hawaii
Administrative Rules Chapter 58.1 (HAR 58.1). The
landfill is lined with a geomembrane, and has an
engineered leachate collection system. To comply
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act, a new landfill gas collection and
recovery system was installed in 2013. The landfill accepted approximately 12,000 tons per month or
150,000 tons in FY 2018. The landfill has 23 cells currently permitted, of which 10 have been filled, and
one (Cell 11) is active. Waste Management is in the process of preparing Cell 12 for the next phase of
disposal. As reported by the County in a 2019 Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) meeting, the
WHSL has an estimated 100 years of life remaining at current recycling rates (Exhibit 9-3). If the
community manages their waste responsibly by reducing, reusing, and recycling; the life expectancy
could exceed 100 years. As forecasted in Chapter 2, the community would experience an average
increased diversion rate of 8 percent through 2039 if approximately 50 percent of food waste is diverted
when the proposed compost facility is in operation in 2020.
As described in Section 9.3.1, in 2012, the County commissioned a Hilo Landfill Feasibility Study, which
determined that the expansion of a landfill on the Hilo side of the island was unfeasible and shipping to
the WHSL was both feasible and cost effective.
In preparation of hauling waste to WHSL, the County Council adopted resolutions 310-17 and 311-17.
Resolution 310-17 authorizes the payment of a multi-year lease for five trailers and 311-17 authorizes
the payment of funds for five semi-tractors.
In anticipation of the SHSL final closure, the County is preparing a master plan focused on reconfiguring
circulation, scalehouse location, and other facilities in anticipation for additional residuals entering the
landfill.
9 Non-hazardous solid waste is regulated under Subtitle D of RCRA. Regulations established under Subtitle D ban
open dumping of waste and set minimum federal criteria for the operation of municipal waste and industrial waste
landfills, including design criteria, location restrictions, financial assurance, corrective action (cleanup), and closure
requirement. States play a lead role in implementing these regulations. (EPA 2018d)
2018 West Hawai`i Sanitary Landfill
Dra
f
t
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
""
""
!!
Hilo
Pāhoa
Kea'au
Honomū
Volcano
Kalapana
Glenwood
Pāpa'ikou
Waiea
Ke'ei
Puakō
Pāhala
Kailua-Kona (Kealakehe)
Waimea
Keauhou
Miloli'i
Honoka'aPa'auilo
Wai'ōhinu
Ka'auhuhu
Ocean View
Laupāhoehoe
East Hawai’iRegional Sort Station
llifdnaL yraitnaS i`iawaH tseW
Exhibit 9-2Generalized Haul Route From East Hawai’i Regional Sort Station
N
Source: County of Hawai’i DEM SWD
West Hawai’iSanitary Landfill
Honoka’a
Pa’auiloWaimea
Kailua-Kona (Kealakehe)
Keauhou
Ke’ei
Waiea
Miloli’i
Ocean View
Volcano
Glenwood
Kalapana
Pahoa
Kea’au
East Hawai’i Regional Sort StationHilo
Pahala
Wai’ohinu
Laupahoehoe
Papa’ikou
Puako
Honomu
Ka’auhuhu (Hāwī)
Dr
a
f
t
COMPLETED BUT NOT YET CLOSED
ACTIVE CELL
CELL CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS
CELLS STILL TO BE EXCAVATED
CELL 16
CELL 17
CELL 18
CELL 19
CELL 20
CELL 21
CELL 22
CELL 23
CELL 8
CELL 9
CELL 10
CELL 11
CELL 12
CELL 13
CELL 14
CELL 15
CELL 1
CELL 2
CELL 3
CELL 4
CELL 5
CELL 6
CELL 7
MATERIAL RECOVERY AREA
DISASTER DEBRIS
PROCESSING AREA
COUNTY GREENWASTE
COMPOSTING FACILITY
([KLELW
:HVW+DZDL¶L6DQLWDU\/DQGILOO&RQILJXUDWLRQ
6RXUFH &RXQW\RI+DZDL¶L'(0
N
Draft
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-7
9.3.3 Landfill Disposal Fees
Under Ordinance No. 18 5, the County amended HCC 20 to increase the landfill disposal fees. Ordinance
No. 185 reads as follows:
The purpose of this ordinance is to increase disposal fees to cover costs incurred by the Solid
Waste Division of the Department of Environmental Management for services it provides to the
residents of and visitors to Hawai`i County. The County of Hawai`i' s Integrated Resources and
Solid Waste Management Plan complies with state mandates of waste reduction and provides a
path to provide solid waste disposal services for all, including the operation of all transfer
stations and recycling operations. The current plan requires capital improvements, new
equipment, maintenance of existing equipment, as well as improved service.
The County seeks a healthy economy that requires intelligent and efficient solid waste
management and disposal. Presently, the General Fund subsidy is substantial. Adoption of these
changes will reduce the Solid Waste Division' s dependence on the General Fund as well as
provide the groundwork for implementation of the updated plan.
In July 2018, landfill disposal fees increased to $108 per ton. Rates by vehicle size and volume, which
apply when weights cannot be obtained, were increased to $65 per vehicle for light trucks, $109 for
medium trucks and $194 for large trucks. For all other vehicles, disposal fees were increased to $36 per
cubic yard for compacted material, and $22 per cubic yard for non-compacted material. Special handling
fees (for handling asbestos) increased to $108 per truck load (or a fraction thereof). The fee schedule is
set to change in subsequent years, with specific rates established through 2022.
9.3.4 Evaluation of SHSL Capacity Replacement
Because the SHSL was near its permitted capacity and planned closure date, in 2003 the County began a
focused evaluation of potential options for future disposal of residual waste on the east side of the
island. One potential component to the overall solid waste management approach was to develop waste
reduction technology (WRT). Thus, in 2004, the County Council adopted Resolution 218-04 that supports
solid waste landfill diversion through waste reduction technology with procurement criteria that matches
Hawaiʻi County policies, needs and waste stream, and delineates next actions.
In 2006, the County initially evaluated five different waste reduction technologies: mass burn
incineration (mass burn), incineration using refuse derived fuel, aerobic composting, thermal
gasification, anaerobic digestion, and bio-refining. During the process, aerobic composting was found to
be unsuitable due to the potential for offensive odors; and bio-refining was found to be unproven and
likely not commercially viable technology. In addition, the evaluation concluded that anaerobic digestion
was not suitable “because it could only deal with a limited portion of the waste stream and did not yet
have a sufficiently viable commercial track record dealing with a municipal solid waste stream like that
of Hawaiʻi.” Thus, it was determined that either mass burn or thermal gasification, both WTE facilities,
were the most viable waste reduction technologies.
Between 2006 and 2014, the County issued several RFPs to vendors who could potentially design,
construct, and operate a mass burn or thermal gasification WTE facility. The County’s evaluation of
proposals during this time determined that a mass burn WTE facility was the most commercially and
technically viable option. Notably, a mass burn WTE facility was identified as having the potential to
reduce the volume of processed solid waste by 90 percent, reduce weight by 70 percent, and would
have air emissions below EPA standards.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
9-8 August 2019
In March 2008, Wheelabrator Technologies Incorporated (a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste
Management) was selected to develop a mass burn WTE project by the County. In response,
Wheelabrator submitted a detailed cost proposal to design and construct a mass burn WTE facility to
replace the SHSL. After evaluating the Wheelabrator submittal, the County Council rejected the WTE
proposal largely because of concerns about higher than anticipated costs for the facility. In 2014, a third
RFP was issued for WTE facility proposals, and was withdrawn prior to the selection process.
As described in Chapter 4, in consideration of alternative methods for waste reduction to more
advanced technologies, the County contracted with a private contractor in 2016 to construct two
organics management sites: the EHOF and WHOF. During FY 2016–17, a Notice to Proceed was
approved for the construction of these facilities through a private contractor and both facilities are now
operational. The County has also been engaged in developing a compost facility that not only handles
green waste, but also food waste and other compostables, to divert a larger volume of waste from the
SHSL and WHSL. In 2016, an RFP was issued for the construction of a Compost and Green Waste
Processing facility, and an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared that considered a proposed site
at a former rock quarry adjacent to the SHSL. The EA was ultimately withdrawn from consideration due
to concerns over the location and the potential impacts to the local community. Three new sites are
under consideration, with the composting facility slated for operation in 2020.
A chronology of County waste reduction technology procurement dating back to 1995 is provided in
Appendix E.
9.4 Issues and Concerns
Since the 2009 Plan, establishing a place for disposal of residuals from East Hawaiʻi when the existing
SHSL closes was a key residuals management issue. As described in Section 9.3.1, the County will
continue to provide service to residents on the east side of the island upon the SHSL closure. The County
will convert the EHRSS in Hilo to not only accept recyclable and reusable material, but also MSW. The
County started hauling residuals from the EHRSS to the WHSL in 2019. The County no longer considers
hauling and landfilling residual waste from East Hawaiʻi an issue.
The County considers the potential for private sector development of residuals management facilities
without County involvement a policy issue. Section 9.4.1 considers how those facilities could affect flow
control and contractual obligations with landfill management companies that currently or may be under
contract to the County in the future.
Section 9.4.2 includes the long-term management of the closed Kailua-Kona and Waimea landfills.
Finally, in December 2018, the County recycling program revised the materials accepted due to changes
in the global recycling market. The County eliminated #5 plastics (e.g., yogurt containers, syrup bottles,
margarine tubs), plastic grocery bags, clam shell-type plastic (salad, bento, fruit, etc.) in the mixed
recyclable bins at the recycling and transfer stations. In addition, the price of mixed media paper (all
paper that is not cardboard) dropped significantly in the last few years. With uncertainties in the global
market, the County will need to consider other opportunities to dispose of formerly recycled materials
that end up in the waste stream, following a concerted effort of public outreach to encourage residents
to reduce and reuse these materials. Section 9.5 describes existing recovery and treatment technologies
and recovery and treatment options for the County that have the potential to capture these formerly
recycled materials. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-9
9.4.1 Private Facilities and Flow Control
Many government jurisdictions in the United States have flow control laws in effect to ensure that
materials flow to facilities in which they have significant capital investment and/or other interest. They
are common in jurisdictions with capital intensive WTE facilities.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the “Carbone decision10“ that a town’s flow control ordinance
discriminated against interstate commerce by favoring a privately owned local facility over out-of-state
private facilities. This decision put the legality of state and local government flow control lawsaffecting
public facilities in question. In April 2008, this issue was resolved when the Supreme Court ruled that
state and local government laws directing locally generated wastes to publicly owned waste facilities do
not discriminate against interstate commerce11. This decision appears to establish the right of counties
to establish flow control ordinances directing locally-generated wastes to publicly-owned facilities.
In the County, a private waste processing firm, BioEnergy, has expressed interest in developing a
relatively large WTE recovery facility for processing the residuals it collects from businesses and
institutions. There are reasons to believe that this may not be a desirable for the County. A flow control
ordinance is one way that the County could ensure that residual materials flow to facilities that are
County owned, or operated under contract to the County.
A flow control ordinance protects the County against several risks associated with the private sector
developing facilities without explicit County approval. Some of those risks include:
• Because of the County’s relative isolation and small size, the potential barriers for local private
collection firms who wish to establish operations in the County are perhaps higher than on the
mainland. It is possible that a single private firm with a large national market share and its own
recovery facility could potentially keep collection costs higher than would otherwise exist in a
more competitive environment.
• Allowing a private firm to develop a large recovery facility reduces the County’s flexibility to
adopt waste reduction programs. County policy makers could be in the unenviable position of
having a large firm facing financial losses if the County were to require aggressive recycling or
bioconversion from businesses and institutions.
• The County would lose some degree of control and flexibility for choosing the recovery and
disposal technology that best meets the needs of the entire County.
At this time, the BioEnergy Hawaii still has issues it must resolve to secure land and permits. The County
continues to monitor the progress of this facility. If it appears that the facility will be developed, the
County will evaluate whether it is in the County’s best interests to allow the facility to proceed, or
whether it will establish a flow control ordinance to keep the flow of waste in the County system.
9.4.2 Closed Landfills
9.4.2.1 Kailua-Kona
The Kailua-Kona Landfill was a municipal solid waste landfill that operated from the late 1970s until it was
closed in 1993. The landfill occupies approximately 20 acres and is located east of the Queen Kaahumanu
Highway approximately 3 miles north of Kailua-Kona in the North Kona District. Subsurface fires from
10 C&A Carbone v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383
11 United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, No. 05-1345
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
9-10 August 2019
waste material have been documented at the landfill since 1991. During final closure of the landfill, a
final cover system of 30-mil polyvinyl chloride (PVC) geomembrane liner and 2 feet of cover soil were
installed in 1993. The cover has undergone damage from subsurface fires and intrusive investigations to
evaluate options for extinguishing the fires. Temperature and gas monitoring occur periodically as part of
the post-closure monitoring
Subsurface waste combustion continu.es to be a concern at the landfill. The County and its engineering
consultants are monitoring the current condition and extent of the subsurface fires and developing
options for subsurface fire suppression.
The once rural setting surrounding the landfill is being developed including a Hawaiʻi County Police
Department (HCPD) station, Kealakehe High School, West Hawaii Civic Center, State Judiciary Complex,
and Kealakehe Recycling and Transfer Station. There are also plans for an affordable housing
neighborhood in the future. A regional park is in the draft NEPA environmental assessment phase.
Although there have been no recent complaints from neighbors since the County began proactively
managing the site, long-term management plans for the landfill are being evaluated by the County.
Management plans being considered include:
• Relocation of the Waste: The waste could be relocated to West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill;
however, there are major health and safety concerns with digging into the landfill and moving
the waste. While this alternative is extremely expensive, it is considered clean closure and will
no longer require post-closure monitoring and maintenance, and the land can be used for
another purpose.
• Construction of a New Engineered Cap: Construction of an engineered cap could limit oxygen
infiltration into the waste mass and limit the current “chimney effect” that is occurring at the
landfill now. This alternative would not eliminate post-closure monitoring; however, it would
lessen maintenance costs.
• Implementation of a New Technology: The County is currently looking into technology being
used to extinguish subsurface coal fires. The technology works by injecting a foam mixture into
the waste mass. The foam consists of a biodegradable fire retardant and is injected using
nitrogen gas. The foam wets and cools the area of combustion. This is considered interim
mitigation.
9.4.2.2 Waimea
The Waimea Landfill is in Lalamilo, in the South Kohala district, and consists of a single, unlined landfill
cell. The landfill was established in the late 1960s at a former quarry site, has an area of approximately
9.28 acres, and is located on land parcels owned by the State and the County. Landfilling activities
ceased during 1986, and the landfill was closed in 1987. A cover of several feet of fine soil was placed
over the top of the landfill. Records indicate that the quarry was originally excavated to an approximate
depth of 30 feet, and that approximately 35 feet of rubbish was landfilled at the site.
Based on past investigations, filling and grading activities have been completed over portions of the
landfill and have extinguished subsurface fires by limiting the amount of influx of oxygen to the
subsurface of the landfill.
Currently, post-closure monitoring is being performed on a quarterly basis. The County and state are
currently in the discussion phase on the required word to “sunset” the post-closure monitoring
requirements. Additional cover material may be added to seal the landfill from the atmosphere to
prevent combustion and to provide stormwater control measures. Once the HDOH agrees with the plan,
the parcel can be used for other uses.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-11
9.5 Material Recovery and Treatment Facilities Overview
This section provides 1) a background description of EPA’s waste management hierarchy and worldwide
trends regarding recovery and treatment of residuals (Section 9.5.1), 2) an overview of recovery and
treatment technologies (Section 9.5.2). Recovery and treatment options for the County are discussed in
Section 9.5.6.
9.5.1 Background
The EPA’s integrated waste management hierarchy (EPA 2018e) includes the following four
components, listed in order of preference:
1. Source reduction (or waste prevention), including reuse of products and on-site (or backyard)
composting of yard trimmings.
2. Recycling, including off-site (or community) composting.
3. Energy recovery.
4. Treatment and Disposal.
More broadly, there is an intermediate step to integrated waste management after the first “3Rs” of
source reduction, reuse, and recycling (including bioconversion), the “4th R” that can be referred to as
recovery or treatment. For the foreseeable future, after source separation, reuse, recycling, and
bioconversion are completed, there will be residual materials that must be managed. Currently, that
residual material is disposed of in County landfills.
Throughout the world, there is a trend to implement additional treatment of these residual materials
prior to landfill disposal using processes such as waste to energy (WTE) or mechanical-biological
treatment (MBT). Locally, Honolulu’s WTE facility reduces approximately 90 percent of its waste volume
and has saved approximately 500 acres of landfill space since its construction (SWANA 2014). Treatment
consists of applying some combination of mechanical, biological, chemical, or thermal processes to the
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
9-12 August 2019
material prior to landfill disposal to recover energy and additional useful materials, and to remove
organics from the residuals that are sent to landfill. The objectives and benefits of recovery and
treatment include the following:
• Recovering additional materials for recycling that remain in discarded materials after the source
reduction, reuse, and recycling.
• Recovering the inherent energy remaining in discarded materials after source reduction, reuse,
and recycling.
• Stabilizing the organic fraction of residuals to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and other air
emissions from organics that remain after source reduction, reuse, and recycling.
• Reducing the volume and toxicity of materials sent to landfill.
• Preserving land and extending the lifespan of existing landfills.
Recovery and treatment facilities (often more narrowly referred to as conversion, emerging, or
alternative technologies) are in the planning stages in many United States jurisdictions. A recent
assessment of alternative technologies is included in Exhibit 9-4 below.
Exhibit 9-4. Technologies Proposed in Recent U.S. Alternative Technology Procurements
Finding
Description
Advanced Thermal
Recycling
Thermal
Conversion
Biological
Conversion
Diversion Rate Expected Diversion: 90%
Worst-Case: 80%
Expected
Diversion: 90%
Worst-Case: 80%
Expected
Diversion: 80%
Worst-Case: 50%
Air Emissions Air emission control
systems available to
limit emissions to well-
below regulatory limits
Systems
expected to
result in
emissions below
regulatory limits
Emissions lower
than thermal
technologies due
to lower operating
temperatures
Wastewater
Generation
No significant difference among technologies
Solid Residue
Generation
Generation of bottom
ash, boiler ash, and fly
ash. Assuming bottom
ash is recycled, about
5% of incoming material
will be landfilled
Similar to
advanced
thermal recycling
systems
Generation of
unmarketable
residuals
consisting of 15-
40% of the total
throughput
Source: City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works (2005).
Outside the United States, many other countries are implementing recovery and treatment technologies
prior to landfill disposal. The European Union initiated a circle economy plan wherein they aim to
achieve 65 percent recycling of municipal waste and to restrict MSW landfilling to 10 percent by 2030
(European Parliament 2017). Implementing technologies to meet these requirements is projected to
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfilling in the European Union. Recovery through
thermal means is widespread in Japan and other Asian countries, and new recovery/treatment facilities
are currently being developed in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-13
9.5.2 Overview of Recovery and Treatment Technologies
There is a tremendous variety of possible recovery and treatment options for municipal solid waste
currently in operation or under development. They range from options with a long, successful track
record in the United States and elsewhere (such as mass burn WTE facilities) to potentially promising
new technologies in various stages of testing and development (such as the flash carbonization process
being developed at the University of Hawaiʻi, Manoa). There are various ways of grouping recovery and
treatment technologies for MSW; however, this Plan update classifies them into the following three
groupings:
• Thermal.
• Mechanical-Biological Treatment.
• Other.
The “other” technologies refer to a wide variety of different processes (and process elements) that are
in various stages of development such as thermal depolymerization, hydrolysis, autoclave, and flash
carbonization. At this time, there are no commercial-scale facilities processing MSW using these
technologies in the United States and very few that are currently operated at a commercial scale
elsewhere in the world. Thus, while these technologies could be investigated further, they are not
assessed further in this Plan update.
9.5.2.1 Thermal Technologies
For the purposes of this discussion, thermal technologies
have been grouped into the following five main categories:
mass-burn, refuse-derived-fuel (RDF), gasification, pyrolysis,
and plasma arc. A summary of each type of technology
follows.
Mass-burn. These facilities are by far the most common
recovery technology currently utilized in the United States
and around the world. In this system, residual materials are
loaded from a pit into a furnace with little or no pre-
processing. The materials are combusted, and the heat is
used to produce electricity and/or steam. In fact, European countries such as Sweden and Denmark
have the capacity to treat 100 percent or more of their MSW through incineration (European Parliament
2017). In the United States, 70 mass-burn facilities utilize 14 percent of waste destined for landfilling
(Seltenrich 2018). As discussed above, the County conducted a procurement process for a waste
reduction technology to replace the SHSL and selected mass-burn WTE technology. This technology was
selected mainly because of its long, successful, track record for processing MSW.
The main advantages of this technology are its proven and reliable operating history, the ability to
expand, and the environmental benefits that result when WTE output are used to displace power that
would otherwise be generated by fuels such as oil or coal.
A main disadvantage of this technology is that the upfront money necessary to construct a mass burn
WTE facility is considerable, and it may take several years before the economic benefits are realized.
According to the EPA, a small new plant typically requires at least 100 million dollars to construct
(EPA 2017b).
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
9-14 August 2019
Refuse-Derived-Fuel. Reduced-Derived Fuel (RDF) facilities
include front-end pre-processing to recover materials and
produce a fuel that is sent to a combustion unit to generate
electricity and/or steam. The H-Power facility in Honolulu is
a good example of this type of technology.
Compared to mass burn WTE facilities, RDF facilities can
result in increased recovery of recyclable materials. On the
other hand, the pre-processing requirements add
complexity to the system and there are more types of
materials that cannot be burned in an RDF plant than in a
WTE facility. In part because of these distinctions, RDF
plants are somewhat less popular than WTE facilities.
However, the cost, reliability, and performance of this
technology is relatively like that of mass-burn facilities.
Gasification. Gasification facilities differ from mass-burn and
RDF plants because they focus on creating a synthetic gas
that can be used to produce energy, and the gasification
process uses very limited amounts of oxygen. Materials are
first shredded and or sorted to ensure consistent sizing, and
then are fed into a gasification chamber. The gasification
process heats materials to very high temperatures (1,650ºF
to 2,200ºF) where chemical reactions take place to form a
synthetic gas from the organic fraction of the materials and a
glass-like slag from the inorganic fraction. Some systems
reclaim recyclables prior to gasification, or control the
chemical process in order to produce usable products from
the inorganic fraction after the gasification step. After
cleaning, the gas can be burned directly in an internal
combustion engine or turbine, or used to create a synthetic
fuel. The gas is usually used to generate electricity or as a
vehicle fuel. The process used to create the gas typically uses only enough oxygen to produce the
desired temperatures.
This technology has some key advantages compared to typical WTE facilities including:
• A variety of process features provide opportunities for fewer air emissions.
• The syngas created is potentially more efficient than direct combustion of MSW because it can
be combusted at higher temperatures or even in fuel cells.
• The technology appears to scale down to smaller sizes more efficiently than WTE facilities,
potentially making it more applicable to smaller communities working toward a goal of zero
waste.
Some disadvantages of this technology include:
• Service intervals are typically on the order of a few months for the plants, requiring frequent
plant shutdowns to maintain and clean the reactor.
• Lack of successful commercial demonstration in the United States (few examples worldwide)
and related uncertainties surrounding the cost and long-term effectiveness of the technology.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-15
• Environmental permitting regulations are unclear or nonexistent.
• Public education is needed to overcome negative perceptions of thermal technologies.
Pyrolysis. Pyrolysis refers to the chemical decomposition of a substance by heating in the absence of
oxygen. Pyrolysis typically occurs at temperatures ranging
from 750ºF to 1,650ºF. The composition of the pyrolytic
product is changed by the temperature, speed of process,
and rate of heat transfer. Lower pyrolysis temperatures
usually produce more liquid products and higher
temperatures produce more gases. Pyrolysis is used
frequently in the chemical industry, for example, to produce
charcoal, activated carbon, methanol and other chemicals
from wood, and to produce coke from coal. For MSW, pre-
processing steps are required that include separation and
screening to remove contaminants, shredding to reduce
particle size, magnetic separation to remove conductors,
classifying to refine, drying to increase the calorific value, and (in some systems) pelletizing to obtain
homogeneity.
The products resulting from the pyrolysis process are a synthetic gas and/or liquid and a char. The gas is
burned in a secondary combustion chamber, then is typically passed through a boiler for heat recovery.
Although some oxygen may be used for combustion of the gas to destroy organics, the combustion
takes place in a gaseous phase requiring much less oxygen than incineration. This results in the
formation of much less nitrous oxide and soot from the power generation process.
There were many attempts in the United States to scale up this technology from pilot scale
demonstration plants during the 1970s and 1980s, and none of the plants were able to overcome
challenges associated with maintaining a sealed chamber to keep air out, adjusting the process to match
the variability of the MSW inputs, and competition with landfills and WTE facilities. Recently, interest in
this technology has increased; however, it remains to be seen if it will become commercially viable in
the United States.
The advantages and disadvantages cited above for gasification also generally apply to pyrolysis, with
various advantages and disadvantages associated with specific processes and vendors.
Plasma Arc. Plasma arc technology, developed for use in the metals
industry in the late 1900s, uses intense heat (over 7,000ºF) to break
down feedstocks into elemental byproducts. Plasma is a collection of
free-moving electrons and ions that is typically formed by applying a
large voltage across a gas volume at reduced or atmospheric
pressures.
MSW is fed through this gas, changing the organic fraction into
elemental compounds such as hydrogen, oxygen and carbon, and the
inorganic fraction into a glass-like vitrified mass that is claimed to be
highly resistant to leaching.
An estimated 22 plasma arc waste processing facilities exist around
the world, notably in Japan, France, and by the United States Navy
(Circeo 2009).
The advantages and disadvantages of this technology are like those of pyrolysis and gasification. One
additional advantage of this system compared to the others is the more complete breakdown of
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
9-16 August 2019
materials has the potential to result in the lowest possible percent of residuals sent to landfill. One
drawback of the technology is the high electric power requirements for the torches, which may make it
more difficult to obtain net energy benefits from this technology. To address this, some developers are
using the plasma arc after an initial gasification step.
9.5.2.2 Mechanical-Biological Treatment
Mechanical-Biological Treatment (MBT) describes the integration of processes normally found in
material recycling facilities (MRFs), RDF (refuse-derived-fuel), plants, and composting plants. A key
feature of the process is using the activity of microorganisms to create a stabilized output. This can be
accomplished either in the presence of oxygen (aerobically; that is, composting) or in the absence of
oxygen (anaerobic digestion). The output of the process is typically either stabilized organic matter
(compost or landfill cover), biogas (for fuel), or drying (for producing a refuse-derived-fuel).
Like thermal technologies, there are many different MBT processes, systems, and vendors. In 2017,
Europe had an estimated 570 active MBT facilities in 2017 resulting in the diversion of 55 million tons of
residual waste (O’Brien 2017). The operation of these facilities can further zero waste endeavors. Mixed
municipal solid waste (MMSW) composting is a type of MBT facility that has been tried by various
jurisdictions in the United States.
While MMSW composting is a type of MBT, these “first generation” plants developed in the 1980s and
1990s usually consisted of just an initial shredding and/or biological drum treatment and aerobic
composting. There are numerous examples of failed MMSW composting operations resulting from high
costs, ongoing equipment breakdowns, odor concerns, and/or an inability to market the compost end-
products. Many of the new European MBT plants are more sophisticated than first generation MMSW
composting plants, and United States composters are continually modifying and optimizing systems;
however, there are challenges that must still be overcome. Examples of challenges with this technology
include the Pine Top, Arizona, MBT plant, which was converted from accepting MSW to accepting only
source separated organics, because of equipment maintenance issues and the challenge of finding
markets for the compost it produced. The largest MBT plant in North America, in Edmonton, Alberta,
has faced challenges related to equipment failures and maintenance, and the City is considering
modifications to its current process to produce an RDF product, or other alternatives to improve the
economics of the plant. However, the feasibility of this option is improving, in 2017 the first functioning
MBT facility in the United States was opened in West Virginia. The end-product will be used as a clean-
burning alternative to coal (Recycling Production News 2016).
Recent experience with European MBT plants has resulted in many similar technical problems initially,
with low throughput capacity caused by machine overload or breakdown and higher operational costs
than expected due to high maintenance and service requirements. There have also been challenges
during mechanical separation. Many of the problems encountered at European plants have been solved,
and nearly all of the European facilities are running at their expected capacities, and in some facilities,
this has resulted in significantly higher than anticipated operation costs. One common weak point at
MBT facilities is the final biological treatment process, which is often designed like a composting
process. Managing odors and meeting material specifications is an ongoing process that requires
constant attention.
All MBT processes involve waste input and control, mechanical preparation, biological and/or thermal
treatment, and product conditioning. Waste input and control normally consists of manually removing
oversized and hazardous materials. Mechanical processing can include minimal separation or shredding,
or sophisticated sorting of the inbound waste into biodegradable material, recyclables, and contaminant
streams. Sorting is usually done with dry processes, and it can also involve wet processes, such as
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-17
flotation and hydro-pulping. Depending on the quality and market demand, the recyclables are typically
sold. Paper fibers, textiles, rubber, plastics, and residual organics can be used as RDF.
The biological stage of the MBT process can either be aerobic composting or anaerobic digestion. The
outputs of this process can be either a synthetic gas, RDF, or compost. The quality of the compost will
depend on the specific process used and the ability to separate metals, plastics, glass fragments, and
toxic materials from the organic fraction. However, in general, the compost produced from an MBT
process is of lower quality than compost produced from source-separated organic material such as
green waste or food waste. Some plants produce multiple types of compost and target products for
specific applications such as agricultural use, site remediation, or landfill cover. Some processes result in
large quantities of residuals (up to 50 percent) that must be landfilled.
Like the thermal recovery options, there are many different processes and systems used in MBT plants.
For the purposes of this Plan update, MBT systems are classified into three groups:
• Biological treatment with RDF for combustion.
• Biological treatment with composting.
• Anaerobic digestion.
A brief overview of each type of MBT system follows.
Biological treatment with RDF for combustion. A popular approach in Europe is to do relatively little up-
front sorting, and use the heat released from aerobic breakdown of organics to dry the materials.
Metals and inert materials are then removed, and paper fibers and plastics are made into RDF. The value
of this fuel is relatively high and can be used as a substitute for fossil fuels in a wide range of
applications, including power stations and vehicle fuel. The process also produces composted material
that can be landfilled. Through this process, a 65 to 90 percent diversion rate may be achieved (Arsova
2015).
Biological treatment with composting. In this process, relatively little mechanical pre-processing is done
upfront and materials are fed into a long, rotating drum (made by companies like Bedminster and Dano)
where the MSW is processed for 1 to 4 days. The combination of the mechanical rotation and the
beginning of the biological degradation of the organic material allow a reduction of the organic fraction
size and good mechanical separation of the organics from physical contaminants. At the end of the
process, the organics are sent to composting. The inorganic fraction is either sent directly to a landfill or
sorted further to recover recyclables depending on whether markets exist for the sorted materials. This
process achieves a 50 percent diversion rate and does not produce biogas, rendering energy recovery
inplausible (Arsova 2015).
Anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion uses anaerobic
bacteria to break down material without oxygen. This
technology is well established for treating outputs from
wastewater treatment plants, dairy farms, and other
sources of relatively homogenous organic material. It is
now beginning to be applied to source-separated organics
and MSW.
To treat MSW using anaerobic digestion, organics must be
separated from inorganics and prepared into a slurry
appropriate for the digesters. This separation process has
proved to be challenging at many facilities processing MSW and organics. Various technologies exist for
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
9-18 August 2019
the initial separation process that use water, screens, magnets, separators, and shredders in various
combinations.
During the digestion process, about two-thirds of the biodegradable organic matter is transformed into
a biogas composed mainly of methane and carbon dioxide. The remaining one-third comes out of the
process as a digestate that must be treated using an aerobic curing phase (composting) to stabilize it
prior to landfilling. Anaerobic digestion systems for MSW treatment are limited in the United States,
which may be due in part to the relatively low cost of fossil fuels in the United States in comparison to
Europe, where anaerobic digestion technology is more widely used due to high fossil fuel prices, high
tipping fees, and government incentives (Edwards et al. 2016). [European Union Directive requires union
members to reduce landfilled organics by 65 percent by 2020 (Rogoff et al. 2014).]
According to a study performed in 2014, many factors come into play regarding the viability of an anaerobic
digestion system as a large-scale MSW disposal option in the United States, including the need for:
• Significant centralized source of high-quality organic waste.
• High energy costs (higher revenue for facility).
• Limited land for siting a compost facility.
• Lack of conventional WTE facilities.
• Markets for residual (compost) or an outright ban on organics in landfills (Rogoff et al. 2014).
It has also been reported that aerobic composting MBT systems (e.g., biological treatment with RDF for
combustion) are likely to cost 30 percent less than anaerobic digestion treatment systems for both low
and high capacity systems (Arsova 2015). Additional costs may include landfilling of unmarketable
residual waste, daily operation, and maintenance fees.
In 2017, the EPA developed a co-digestion economic analysis tool ‘CoEAT’ that helps users (e.g.,
municipal managers) quantify the cost to benefit analysis of processing organics including parameters
such as:
• Fixed and recurring costs.
• Solid waste diversion savings.
• Capital investments.
• Biogas production and energy savings.
In recognizing the need to better understand anaerobic digestion facilities, the EPA is also conducting a
study that collects data from operators of anaerobic digestion facilities for 3 years (data collection began
in 2015). To date, they have published survey results from three types of systems: stand-alone food
waste digesters (multi-source and industry-dedicated), on-farm digesters that co-digest food waste, and
digesters at water resource recovery facilities that co-digest food waste. The survey establishes the
number of anaerobic facilities processing in the United States and their locations, and their processing
amounts and available capacity. Other information gathered includes non-food waste processed,
feedstock types and sources, tipping fees, pre-processing and de-packaging processes, operational
specification, and biogas production. At the time of the survey, none of the three systems surveyed is in
operation in the State of Hawaiʻi. The final reporting of EPA’s anaerobic digestion study findings is
expected to conclude in 2019 or 2020 (EPA 2018f).
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-19
9.6 Recovery and Treatment Options for the County of Hawaiʻi
It is important to note than no currently known recovery or treatment technology will remove 100
percent of residuals from the municipal waste stream: thus, for the foreseeable future, landfill capacity
will be required for residuals generated in the County. As the expansion of the SHSL is no longer viable,
the County has at least two other landfill disposal options: trucking East Hawaiʻi residuals to the WHSL at
Pu`uanahulu, or barging residuals to another Hawaiʻian island, or to the mainland. As previously
described, the County will begin re-routing MSW to the WHSL in 2019. A recovery and treatment facility
could play an important role in decreasing the volume of solid waste landfilled at the WHSL.
A new recovery and treatment facility will likely cost considerably more than the cost of trucking East
Hawaiʻi waste to the WHSL. Thus, a central question to evaluate when assessing whether to develop a
recovery and treatment option is:
Do the environmental benefits of these facilities outweigh their additional cost?
The following recovery and treatment options for consideration are discussed below.
R-1 Study Recovery and Treatment Technology
R-2 WTE Facility for all County Residuals; Ash and Bypass Materials to WHSL
R-3 One or More Modular WTE Facilities in Rural Areas; Ash and Bypass Waste to WHSL
R-4 Develop MBT Facilities at the SHSL and/or WHSL Sites
9.6.1.1 R-1 No Action; Study Recovery and Treatment Technology
In this option, the County would take no immediate action toward developing a new recovery or
treatment project. The County would instead assess the change in volume of residuals after the
proposed organic composting facility in Hilo is fully operational (slated to accept food waste and other
compostable materials beyond yard waste in 2020). Further, the County would engage in a dialogue
with other Hawaiʻi counties about the potential for joint solutions. For example, the County may
consider shipping materials that were formerly recyclable (e.g., #5 plastics) to the H-Power facility in
Honolulu if determined economically cost effective (i.e., cost savings, cost neutral) and through close
coordination and negotiations with the City and County of Honolulu. If deemed necessary, these efforts
could be followed by a study that emphasizes the identification of appropriate recovery and treatment
technology sizing options for the County.
Advantages Disadvantages
Reduces the risk of unsuitable sizing of
recovery and treatment technology
Reduces the risks associated with being at the
leading edge of a new technology, such as
technology failure or unexpected cost
increases.
Continued reliance on landfilling as the County’s singular
residuals management for a few more years.
Cost Considerations. The cost would be nominal since the County would only investigate recovery and
treatment options if it is determined that the proposed compost facility and/or the possibility of
shipping waste to the H-Power Plant in Honolulu would not markedly increase the quantity of waste
diverted from WHSL.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
9-20 August 2019
9.6.1.2 R-2 WTE Facility for all County Residuals; Ash and Bypass Materials to WHSL
In this option, a new procurement would be conducted by the County seeking to develop a large WTE
facility that could accept residuals from the entire County. This would require a siting study to
determine where it would be located; typically, the closer such a plant is located to the primary
population and employment centers in West Hawaiʻi, the lower the associated operating costs.
Advantages Disadvantages
Reliable, long-term recovery technology Considerably higher cost than landfill
Environmental benefits, including reduced greenhouse gas
emissions from displacing electricity from oil-fired
combustion units and additional recycling of metals
The facility would provide a disincentive for
aggressive additional waste reduction and
recycling, which goes against zero waste principles
Preservation of land, and landfill capacity Emissions and costs associated with trucking
rubbish to the plant
Reduced potential for water quality impacts from landfilling unstabilized residuals, and reduced volatile organic compound emissions
WTE facilities burn waste resources that can be recycled or composted in a well-integrated system
Economies of scale of a larger facility would result in lower
costs than a smaller facility
Cost Considerations. The cost of large WTE would probably be less than smaller facilities due to
economies of scale. This cost savings, however, could potentially be offset by the cost of transferring
and trucking waste materials to the facility.
9.6.1.3 R-3 Modular Incinerators in Rural Areas; Ash and Bypass Waste to WHSL
Much of the County is rural in character, and the County incurs
considerable cost transporting residuals from its recycling and transfer
stations to the landfill. One option to consider would be to procure and
develop one or more small, modular incinerators in rural areas. This
would dramatically reduce transportation costs and has the potential to
be a cost-effective recovery system that could be located at one or
more of the County recycling and transfer stations.
While there are relatively few such units used to process MSW in the
mainland, there are more than 1,000 modular incinerators serving rural
areas, military facilities, and hospitals around the world. These facilities
can be good recovery systems for smaller, remote locations. These
systems generally cost less in installed cost per ton-day than larger,
mass burn WTE facilities; however, they do not have the longevity of those facilities and can cost more
to operate on a per-ton basis.
In this type of system, MSW is loaded into a surge chamber using a rubber tire bucket loader. The door
that seals the lower chamber is then opened and waste is injected into the combustion chamber.
Additional waste can be loaded into the surge chamber after the lower chamber door is closed. It is
assumed that the unloading floor would accommodate two unloading stalls plus some room for
separated bulky waste that would need to be transferred separately in transfer trailers or drop boxes to
a County landfill.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-21
The lower chamber operates at about 1,850°F, while the upper chamber operates at about 1,450°F for
reducing air pollution emissions. There is no grate in this unit. Air is applied at a rate that is less than
necessary to complete combustion resulting in essentially a gasification or pyrolysis process. The partial
combustion products pass into an afterburning secondary chamber that will ensure successful burn out
of particulate combustion gases. Air is supplied by outside blowers to provide correct combustion for a
given application to meet local emission standards. Controlling the lower chamber gas velocity is
important in this process to maintain a quiet combustion area. Ash is removed using a roll off box that
when filled can be transported to the landfill.
These systems can be used to recover steam and/or generate electricity. Successful electricity
generation depends on access to existing electric system infrastructure and a power utility that is a
willing partner.
For the purposes of sizing and developing cost estimates, this option assumes the following:
• The facility would be located at the Wai`ōhinu Recycling and Transfer Station, which would
accept waste from other surrounding recycling and transfer stations.
• The waste stream assessment forecast in 2009 estimated that 18 tons would go to the facility on
an average day (assuming the recycling rate at that time). Thus, a 20-ton-per-day unit would
provide adequate capacity for peak flows; yet, it would not be oversized if significantly more
waste is reduced or recycled.
• The facility would be staffed by two to three County employees each day. A front-end loader
would be needed to separate bulky materials and load residuals into the unit.
• Improvements to the recycling and transfer station would be required including a small (10,000
square feet) building with a tip floor and a bulky waste load out chute. This could be integrated
with planned improvements to the Wai`ōhinu Recycling and Transfer Station.
• About 10 percent of the residuals received would be bulky wastes not appropriate for
incineration—these would be transferred to the WHSL.
• Thirty to 35 percent of the incoming material by weight would need to be transported to the
WHSL as ash.
Advantages Disadvantages
Reduction of about 20 percent of total system transfer
truck miles and reduced landfilling of organics would
result in less air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions
While the system should be able to meet EPA air
quality requirements, some air pollutants would
result from the incineration process
Potential for additional metal recovery for recycling after
combustion
Likely community opposition
Capital and operating costs are uncertain at this
stage–would need an RFP process to confirm
A new technology and system would require
additional training and skills for County staff
Cost Considerations. It is estimated that this option will have a range in cost and will be highly
influenced by site specific considerations, particularly installation of the unit in a relatively remote area.
Additional research and/or RFP process would be required to refine this estimate much further.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
9-22 August 2019
This estimate includes capital and operating costs minus transportation cost savings. In 2020, it is
estimated that this facility would eliminate about 20 percent of the miles currently driven by the
County’s recycling and transfer station trailer fleet.
Costs associated with landfilling will be substantially decreased.
It is assumed that the project would be combined with a reconstruction of the Wai`ōhinu Recycling and
Transfer Station.
It is possible that electricity sales could be profitable for this facility, and considering its remote location,
it would be safe to assume no cost for the equipment necessary to generate electricity and no revenues
from energy sales.
9.6.1.4 R-4 Develop Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Facilities at the WHSL Site
As discussed above, there are a handful of Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facilities operating in
the United States and numerous facilities operating elsewhere in the world. While MBT facilities are not
as “proven” as WTE or RDF facilities, there is enough operating history for the County to consider
developing one or more MBT facilities. It would be prudent for the County to consider initially
developing a facility for East Hawaiʻi because there will be fewer residuals received at the EHRSS
compared to WHSL and these materials would not have to be transported.
This option would require additional study, and an RFP process. Through that process, the County could
decide on the desired outputs from the process (RDF, biogas, compost), assess markets for recovered
materials, and evaluate the implications for landfill operating practices. It is possible that the facility
could be developed at the SHSL site, potentially making use of the reload facility in some capacity.
Advantages Disadvantages
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions Much higher cost than landfilling
Reduced potential for water and air pollution from
landfilling
Higher risk of system failure leading to higher than
anticipated costs compared to WTE or landfill disposal
options
Additional recovery of materials not reused or recycled
prior to reaching the plant
Systems have many moving parts and will require
specialized operating expertise, sound preventive
maintenance, and vigilant on-going odor management
practices
Beneficial use of materials not otherwise recovered
such as electricity, vehicle fuels, compost, landfill cover
Preservation of current landfill capacity and reduced
need for additional land for landfill activities
Cost Considerations. This option would have a wide range in costs. These costs would be influenced by
multiple different types of MBT systems currently available, wide ranges in the reported cost of these
systems, and challenges in translating those costs to the County. The results of a conceptual design of
two MBT facilities (one for East Hawaiʻi and one for West Hawaiʻi) would also have an associated cost. In
general, lower cost systems:
• Achieve lower material recovery.
• Send more residual materials to landfills.
• Are in rural areas so that odor controls are less critical.
• Produce residual materials that must be landfilled.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-23
9.7 Landfill Disposal Options
The County’s progress toward waste reduction and any decision on whether to implement a recovery or
treatment option will not eliminate the need for landfill capacity for the foreseeable future. At planned
recycling rates, and taking into account the 2019 closure of SHSL, WHSL has approximately 100 years of
remaining life (2119). As more materials are reused or recycled, or if a recovery facility is developed, the
capacity of WHSL will be extended.
The following two landfill disposal options address both short-term and long-term considerations.
9.7.1 Improve Existing Infrastructure and Operations
Because the WHSL will receive East Hawaiʻi’s waste upon the closure of the SHSL, another option
includes improving the operation and monitoring of WHSL. The public has various concerns related to
environmental degradation, odor, and impacts to the tourism industry; some of these issues can be
resolved through the implementation of innovative technology at the landfill. Potential improvements
are described below.
9.7.1.1 Update Infrastructure at the WHSL and EHRSS
The County will continue to conduct periodic evaluations as needed to improve facility operations and
efficiencies at WHSL and EHRSS in response to changes in flow patterns and increased volume. Activities
could include:
• Integrate compaction into the floor space of the EHRSS.
• Reconfigure circulation, scalehouse location, and other facilities at WHSL to handle the
additional residuals.
Cost Considerations. The County SWD already has funding allocated via the County Capital
Improvements Program for EHRSS facility upgrades.
9.7.1.2 Landfill Gas to Energy
Once landfilled, waste undergoes anaerobic digestion, wherein microorganisms break down organic matter
and release products such as carbon dioxide and methane (Exhibit 9-5). Landfills constituted 14.1 percent
of United States methane emissions in 2016 (EPA 2018g). Methane is approximately 28 to 37 times more
potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (EPA 2017a). This gas may be collected, compressed, and
isolated (Silva dos Santos et al. 2018). Once isolated, methane may be used to run gas turbines and fuel
cells as an energy source (California Energy Commission 2018) or as compressed gas for services vehicles. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
9-24 August 2019
Exhibit 9-5. Landfill Gas to Energy Schematic
Source: EPA (2018f)
The collection and conversion of methane not only will mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions, it will
also decrease odors from the landfill. The volume of methane may be tripled through the addition of
water to a landfill through an acceleration of the decomposition process (FirmaTek 2017), leading to
increased energy generation as well. The County already collects landfill gas at WHSL. Instead of
combusting the methane in a flare, this gas could be converted to energy, an effective, environmentally
friendly means of recovering the resource.
Cost Considerations. As the landfill owner, the County could receive revenue from the sale of electricity
generated from the landfill gas and could possibly be eligible for revenue from renewable energy and
tax credits and other incentives. These potential revenue sources could help offset capital costs.
9.7.1.3 Odor Control
In addition to landfill gas, odors from landfills are often generated from leachate. Leachate contains
relatively high concentrations of organic matter, sulfur-based compounds, heavy metals, and
chlorinated salts (Berihum 2017) resulting in odorous compounds. Because of its generally low pH,
leachate often contains high concentrations of acidic odor-causing compounds (Goldstein 2005 et al.).
Although odors are not an issue at this time, if they are in the future due to changed surrounding land
uses or increased volume of residuals, landfill odors may be managed in various forms:
• Water-Soluble Misting: Liquid or solid waste can be treated through the application of mists
containing antibacterial disinfecting compounds (Berihum 2017). For instance, Odor
Management Industries has developed a product called Ecosorb that uses a non-hazardous
mixture of plant-based material, surfactant, and water to absorb odor-causing molecules and
deodorize the surrounding air (OMI Industries 2017).
• Enzyme Protein Misting: When odor molecules contact enzyme/protein solutions, a chemical
reaction occurs, changing the odor-causing chemical’s molecular structure and eliminating the
odor-causing scent (Peter 2014). These enzymes may also be applied through a mister.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-25
• Lime: The application of lime to leachate, animal waste, and sludge solidifies waste and can
reduce odor from acidic compounds (Goldstein 2005 et al.).
Cost Considerations. Cost of alternative odor control mechanisms varies depending on the desired
application, and would be assessed if there is a future need–the current system of combusting methane
is effective in reducing odors at this time.
9.7.2 Construct a Construction and Demolition Landfill with a Sorting and
Reuse Area
As defined in Hawaiʻi Administrative rules 11-58.01-03: "Construction and demolition waste" means
solid waste, largely inert waste, resulting from the demolition or razing of buildings, of roads, or other
structures, such as concrete, rock, brick, bituminous concrete, wood, and masonry, composition roofing
and roofing paper, steel, plaster, and minor amounts of other metals, such as copper. Construction and
demolition waste do not include cleanup materials contaminated with hazardous substances, friable
asbestos, waste paints, solvents, sealers, adhesives, or similar materials.
Construction and demolition (C&D) waste commonly contains inert materials including cement,
concrete, bricks, wood, and ceramics. These materials may be recycled and used as aggregates for
embankments, layers of foundation, road foundations, and asphalt (Mei et al. 2014). Materials of
significant market value, such as metals, may be sold to specialized recyclers while other materials such
as aggregates and wood may be ground at the C&D facility and sold or used in a beneficial manner
(Harler 2014). Developing a specialized C&D landfill with a sorting and reuse area would provide an
opportunity to divert materials that would otherwise be landfilled.
This section discusses existing C&D material handling facilities in the State of Hawaiʻi, mechanisms to
increase diversion, management options, and benefits.
9.7.2.1 Existing C&D Material Handling Facilities–State of Hawaiʻi
The State of Hawaiʻi currently has one privately owned C&D landfill located on Oahu. The C&D landfill
and recycling facility is owned and operated by PVT Land Company. According to the company website,
at full capacity, the facility processes up to 1,775 tons and diverts up to 1,420 tons of debris daily for reuse
and recycling instead of landfilling the material. Of the 1,755 tons of processed material, approximately 42
tons is metal, 900 tons is feedstock for energy production, and 840 tons includes rock, concrete, and dirt. The
remaining unrecyclable material (200 tons) is landfilled. The feedstock is stockpiled for eventual use in a
gasification facility. At the time of this Plan, PVT Land Company is preparing to relocate their operations
to 179 undeveloped acres across the road from the existing operations. The new facility would be
expanded to include two materials recovery and processing lines as well as the installation of an
enclosed gasification unit and photovoltaic panels to power operations. The project is currently in the
planning and environmental approval phase, and will require a Special Use Permit because the proposed
activity is not consistent with the zoning of the site (State Land Use Agricultural District) (PVT Land
Company 2019).
Although not a C&D landfill, Hawaiʻi Materials Recycling in Maui accepts concrete, concrete block,
asphalt, rock, dirt, and sand. The facility is sited so that it can use reclaimed water from the island’s
wastewater treatment plant.
9.7.2.2 Diversion Mechanisms
For an effective program, the County would need to consider methods to maximize the diversion rates
of C&D waste. These methods are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5.3. The options include building
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
9-26 August 2019
permit requirements, establishing mandates to prevent certain materials from disposal at the landfill, or
setting specific recycling rates for C&D. As discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5.1, the County could
explore opportunities to develop an Eco-Industrial Park that includes clusters of complementary
businesses (e.g., organics, building deconstruction, salvage, reuse, and repair) through favorable zoning
ordinances and/or tax relief in conjunction with the C&D landfill.
In the City of Seattle, new construction, remodeling, and demolition activities are banned from disposing
of asphalt paving, bricks, and concrete; metal; cardboard; new construction gypsum scrap; and
unpainted and untreated wood. In 2020, the City of Seattle plans to add carpet, plastic film wrap, and
tear-off asphalt shingles to the banned items list. The program is implemented by first requiring projects
with work areas greater than 750 square feet to develop a waste diversion plan as a component of
building permit applications. To demonstrate compliance, the City requires all demolition projects and
new construction and remodeling (that entail demolition) that receive a building permit to submit an
electronic waste diversion report within 60 days of final inspection. The success of the program is highly
contingent on a robust network of Seattle-certified salvage and source-separated recyclers, including
mixed-waste recyclers and disposal facilities (City of Seattle 2019).
9.7.2.3 Management Options
With C&D representing a significant proportion of the MSW waste stream, there is an opportunity to
divert these materials from disposal and to manage them into productive uses.
C&D can be managed in the following ways.
• Recycled–Material separated for recycling.
• Reused–Materials that have or can be salvaged or reused on the same or other construction
projects.
• Beneficially Used–Material that is not recyclable or reusable can be used for other purposes,
such as unpainted and untreated wood used as feedstock for biomass-mass burners or for
groundcover (dog runs), pathways, or temporary roads.
• Disposed–Material permanently placed in a landfill where it could be used as Alternative Daily
Cover (ADC) in lieu of dirt or soil to cover landfill garbage.
9.7.2.4 Benefits
The benefits to limiting the disposal of C&D materials include:
• Provides the largest contribution to job, wage, and tax revenue from C&D recycling, followed by
ferrous and non-ferrous metals (EPA 2016a).
• Reduces purchase and disposal costs.
• Provides a tax benefit if recovered materials are donated to a qualified 501(c)(3) charity.
• Reduces transportation costs if materials are used on site.
• Reduces environmental impacts associated with the extraction and consumption of virgin
resources and production of new materials.
• Conserves landfill space.
Cost Considerations. There would be upfront costs to plan, design, and construct the landfill and sorting
and reuse area; however, when in operation the County would charge a tipping fee, and repurposed
C&D products would also generate revenue.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 9-27
9.8 Recommendations
As described previously, the County studied various alternatives to expand the existing SHSL or to find
an alternative landfill site in East Hawaiʻi, and determined several significant constraints would interfere
with these efforts. Therefore, trucking and disposal of waste to the existing WHSL is the County’s
singular residual waste disposal option at the time of Plan development. With a final decision on
landfilling, and based on the analyses presented above and discussions with the SWAC, the County plans
to implement the following residual management strategies during the next planning period.
1. Consider recovery and treatment technology (e.g., WTE, pyrolysis) if: (1) other waste diversion
approaches (e.g., proposed compost facility in Hilo, shipping of market-driven unrecyclable
materials to the City and County of Honolulu) are cost prohibitive, (2) it can be demonstrated
that it is environmentally and economically feasible, and (3) the technology has a verifiable and
viable commercial track record (a minimum of 5-years) for handling municipal solid waste.
2. Investigate the feasibility of a landfill with a sorting and reuse area for construction and
demolition materials.
3. Update infrastructure at the WHSL and EHRSS. The County will continue to conduct periodic
evaluations as needed to improve facility operations and efficiencies at WHSL and EHRSS in
response to changes in flow patterns and increased volume. Activities could include:
Integrate compaction into the floor space of the EHRSS.
Reconfigure circulation, scalehouse location, and other facilities at WHSL to handle the
additional residuals.
4. Engage in a dialogue with the state/counties about joint solutions (e.g., Discuss with City and
County of Honolulu, the shipping of market-driven unrecyclable materials to their H-Power WTE
plant).
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 10-1
10. ADMINISTRATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
10.1 Introduction
The current solid waste management programs, as discussed in previous sections, are primarily
administered and funded through various state grants, property taxes, and tipping fees. Departments
within the County of Hawaiʻi develop their budgets on an annual basis. The budgets and funding are
submitted by the mayor’s office and approved by the County Council.
This chapter describes current conditions of the existing administration and funding within the County,
identifies current issues and concerns, presents options currently under consideration by the County,
and provides a recommendation for implementation.
10.2 Review of 2009 Plan Update
Exhibit 10-1 below provides a summary of the recommendations put forth in the 2009 Plan update
relative to administration, funding, and implementation, and describes the actions taken to achieve
each recommendation.
Exhibit 10-1. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management
2009 Plan Update Recommendation Status
Establish Solid Waste Division (SWD) Operating
Expenses
Ongoing
Establish Capital Improvement Fund Expenditures Ongoing
Projection of Solid Waste Fund Revenues and Expenses Maintained existing funding mechanisms with
increased tip fees
10.3 Existing Conditions
The County accounts for revenues and expenses for solid waste management in its solid waste fund.
Revenues are received from state and county sources. The state provides grants and subsidizes
programs, such as glass recycling, e-waste recycling, and the beverage container deposit program (HI-5).
State funding is generally allocated based on County population or County’s budgetary requests to the
state for program administration. The sources of solid waste funding from the County primarily include
revenues transferred from the general fund and revenues from fees associated with solid waste disposal
at the landfills. In addition, the County typically finances large capital improvement projects with general
obligation (GO) bonds.
Budgets for the solid waste fund and capital improvement program are created on an annual basis and
approved after a review process by the mayor’s office and the County Council that includes public
testimony.
10.3.1 Solid Waste Fund Revenues
Exhibit 10-2 presents FY 2017–18 actual and FY 2018–19 budgeted revenues for the solid waste fund.
The main sources of revenue are discussed below.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
10-2 August 2019
Exhibit 10-2. Status Update of 2009 Plan Recommendations for Residuals Management
Solid Waste Fund Revenue
Revenue Category
FY 2017–18
Actual
FY 2018–19
Budget
Federal Grants
Total Federal Grants 5,267 0.00
State Grants
Glass Recycling Program 35,751 111,876
E-Waste Recycling 45,000 160,000
Beverage Container Deposit Program 300,013 452,153
Lava 2018–State 1,756 0.00
Solid Waste
Landfill Tipping Fees 11,415,595 11,600,000
Landfill Permit Fees 18,230 20,000
General Fund
General Fund Balance (Previous Year) 0.00 4,385,252
Transfer from General Fund 19,483,277 19,281,770
Miscellaneous Revenue
Charges for Services–General Government 0.00 0.00
Sale of Equipment 12,965 0.00
Sundry Revenues–Current Year 1,767 0.00
Sundry Revenues–Prior Year 6,629 0.00
Certified Redemption Center 204,625 226,104
Total Solid Waste Fund $31,530,874 $36,237,155
Note: Figures have not been finalized by the County and are pending approval.
A summary of the funding methods used in FY 2017–18 and projected for FY 2018–19 is shown in
Exhibit 10-3.
Exhibit 10-3. Solid Waste Fund Revenue Summary, Percent of Total
Percent of Total
FY 2017–18
Actual
FY 2018–19
Budget
General Fund 62% 53%
Tip Fees 36% 32%
Other 2% 15%
Total 100% 100%
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 10-3
10.3.1.1 State Programs
Glass Recycling. The glass recycling program consists of glass containers not included in the state
Beverage Container Deposit Program. The program is administered through the state and is subsidized
with an advance disposal fee (ADF), currently at 1.5 cents per container. The state allocates funds from
this program to the counties based on the population size of each island and distributes these funds on
a quarterly basis.
Beverage Container Deposit Program (HI-5). The Beverage Container Deposit Program is a state-
administered program, which places a 5¢ redeemable deposit on each beverage container, as defined
under law. Consumers may then return the container to redeem their 5¢ at any redemption center. A 1¢
non-refundable container fee is assessed to support the costs of recycling and program administration.
Any funds that are not redeemed by consumers may be distributed to County-based programs. The
County submits a list of requests to the state on annual basis, outlining budgetary needs for HI-5
projects and program administration.
Electronic Device and Television Recycling Law. The Electronic Device and Television Recycling Law
(Chapter 339D-7.5) reinforces product stewardship by requiring manufacturers of electronics to run
recycling programs to comply with local government regulations. Manufacturers of covered electronic
devices (CEDs) sold in the state of Hawaiʻi must register with HDOH and pay an annual registration fee of
$5,000 and must set up recycling plans. Television manufacturers must follow the same protocol except
for the fee, which is $2,500 annually. Any manufacturer that sells both CEDs and covered televisions
(CTVs) are required to pay a combined $7,500 in annual registration fees. The state allocates funds from
this program to the counties based on the population size of each island and distributes these funds on
a quarterly basis. According to HDOH, these programs have been scaled back because of budget
constraints (HDOH 2015).
The State Revolving Fund (SRF) program. The SRF program assists local governments in the financing
the construction of water pollution control projects necessary to prevent contamination of our
groundwater and coastal water resources and to protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of
the citizens through awarding of low interest loans. Since the 2009 Plan, the County has benefited from
the SRF to finance stormwater-related projects at their recycling and transfer stations.
The County may request additional funds during the year for more redemption centers, shelters, bins, or
public awareness programs.
10.3.1.2 County Programs
Landfill Tipping Fees and Permit Fees. The County generates revenue from solid waste disposal through
landfill tipping fees and permit fees. In 2018 non-residential customers paid $108 per ton of solid waste
to the landfill, and for customers that dispose of waste on a routine basis, a $25 one-time annual fee is
assessed for account setup and administration costs. Businesses, agencies, farms, and non-profits are
subject to a $27.00 per ton tip fee for source-separated green waste.
Customers may also pay special handling fees on non-routine disposal of solid wastes that require
additional personnel or costs for disposal (i.e., solid waste that requires special storage, handling, or
disposal practices such as asbestos or petroleum-contaminated soil).
Transfers from the General Fund. The primary revenue source for County solid waste programs is
transfers from the General Fund. Property taxes account for the largest portion of the General Fund.
Other fund sources include hotel/tourism taxes, public service company taxes, interest on invested
funds, and any carryover of the General Fund balance from the prior year. Each County department
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
10-4 August 2019
forecasts its budgetary needs for the year, and the Mayor’s office and County Council approve the
budgets pending a review process.
10.3.1.3 Other Programs
Abandoned Vehicle Program. The abandoned vehicle program is funded directly from a portion of the
vehicle registration fee. The program receives $25 per registered vehicle to pay for program
administration, towing companies, and scrap metal vendors.
Residential Hauler Credit. Vendors that charge a fee for residential waste pickup may qualify for a
residential hauler credit. To qualify, the vendor must have a physical address of each customer. The
annual credit to the vendor is determined by the annual number of single-family accounts multiplied by
a factor of 1.5 (tons per year per customer) multiplied by the landfill tipping fee (e.g., $108/ton).
10.3.2 Solid Waste Fund Expenses
FY 2017–18 (actual) and FY 2018–19 (budgeted) expenses for the County solid waste fund are shown in
Exhibit 10-4. Expenses have been grouped into categories that reflect the main solid waste functions
provided by the County. The expense groupings shown were prepared by an allocation process in which
greater than 500 lines of expenditures were assigned to functions using appropriate, available data and
professional judgment by County staff.
Exhibit 10-4. Solid Waste Fund Expenses
FY 2017–18 Actual FY 2018–19 Budget
Percent of Total
FY 17–18 FY 18–19
SWD Operations 13,642,032 15,383,194 43% 43%
West Hawaiʻi Sanitary Landfill 9,326,825 12,647,456 30% 35%
Recycling Programs 6,570,097 8,046,505 21% 22%
FY 2016–17 Encumbrances 5,416,274 0.00 17% 0%
FY 2017–18 Encumbrances -3,873,145 0.00 -12% 0%
FY 2017–18 Fund Balance for Future Years 448,790 0.00 1% 0%
Total $31,530,874.37 36,077,155.00 100% 100%
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
As shown, budgeted expenses for FY 2018–19 are higher than FY 2017–18 actuals. Expenses are
projected to increase because of inflation, waste stream increases, increased staffing at recycling and
transfer stations, tariffs, import bans, and substantial reductions in forecast prices received for recycled
materials. Also, due to the 2018 Kilauea Volcano lava event, many properties were devalued, which
resulted in the loss of real property tax revenues, the main source of taxes to the general fund. As
shown in Exhibits 10-2 and 10-3, the general fund is the primary source of revenue for the management
of solid waste in the County.
Exhibit 10-5 provides the SWD’s prioritized capital improvement funding request as submitted to the
County Council. These improvements have been included in the Capital Improvement Program forecasts
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 10-5
shown later in this section. As shown, the County also made provisions for SHSL closure requirements.
Closure and post-closure requirements for the WHSL are the responsibility of the County’s contractor.
Exhibit 10-5. Projected Solid Waste Capital Improvements
Project
Prior Funds
Allocated
Estimated Cost (in thousands)
FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Total
South Hilo Sanitary
Landfill Closure
$678 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,678
Rural Recycling and
Transfer Station
Reconstruction
$9,874 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $21,874
Closure of Cesspools at
Solid Waste Facilities
$100 $1,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200
East Hawaiʻi Organics Processing Facility $100 $10,401 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,501
Hilo Scrap Metal Site Remediation $0 $0 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000
West Hawaiʻi Materials Recovery System $0 $0 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500
Replacement of Kona Baseyard Building $0 $0 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500
Replacement of Hilo Disposal Area $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $3,000
Replacement of the Kona Disposal Area $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000
East Hawaiʻi Regional Sort Station (EHRSS) Reload Facility Upgrades (for future transfer of waste to WHSL)
$0 $0 $0 $700 $0 $0 $0 $700
Ongoing WHSL Gas
Collection and Control
System
$2,651 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $6,651
Stormwater
Improvements for East
Hawaiʻi Transfer Stations
$0 $0 $17,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,500
10.4 Issues and Concerns
As discussed in prior sections, the County is considering several potential changes to the current waste
management program. Some of the options currently under consideration could be implemented
relatively easily and integrated as part of the County’s existing waste management system. Other
options will require more significant changes including new infrastructure, new administrative positions
within the County, coordination with other County agencies, community outreach, behavioral changes
by the public (paradigm shift), and in some cases, will require passage of policies, ordinances, and
legislation requiring public and commercial participation.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
10-6 August 2019
A central issue for the County is determining the best policies and procedures to fund both existing and
new waste management programs and initiatives. Currently, residential customers can deliver waste to
County recycling and transfer stations at no charge, while commercial haulers must pay tipping fees at
the landfills. As shown in Exhibit 10-4, the FY 2017–18 County general fund provides approximately two-
thirds of the revenue used to fund current solid waste expenses (excluding debt financing for major
infrastructure). This aligns with the 2009 Plan update. However, general fund transfers supporting solid
waste expenses are expected to drop to around 50 percent in FY 2018–19 compared to about 60
percent in FY 2017–18. This is attributable to excess monies from the FY 2017–18 general fund that are
expected to carry over to FY 2018–19, and to a lesser extent, an increase in state grant contribution to
the glass recycling, e-waste, and beverage container deposit programs.
In FY 2017–18, about 36 percent of the funding was derived from landfill tipping fees, and in FY 2018–
19, tipping fees are estimated to contribute closer to 32 percent. Except for a projected lessened
reliance on the general fund in FY 2018–19, these percentages are relatively unchanged from those
reported in the 2009 Plan update. This indicates that few changes to the overall funding structure have
occurred since the last planning effort, although tipping fees have increased from $85 to $108 per ton
during the past 5 years. According to Ordinance No. 185 (Appendix F), which amends HCC 20 of the, the
landfill charge rate per ton cannot exceed $116 in 2022. Exhibit 10-6 shows a breakdown of the landfill
charge rates through 2022 (Ordinance No. 185).
Exhibit 10-6. Landfill Charge Rates 2018-2022
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$108 $110 $112 $114 $116
The funding mechanisms, administration, and types of programs and legislation required to implement
modifications to the existing waste management program will depend on the options selected for
implementation in this Plan update. It is likely that additional regulations will be necessary to
successfully implement changes to the County’s current program and to encourage changes in the
current patterns of waste disposal by both the public and commercial businesses.
Three key issues facing the County that may require legislative changes include:
• Increasing diversion by thinking of waste as a resource and reducing wasteful behavior.
• Minimizing or eliminating illegal dumping.
• Reducing contamination at the recycling and transfer stations and green waste facilities.
In addition to legislation and ordinances, community outreach and education will also be necessary to
effect a change in public perception of the issues surrounding waste management, and thereby influence
established behavior patterns. As community involvement and concern for waste-related environmental
stewardship increase, it is expected that acceptance of additional fees and regulation regarding waste
disposal practices will become more widely embraced by the public and commercial sectors.
As part of the Plan update process, the County is evaluating potential options and setting both
recommendations for waste management. To successfully expand and adapt the current county-wide
waste management program to meet its goals, the County will need to:
• Make decisions regarding the path forward according to the Plan’s recommended priorities.
• Take advantage of best practices and lessons learned from other jurisdictions regarding funding
and administration mechanisms, and related legal and regulatory requirements.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 10-7
The County must also consider the potential implications of various existing Federal, State, and County
regulations on the implementation of the waste management program.
10.5 Administration and Funding Options
Many of the options being considered in previous chapters of this Plan update would require changes to
existing methods of administering and funding programs. Some administration and funding options for
consideration follow.
10.5.1 Establishing Solid Waste as an Enterprise Fund
As discussed above, about two-thirds of the County’s expenditures for solid waste management are
currently funded by the County’s general fund which is primarily supported by property taxes. There are
some disadvantages associated with the current funding system, including:
• Property tax funding provides no financial incentive for residents to reduce waste.
• Using property taxes to fund solid waste services can be perceived as unfair because property
tax collections are not correlated specifically with the types and volumes of waste generated,
potentially leading to inequitable subsidization.
• It can be somewhat more challenging to manage solid waste programs based on funding
allocation of money from the general fund, because the money in the general fund may be
redirected towards other pressing county needs.
Another funding mechanism for solid waste systems costs commonly used in many communities is to
establish a self-sustaining enterprise fund. An enterprise fund can be supported primarily by user fees,
dedicated taxes, or dedicated property taxes. Some advantages often cited for enterprise funds include:
• Promoting fairness by charging specifically for waste composition and volume disposed.
• Reducing burden on the general fund.
• Requiring more sensitivity to customer’s needs.
• Allowing managers more discretion; however, still holding them accountable to customers.
• Running government more like a business.
The main disadvantages cited for enterprise funds is that they can be regressive and place a burden on
the poor by increasing the amount they must pay for an essential service like waste management.
Enterprise funds also may be more cumbersome to administer (management of financing) and politically
unpopular for those with the expectation that solid waste is subsidized through the general fund.
Several factors would be considered to establish an enterprise fund system:
• Determine local authority (i.e., Can the County legally charge solid waste management user
fees?).
• Gain support from decision makers.
• Decide the appropriate type of user fees to support the enterprise fund.
• Perform full cost accounting to identify and report costs of operation, including the preparation
of a long-range budget.
• Educate the public.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
10-8 August 2019
10.5.2 Separating Solid Waste Management as a Line Item on
Property Taxes
The County could provide additional information to customers about the cost of managing solid waste
by adding a separate line item on property tax bills outlining the amount of the tax used to fund solid
waste services. A possible breakdown might include the three primary categories of expenses shown in
Exhibit 10-3: SWD Operations, West Hawaiʻi Sanitary Landfill, and Recycling Programs. The addition of a
line item on property taxes would be an interim step to educate the public on the breakdown and costs
of solid waste management.
10.5.3 Establish PAYT System at County Recycling and Transfer Stations
As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3, there are several ways that the County could implement a
PAYT system at recycling and transfer stations. A PAYT program may be implemented via:
• Charging residents’ solid waste by weight through the addition of scales at County recycling and
transfer stations while accepting dropoff of recyclable or compostable materials at no charge.
• Charging residents’ solid waste by volume where residents pre-purchase tags and/or bags that
they would then place their waste in and haul to their nearest recycling and transfer station.
• Charging residents’ solid waste by volume being disposed of, while allowing dropoff of
recyclable or compostable materials.
• Implementing universal curbside collection of garbage for all households in the County where
practical.
Two methods that would minimize staffing requirements at the stations include a “tag” or “bag” system.
In a tag system, property owners would be issued tags along with their semi-annual property tax bills
that could be used as “currency” for delivering waste, and extra tags could be available for purchase at
County offices or retail outlets. Arrangements would need to be made for renters not served by a
building collection service.
A bag system would consist of requiring all residents to put waste into a standard type of plastic bag
that would be available for purchase at County offices and/or retail outlets.
There would be many implementation challenges associated with this system. An extended phase-in
period would be necessary accompanied by an intensive public education program. A PAYT program
could be a user fee option integrated into an enterprise funding program (see Section 10.5.1). This
program has been shown to work in other jurisdictions on the mainland and in Hawaiʻi (e.g., Kaua’i).
10.5.4 Modifications to Existing Programs and Practices
The County could consider modifications or improvements to existing programs that may increase
revenue instead of changing funding mechanisms (e.g., enterprise fund):
• Seek more non-user-fee funding (e.g., federal grants, opportunities such as SRF).
• Increase recycling rates through improved operations (e.g., public outreach, transfer and
recycling station upgrades).
• Determine adequacy of handling fees on non-routine solid wastes (e.g., asbestos, petroleum-
contaminated soil).
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 10-9
• Increase participation of the hotel/tourism industry through tax incentives or other
mechanisms.
• Determine adequacy of the registration fee for the abandoned vehicle program.
• Reevaluate the residential hauler credit program.
• Regularly review and, when appropriate, renegotiate the WHSL contract.
10.5.5 Illegal Dumping Prevention
Illegal dumping of household and commercial waste can have a variety of potential negative impacts.
Hazardous chemicals generated from illegally dumped waste can contaminate groundwater and surface
water, potentially affecting both human health and aquatic habitats. Flooding can result from blockage
of streams and drainage culverts. Property values can be affected by illegal dumping, economic impacts
resulting from costs of clean up can affect County resources, and illegal dumping degrades quality of
life –the beauty of the island for residents and visitors. Additional efforts to prevent illegal dumping
would be particularly important if the County were to implement a PAYT program or dramatically
increase the tipping fee.
This section describes existing regulations at the federal, state, and local level. It also describes illegal
dumping prevention measures within the County, issues and concerns, and options to deter illegal
dumping that have the potential to bolster the County’s existing prevention system.
10.5.5.1 Regulations
At the federal level, Statute 42 United States Code (USC) 6928(d)(2)(B) & (C) of the Criminal Provisions of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) indicts offenders who knowingly treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous waste without a permit with penalties up to 2 years of incarceration and a
$50,000 per day in fines.
The County regulates “littering” and the state regulates “illegal dumping.” The state defines illegal
dumping as the illicit disposal of solid waste that is equal to or greater than 1 cubic yard. The County’s
litter law does not quantify what is considered litter; therefore, it could be less than or greater than 1
cubic yard.
In accordance with Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes Chapter 342H (HRS 342H), illegal dumping could be subject
to enforcement action and administrative civil penalties up to $10,000 per day. Those who knowingly
dispose of solid waste equal to or greater than 1 cubic yard and less than 10 cubic yards are subject to
criminal penalties (petty misdemeanor) up to $25,000 per day for each offense. If illegal dumping is
equal or exceeds 10 cubic yards, it is considered a class C felony and potentially subject to $50,000 for
each separate offense. If illegal dumping is suspected, a complaint can be filed with the State
Department of Health, Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch, State Department of Attorney General
Investigations Office, District Health Office located in Hilo, or Hawaiʻi County Police Department (HCPD).
The current County of Hawaiʻi code (HCC 20-8) contains provisions that prohibit littering. In the past five
years, revisions such as Ordinance 12-1, aimed at reducing plastic bag littering and pollution, have been
enacted to further reduce contamination. These provisions cover the materials commonly encountered
in the municipal waste stream and prohibit discarding or disposing of these materials on either public or
private property. Violators may be fined up to $1,000 and/or not more than 200 hours of community
service for each offense. Cost recovery for cleanup is also allowed under the current County code.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
10-10 August 2019
10.5.5.2 Countywide Illegal Dumping Prevention
The County’s HawaiiZeroWaste.org website provides a wealth of information related to illegal dumping
including:
• A link to “Trash Free Hawaiʻi” website, an initiative by the State of Hawaii Department of
Transportation, Highways Division, O`ahu District’s (HDOT Highways) Storm Water Management
Program, which seeks to reduce litter entering the storm drains that ultimately enter the ocean.
• State of Hawaiʻi’s regulations, including information related to potential hazardous
contaminants that may be within commercial or industrial waste from small quantity
generators.
• Education of the potential health consequences of open dumps (illegal dumps).
• Actions that can be carried out by private land owners, contractors, and “everyone” to address
and prevent illegal dumping, including reporting procedures.
• A link to a brochure that describes how to conduct a community cleanup of a dump site.
• Contact information for the County Department of Public Works, Highways Maintenance
Division, to request rubbish removal in County right-of-way.
• Information emphasizing the role of small businesses in the handling of hazardous materials,
including a link to HDOH guidance and other resources.
The County also holds six household hazardous waste collection events per year at well-known and well-
publicized locations—twice a year in Hilo and Kona, once a year in Waimea and Pāhoa. Chapter 6
provides further information regarding the handling of hazardous waste.
The 501(c)(3) non-profit, Keep the Hawaiian Islands Beautiful website, provides an online litter “hotline”
as another avenue to report illegal dumping. The non-profit’s mission emphasizes the engagement of
individuals to take a greater responsibility for improving the community environment and preserving the
beauty of the Hawaiʻian islands. Solid waste initiatives and recycling, beautification, and litter prevention
and control are activities emphasized by the non-profit.
10.5.5.3 Issues and Concerns
Regardless of the existing regulatory framework and “grassroots” approach to prevent illegal disposal of
rubbish, illegal littering or dumping still occurs, notably along roadways in more rural areas, on vacant
lots, and in gulches with major roadways crossing them or near industrial facilities. Enforcement of
existing illegal dumping and litter laws is challenging due in part to the rural nature of the County.
Currently enforcement of the County code is the responsibility of the HCPD. Because littering is not one
of the higher priorities for HCPD, many of the violators who litter are not caught or penalized. DEM staff
do not have the training or legal authority to enforce litter laws. The County would increase its potential
liability if it required DEM employees to enforce policy, even within the confines of County recycling and
transfer station properties.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 10-11
10.5.5.4 Options to Prevent Illegal Dumping
Illegal Dumping Prevention Studies
It is anticipated that passing ordinances or legislation that requires the public to pay for waste disposal
on a per unit basis may, in the short term, increase the occurrence of illegal dumping. Studies conducted
in rural areas of Kentucky concluded that when additional fees were implemented for public waste
disposal, illegal dumping increased, especially in areas where a higher percentage of the population had
low or poverty-level incomes. However, most jurisdictions implementing programs such as PAYT
reported only short-term increases in illegal dumping, and a decline to pre-implementation rates of
incidence within the first 1 to 2 years after implementation. Exhibit 10-7 presents four programmatic
areas the EPA has suggested focusing on for preventing illegal dumping.
Exhibit 10-7. Four Programmatic Areas for Preventing Illegal Dumping (EPA 1998)
Source: EPA (1998)
The New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency conducted a report on illegal dumping including
an online survey consisting of 63 government authorities, 100 trade and industry authorities, and 1,009
community members. Respondents were given various methods to reduce illegal dumping and were
asked to rank their effectiveness. Patrolling and surveillance were viewed as the most effective, with 81
percent of participants responding that the method was ‘somewhat or very effective’. Community
outreach and education was viewed by 77 percent of participants as ‘effective’, and fines/enforcement
were viewed by 70 percent of participants as ‘effective.’ Relating to joint campaigns with the New South
Wales EPA, 56 percent of local government authorities stated the method was ‘very effective’, while
signage received the least support with 43 percent of respondents stating the method was ‘not
Cleanup Efforts. Cleanup projects will require a coordinated planning effort to ensure that adequate resources and funding
are available. Once a site has been cleaned, signs, lighting or barriers may be required to discourage future dumping. Signs
should indicate the fines and penalties for illegal dumping, and a phone number for reporting incidents. Landscaping and
beautification efforts may also discourage future dumping, as well as provide open space and increase property values.
Community Outreach and Involvement. This may be the most important tool in ensuring that this practice is effective. The
organization of special cleanup events where communities are provided with the resources to properly dispose of illegally dumped materials increases the understanding among residents of illegal dumping impacts and supplies opportunities to correctly dispose of materials which may otherwise be illegally dumped. Integration of illegal dumping prevention into community policing programs or use of programs such as Crime Stoppers may also be an effective way to increase enforcement opportunities without the additional cost of hiring new staff. Producing simple messages relating the cost of illegal dumping on local taxes and proper disposal sites will aid in eliminating the problem. Having a hotline where citizens can report illegal activities and educating the public on the connection between the storm drain and water quality, and other potential hazards associated with dumping refuse into streams or drains will decrease disposal of waste into streams or storm drain inlets.
Targeted Enforcement. This tool involves the use of ordinances to regulate waste management and eliminate illegal dumping through methods such as fines, cost recovery penalties for cleanup, and permit requirements for waste management activities, to name a few. These fines and penalties can be used to help fund the prevention program or to provide rewards to citizens who report illegal dumping activities. Other recommendations for this tool include training of staff from all municipal departments in recognizing and reporting illegal dumping incidents, dedicating staff who have the authority to conduct surveillance and inspections, and writing citations for those caught illegally dumping.
Tracking and Evaluation. This tool measures the impact of prevention efforts and determines if goals are being met. Using mapping techniques and computer databases allows officials to identify areas where dumping most often occurs, record
patterns in dumping occurrence (time of day, day of week, etc.), and calculate the number of citations issued and the
responsible parties. This allows for better allocation of resources and more specific targeting of outreach and education
efforts for offenders. Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
10-12 August 2019
effective’ (NSW 2015). Exhibit 10-8 graphically depicts the outcome of the illegal dumping survey
performed by the New South Wales EPA.
Exhibit 10-8. New South Wales Survey on Illegal Dumping (North South Wales 2015)
Source: NSW (2017)
Illegal Dumping: County’s Options
A combination of passing more severe penalties for illegal dumping, targeted enforcement actions by
HCPD, establishment of new community outreach and participation programs, and other actions found
to be successful in other jurisdictions may help to curb illegal dumping in the County. Potential actions
that may be considered for the County to prevent illegal dumping are listed below.
• Civil and Criminal Penalties. Develop legislation that sets more severe civil and criminal penalties
for illegal dumping activities than what is legislated by the state (HRS 342H). Legislation could be
worded such that the penalties increase with the egregiousness of the violation, and based upon
a weight, volume, or types of material that are dumped, and location of illegal activity (that is,
higher penalties for dumping into streambeds). Legislation could require violators to pay for
consequential damages and cleanup costs resulting from specific violations.
• Targeted Enforcement. Work with the community and the HCPD to develop a targeted
enforcement program. Incentives could be offered for monitoring and reporting of illegal
dumping to authorities, and methods could be developed for periodically evaluating illegal
dump sites for evidence of the identity of the violators. Legislation supporting prosecution of
violators based on the evidence of ownership at the time of the violation derived from dumped
materials may need to be developed to effectively implement such a program.
• Community Education, Outreach, and Involvement. Develop programs with school and
community groups or organizations to emphasize prevention, and conduct periodic clean ups of
illegal dump sites, to raise community awareness and involvement in reducing illegal dumping
activities.
• Install Signage at Problem Areas. Install signage where illegal dumping typically occurs listing the
more severe civil and criminal penalties for violators to curb future dumping. This process may
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 10-13
be completed in conjunction with the planned re-signing at recycling and transfer stations, as
stated in Chapter 5, Public Education and Information.
• Increase Security at Recycling and Transfer Stations. Hire full-time attendants to monitor the
recycling and garbage facilities to deter potential violators. Install a fence around Miloli’i to
reduce illegal dumping during non-operating hours.
• Small Quantity Generator Program. Inform small businesses how to best dispose of their
hazardous waste to reduce illegal dumping and contamination. Businesses who are small
quantity generators (SQGs) and produce between 100 and 1,000 kilograms per month of
hazardous waste may accumulate waste for up to 180 days without a permit. As described in
Section 10.5.5.2, the County provides information and guidance targeting businesses (SQGs) on
their HawaiiZeroWaste.org website. This program could be bolstered by initiatives such as
County interaction with small businesses through meetings and site visits.
• Recycling and Transfer Stations. Allow small businesses to utilize the recycling and transfer
stations for recycling (see Recommendations, Chapters 4 and 8).
10.6 Plan Recommendation
This Plan does not outline funding projections for the 10-year planning timeframe. This is primarily due
to fluctuations in markets and uncertainties regarding the outcomes of programs that will be
operational early in the planning period (e.g., shipping residual waste exclusively to WHSL, organic
composting facility in Hilo). Instead, the County plans to continue with the current system of funding
most operating expenditures using property taxes and tip fees until the outcome of programs are better
understood. Based on the analyses presented above and discussions with the SWAC, the County plans to
implement the following residual management strategies during the next planning period:
1. Prepare a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis. Prepare the analysis to align with programs
identified in this Plan and to achieve less reliance on the general fund. Major capital
expenditures would continue to be funded through general obligation bonds. The planning
effort would also consider methods and costs associated with the discouragement of illegal
dumping, particularly because there is a correlation between this undesirable activity and the
implementation of a PAYT program, for example.
Note: Chapter 3, Section 3.6 (Recommendation 2) discusses the analysis of a PAYT program or
other funding mechanism for source reduction. Chapter 8, Section 8.8 (Recommendation 1)
discusses the continued operation and maintenance of recycling and transfer stations until a
decision on the best method of collection and transfer is determined, and to also explore
alternative funding mechanisms via a feasibility study.
2. Regularly review and, when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract. Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 11-1
11. REFERENCES
Anoka County, Minnesota. 2018. Anoka county organics drop-off program. Retrieved from:
https://www.anokacounty.us/360/County-Organics-Drop-off-Program. Accessed August 24, 2018.
Arsova, L. 2015. Waste conversion mechanical biological treatment (MBT) concept for material and
energy recovery from mixed MSW. Waste Advantage Magazine. Retrieved from
https://wasteadvantagemag.com/waste-conversion-mechanical-biological-treatment-mbt-concept-
for-material-and-energy-recovery-from-mixed-msw/. Accessed August 14, 2018.
Bel, G. and M. Warner. 2008. Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs? A
review of empirical studies. University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
52: 1337-1348.
Berihum, D. 2017. Control mechanism of bad odor generated from sanitary landfill leachate using swiss
pharm BioMist. Advances in recycling and waste management, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2:2. doi:
10.4172/2475-7675-10000129
Biodegradable Products Institute. 2018. What is a certified compostable product? Retrieved from:
https://bpiworld.org/products.html. Accessed August 27, 2018.
Biocycle. 2017. The state of organics recycling in the US. Retrieved from:
https://www.biocycle.net/2017/10/04/state-organics-recycling-u-s/. Accessed August 24, 2018.
Brown County. 2018. Food waste program details. Brown County Recycling. Retrieved from:
https://www.browncountyrecycling.org/program-details. Accessed August 24, 2018.
California Energy Commission. 2018. Landfill gas power plants. Retrieved from
http://www.energy.ca.gov/biomass/landfill_gas.html. Accessed August 14, 2018.
California Recycle. 2016. Curbside recycling, the next generation. Retrieved from:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LgCentral/Library/Innovations/Curbside/Default.htm. Accessed July 2,
2018.
Cascadia Consulting Group. 2001. Waste Composition Study, South Hilo Landfill, County of Hawaiʻi.
CH2MHill. 2008. Waste Composition Study of Hawaiʻi. Prepared by CH2MHill in association with Sky
Valley Associates, September 2008.
Chin-Chance, Chris. 2018. Personal communication (email) on January 25, 2019. Recycling Specialist III,
County of Hawaiʻi Department of Environmental Management, Recycling Section. Hilo, HI.
Circeo, LJ. 2009. Plasma arc gasification of municipal solid waste. Georgia tech Electro-Optical Systems
Laboratory (powerpoint). Retrieved from http://www.energy.ca.gov/proceedings/2008-ALT-
1/documents/2009-02-17_workshop/presentations/Louis_Circeo-
Georgia_Tech_Research_Institute.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2018.
City of Austin. 2015. Curbside services-cost benefit analysis. Prepared by Austin Resource Recovery,
Austin TX.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
11-2 August 2019
City of Boulder Colorado. 2016. Universal zero waste ordinance. Retrieved from:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/zero-waste/universal-zero-waste-ordinance. Accessed July 5, 2018.
City of Charlottesville. 2018. Composting in Charlottesville. Retrieved from:
http://www.charlottesville.org/community/community-initiatives/a-green-city/sustainable-waste-
management/composting-in-charlottesville. Accessed August 27, 2018.
City and County of Honolulu. 2017. Audit of the city’s recycling program. Retrieved from
https://www.honolulu.gov/rep/site/oca/oca_docs/City_Recycling_Program_Final_Report_rev._102
717.pdf
City and County of Honolulu. 2018a. Report on the enforcement of mandatory business recycling
ordinances. Prepared by the Department of Environmental Services, Honolulu, HI.
City and County of Honolulu. 2018b. 3-cart refuse recycling collection. Department of Environmental
Services. Retrieved from http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/curbside.htm. Accessed August 1, 2018.
City and County of San Francisco. 2018. New 2018 refuse rate. Retrieved from:
https://www.recology.com/recology-san-francisco/rates/. Accessed July 26, 2018.
City of Portland. 2014. Organic waste: Residential collection increased, but challenges remain in larger
commercial sector. Retrieved from: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/auditservices/article/486584.
Accessed July 4, 2018.
City of Los Angeles. 2005. Department of Public Works. Evaluation of alternative solid waste processing
technologies. Prepared by URS Corporation, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from
http://oglecounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Los-Angeles-Eval-Alt-Waste-Proc-Tech.pdf.
Accessed August 9, 2018.
City of San Jose. 2015. Curbside recycling; the city can enhance its single-family residential recycling
program to improve waste diversion. Retrieved from:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44031. Accessed May 28, 2018.
City of Seattle 2019. Seattle Public Utilities website: Recycling Required for Construction and Demolition
Projects. Website accessed on May 2, 2019: http://www.seattle.gov/utilities/businesses-and-key-
accounts/construction/construction-waste
County of Hawaiʻi. 2009. Integrated resources and solid waste management plan: The path to zero
waste. Prepared by CH2M Hill, Hawaiʻi County, HI.
County of Hawaiʻi DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2016a. Motor oil diversion
summary: FY 2015-16 (Table), Hawaiʻi County, HI.
County of Hawaiʻi DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2017a. Solid waste disposal
summary: FY 2017 (Table), Hawaiʻi County, HI.
County of Hawaiʻi DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2017b. Motor oil diversion
summary: FY 2015-16 (Table), Hawaiʻi County, HI.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 11-3
County of Hawaiʻi DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2017c. Draft environmental
assessment and anticipated finding of no significant impact for the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill.
Prepared by Wilson Okamoto Corporation, Honolulu, HI.
County of Hawaiʻi DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2017d. FY 2016-2017 Annual
Operations Report- Nineteen Transfer Stations and Three Convenience Centers.
County of Hawaiʻi DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2018a. Green waste & food
discards. Retrieved from: http://www.hawai’i zerowaste.org/recycle/green waste/. Accessed July 5,
2018.
County of Hawaiʻi DEM (Department of Environmental Management). 2018b. Solid waste disposal
summary: FY 2018 (Table), Hawaiʻi County, HI.
County of Kaua’i. 2018a Program information: Pay as you throw. Retrieved from:
https://www.kauai.gov/PAYT. Accessed July 2, 2018.
County of Kaua’i. 2018b. Division of solid waste, program description. Retrieved from
https://www.kauai.gov/PublicWorks/SolidWaste. Accessed August 1, 2018.
J. Edwards, M. Othman, S. Burn. A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of anaerobic digestion
in Europe, the United States and Australia
Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 52 (2016), pp. 815-828
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2016. Washington Department of Ecology.
Materials Recovery & Use Study, Waste2Resources, August 2016.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. EPA Illegal Dumping Prevention Guidebook, #905-8-97-
001, March 1998
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2016a. Advancing sustainable materials management: 2016
recycling economic information (REI) report, October 2016. US EPA. Report #EPA530-R-17-002.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2016b. Comprehensive procurement guideline (CPG) program.
US EPA. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/smm/comprehensive-procurement-guideline-cpg-
program#products. Access July 9, 2018.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2016c. Pricing systems. US EPA. Retrieved from:
https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/payt/web/html/top13.html. Accessed October 18,
2018.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2016d. Collection costs. US EPA. Retrieved from:
https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/localgov/web/html/collection.html. Accessed July 5,
2018.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 2017a. Understanding global warming potentials. US EPA.
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-
potentials#Learnwhy. Accessed August 14, 2018.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
11-4 August 2019
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2017b. Energy Recovery from the Combustion of Municipal
Solid Waste. https://www.epa.gov/smm/energy-recovery-combustion-municipal-solid-waste-msw,
January 19, 2017. Accessed September 13, 2018.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018a. Zero waste case study: San Francisco. US EPA. Retrieved
from: https://www.epa.gov/transforming waste-tool/zero-waste-case-study-san-francisco. Accessed
July 12, 2018.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018b. Contracting best practices for transforming waste
streams in communities. US EPA. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/transforming-waste-
tool/contracting-best-practices-transforming-waste-streams-communities. Accessed July 12, 2018.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018c. Advancing sustainable materials management: 2015 fact
sheet. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
07/documents/2015_smm_msw_factsheet_07242018_fnl_508_002.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2018.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018d. EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Overview, updated July 2019: https://www.epa.gov/rcra/resource-conservation-and-recovery-act-
rcra-overview#subtitleD
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018e. National overview: facts and figures on materials,
wastes, and recycling. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-
waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials. Accessed August 9, 2018.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018g. Anaerobic Digestion Tools and Resources. Retrieved
from https://www.epa.gov/anaerobic-digestion/anaerobic-digestion-tools-and-resources
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2018g. Landfill methane outreach program (LMOP): Basic
information about landfill gas. US EPA. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-
information-about-landfill-gas. Accessed August 14, 2018.
European Parliament. 2017. Towards a circular economy–waste management in the EU. Prepared by the
European parlimanetary research service, Brussels, Belgium. PE 581.913. doi: 10.2861/978568
EUROPEN. 2018. Factsheet: Extended producer responsibility (EPR) for used packaging. Retrieved from:
file:///C:/Users/misiuann/Downloads/EUROPEN%20factsheet%20on%20EPR%20for%20used%20pac
kaging.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2018.
FirmaTek. 2017. 8 ways new technology is revolutionizing landfill maintenance. Firmatek. Retrieved from
http://www.firmatek.com/2017/02/28/landfill-maintenance/. Accessed August 14. 2018.
Friday, J.B., L. Keith,F. Hughes. 2015. Rapid ‘Ohi’a Death (Ceratocystis Wilt of ‘Ohi’a). College of tropical
agriculture and human resources, University of Hawaiʻi. PD-107.
Goldstein, J. and M. 2005. Controlling odors at composting facilities. BioCycle. Retrieved from
https://www.biocycle.net/2005/05/24/controlling-odors-at-composting-facilities/. Accessed August
13, 2018.
Harler, C. 2014. Operations focus: Maximizing value. Recycling Today. Retrieved from:
https://www.cdrecycler.com/article/cdr0314-sorting-operations-focus/. Accessed 23 April 2019.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 11-5
HDOH (State of Hawaii, Department of Health). 2013. Common CESQG hazardous waste streams and
preferred management (brochure). Hawaiʻi. State Department of Health Environmental
Management Division. Retrieved from:
http://health.Hawai’i.gov/shwb/files/2013/06/commoncesqg.pdf.
HDOH (State of Hawaii, Department of Health). 2015. Report to the twenty-eighth legislature State of
Hawaiʻi. Department of Health, Office of Solid Waste Management, State of Hawai’i, Honolulu HI.
HDOH (State of Hawaii, Department of Health. 2017. Fact Sheet–How to Manage Your Scrap Tires. State
of Hawai’i Department of Health, Environmental Management Division Solid and Hazardous Waste
Branch. Revised May 2017. Accessed on November 20, 2018 from:
http://health.hawaii.gov/shwb/solid-waste/
Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2017. County seeks nonprofits’ help on organics recycling. Southwest
Journal. Retrieved from: http://www.southwestjournal.com/news/green-digest/2017/07/hennepin-
county-nonprofits-organics-recycling/. Accessed July 26, 2018.
Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2018. Organics. Hennepin County Green Disposal Guide. Retrieved from:
https://www.hennepin.us/green-disposal-guide/items/organics. Accessed August 24, 2018.
Institute for Local Government. 2011. Adopting a mandatory commercial recycling ordinance. Retrieved
from http://www.ca-ilg.org/case-story/adopting-mandatory-commercial-recycling-ordinance.
Accessed July 6, 2018.
Karidis, A. 2017. Employing new weapons to fight landfill odors. Waste 360. Retrieved from
https://www.waste360.com/nuisances/employing-new-weapons-fight-landfill-odors. Accessed
August 13, 2018.
Keep America Beautiful. 2018. Recycle Bowl. Retrieved from: https://www.kab.org/recycle-bowl/why-
recycle-bowl. Accessed July 22, 2018.
Kenny, H. 2013. Solid waste collection update: subsection of annual privatization report 2013, local
government privatization. Retrieved from https://reason.org/commentary/apr-2013-solid-waste/.
Accessed August 1, 2018.
King County 2018. Skykomish Drop Box. Flyer prepared by King County Department of Natural Resource
and Parks, Solid Waste Division. Accessed on the following website:
your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/facilities/skykomish-transfer.asp?ID=366
Lakhan, C. 2015. A comparison of single and multi-stream recycling systems in Ontario, Canada. Wilfrid
Laurier University, Ontario, CA. doi: 10.3390/resources4020384.
Lasky, Z. 2018. Scrap metal market: May 2018. Advanced remarketing services. Retrieved from:
https://www.arscars.com/scrap-metal-market-may-2018/. Accessed May 29, 2018.
MacKerron, C. 2012. Unfinished business: the case for extended producer responsibility for post-
consumer packaging. Retrieved from:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59a706d4f5e2319b70240ef9/t/5a7e426ff9619ab1a90b004d
/1518223990918/REPORT-2012-UnfinishedBusiness_TheCaseforEPR.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2018.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
11-6 August 2019
Maui County Government 2008. Chapter 5, MSW, White Goods, and Bulky Waste Collection DRAFT.
Mei, G., Balletto, G., Francesconi, L., Furcas, C., Naitza, S., Pani, L., Trulli, N. 2014. Reuse of construction
and demolition wastes (CDW). The case of Sardinia Island (Italy). Department of Civil, Environmental
Engineering and Architecture (DICAAR), University of Cagliari, Italy.
NSW. 2017. North South Wales Environmental Protection Authority. NSW Illegal Dumping Strategy
2017-20 Consultation Draft. Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/~/media/EPA/Corporate%20Site/resources/ illegaldumping/epa-
illegal-dumping-strategy-2017-20-170229.ashxAccessed October 18, 2018
NSWMA (National Solid Wastes Management Association). 2011. Privatization: Saving money,
maximizing efficiency, and achieving other benefits in solid waste collection disposal recycling. The
National Solid Waste Management Association, Washington DC.
OMI Industries. 2017. MSW management: safely countering the rise of landfill odors. Odor management
industries. Retrieved from http://odormanagement.com/blog/msw-management-safely-countering-
the-rise-of-landfill-odors/. Accessed August 13, 2018.
One Guam. 2018. Zero waste plan. Retrieved from: http://www.one.guam.gov/zero-waste/plan/5-zero-
waste-plan.html. Accessed July 24, 2018.
Peter, D. 2014. Odor control chemicals; not all chemicals are the same. Waste Advantage Magazine.
Retrieved from https://wasteadvantagemag.com/odor-control-chemicals-chemicals/. Accessed
August 13, 2018.
PVT Land Company 2019. Accessed information on April 25, 2019 at: http://www.pvtland.com/about-us/
Ramsey County. 2018. Organics recycling. Retrieved from:
https://www.ramseycounty.us/residents/recycling-waste/collection-sites/organics-recycling.
Accessed August 24, 2018.
Recycle Hawaii 2009. Zero waste implementation plan for the County of Hawaiʻi. Prepared by Recycle
Hawaii and Richard Anthony Associates, San Diego, CA.
Recycling Production News. 2016. Entsorga opens US’s first resource recovery facility to utilize
mechanical biological treatment. Retrieved from
https://www.recyclingproductnews.com/article/22366/entsorga-opens-uss-first-resource-recovery-
facility-to-utilize-mechanical-biological-treatment. Accessed August 9, 2018.
Resource Recycling Inc. 2016. How British Columbia can improve its packaging EPR effort. Retrieved
from https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2016/11/30/how-british-columbia-can-improve-its-
packaging-epr-effort/. Accessed May 19, 2018.
Rogoff, MJ. 2015. Solid waste collection automation in the United States. WM&R. doi:
10.1177/0734242x14558164. Accessed August 1, 2018.
SAFE (Sustainable Alternative Feed Enterprises). 2016. Food and organic waste recycling legislation
options and opportunities (powerpoint). Sustainable Alternative Feed Enterprises, Reno, NV.
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
August 2019 11-7
Seattle Public Utilities. 2017. 2017 recycling rate report. Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, WA.
Seattle Public Utilities. 2018. Cart size calculator. Retrieved from:
https://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/Recycling/HouseResidentsRecycle/CartSizeCalculator/inde
x.htm. Accessed July 26, 2018.
Seltenrich, N. 2018. Emerging waste to energy technologies: Solid waste solution or dead end?
Environmental Health Perspectives, Petaluma, CA. 124. Doi: 10.1289/ehp.124-A106.
Silva dos Santos, I., Barros, R.M., Tiago Filho, G.L. 2018. Economic study on LFG energy projects in
function of the number of generators. Sustainable Cities and Society. 14: 587-600. Doi: https:
doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.04.029
State of Hawaiʻi (Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism). 2016. State of Hawaiʻi
Data Book Individual Tables and Updates by County, last modified November 2017.Retrieved from:
http://dbedt.Hawai’i.gov/economic/databook/2016-individual/
State of Hawaiʻi (Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism). 2018a. Population and
Economic Projections for the State of Hawaiʻi to 2045, DBEDT 2045 Series, Table A-3. Hawaii County
Population Projection, Selected Components, 2010-2045. Accessed at:
http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/economic-forecast/2045-long-range-forecast
State of Hawaiʻi (Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism). 2018b. Population and
Economic Projections for the State of Hawaiʻi to 2045, DBEDT 2045 Series, Table A-30. Total Civilian
Jobs, Labor Force, and Employment for Hawaii County, 1980-2016. Accessed at:
http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/economic-forecast/2045-long-range-forecast/
Steel. 2010. The new steel, appliance recycling for environmentally friendly consumers. Steel.org.
Retrieved from:
https://steel.org/~/media/Files/AISI/Steel%20Markets/fs_Appliance_sept2010.pdf?la=en. Accessed
July 25, 2018.
Stevens, B. J. 1980. Handbook of Municipal Waste Management Systems Planning and Practice. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi. 2004. No. 22022. Konno et. al., vs. County of Hawaii
SWANA (Solid Waste Association of North America). 2007. Pay as you throw waste collection and
recycling program implementation: Borough of Parkesburg, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Prepared
by Gannett Fleming, Inc, Harrisburg, PA. Retrieved from:
http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Waste/Recycling/lib/landrecwaste/recycling/techreports/Parkesburg.pd
f. Accessed October 18, 2018.
SWANA (Solid Waste Association of North America). 2014. H-power: Honolulu program of waste and
energy recovery. Retrieved from
http://swana.org/portals/0/awards/2014/Waste%20to%20Energy/Honolulu%20_Waste-to-
Energy.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2018.
US Census Bureau. 2010. Census data, source data accessed September 2011.
http://geoportal.hawaii.gov/datasets/2010-census-County-boundaries County
Dra
f
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawaiʻi
11-8 August 2019
US Census Bureau. 2018. QuickFacts: Hawaiʻi County. Retrieved from:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/Hawai’icountyHawai’i/PST045217. Accessed
May 28, 2018.
US Department of Commerce. 2012. Hawai’I 2010: Population and housing unit counts. Retrieved from:
https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-13.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2018.
Wake County, North Carolina. 2014. Strategy report part 1: Organics diversion, residential food and yard
waste. Prepared by HDR, Raleigh, NC.
WasteZero 2015a. Per Capita Residential Trash in Southern Main, Head-To-Head Comparison Of
Municipalities With Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) And Those With No PAYT, June 2018.
West Hawaii Today 2019. Waste not: Company takes environmental approach to deconstruction in West
Hawaii, by Max Dible, Tuesday, April 30, 2019.
World Steel Association. 2017. Worldsteel short range outlook–2017/2018. Retrieved from:
https://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2017/worldsteel-Short-Range-Outlook-
2017-2018.html. Accessed July 21, 2018.
Yepsen, R. 2011. Residential food waste collection in the US. BioCycle. Retrieved from:
https://www.biocycle.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bc120123.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2018.
Dra
f
t
Appendix A
SWAC Meeting Summaries
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
SOLIDWASTEADVISORYCOMMITTEE
COUNTYOFHAWAI‘I
MEETINGMINUTES
Monday, March19, 2018
10:10a.m. to12:39
Hawai‘iCountyBuilding
PunaConferenceRoom #1501
25AupuniStreet
Hilo, HI96720
CommitteeMemberspresent:
GeorjeanAdams
StevenAraujo
BarbaraBell
PaulBuklarewicz
RobertEly
GeorgeHayducsko
AlanOkinaka
AdamScharf
1. INTRODUCTORYREMARKS
OpeningandintroductoryremarksweremadebyGregoryGoodaleat10:10a.m.
Mr. GoodaleintroducedhimselfastheSolidWasteDivisionChieffortheDepartmentof
EnvironmentalManagementandexpressedhisappreciationtoallthemembersfor
beingapartoftheSolidWasteAdvisoryCommittee (SWAC) andformakingthe
commitmenttohelptheCounty. Heexplainedheisnottechnicallyapartofthisgroup
butwantstowelcomeeveryoneandexpressappreciationfortheMayorappointing
everyoneandeveryoneacceptingtobeapartofthiscommittee.
Mr. Goodaleintroducedthefollowingpeople: WilliamKucharski, Directorof
EnvironmentalManagement, andDianeNoda, DeputyDirectorofEnvironmental
Management; MaryFujioandTinaDeMello, whoworkwiththeDepartmentandwillbe
helpingandassistingatthesemeetings; KeyraWong, DeputyCorporationCounsel;
DavidTarnas, whowillbehelpingwithfacilitatingthesemeetings; andDennisLee, who
istheSeniorProjectManagerDennisLeeandaconsultantwithWesleySegawaand
Associates (WSA), whichisthe primeconsultantforthisproject.
Mr. GoodaleturneditovertoDirectorWilliamKucharskitosayafewwords.
Mr. Kucharskithankedeveryoneforbeingpartofthiscommittee. Itisanimportant
effortontheCounty’sparttoplanandplanningisimportant. Hethankedthemembers
1
Dr
a
f
t
forvolunteeringtobeonthecommittee, becausetheplaniscriticallyimportanttothe
Countyandthepeoplewholivehere. Hisdoorisalwaysopen, andifthereareany
issues, don’thesitatetoaskhim. .
2. INTRODUCTIONOFCOMMITTEEMEMBERSANDSTAFF
GeorgeHayducskogaveanoverviewofwhoheis. MostofhiscareerwasinWisconsin,
whereheworkedforthreedifferentcountiesanddesignedtworecyclingprograms. He
hasover30yearsofexperiencefromlandfillstowastetoenergy, andhedesignedtwo
successfulrecyclingprograms. HehopeshisexperiencewillhelpHawai‘iCountyinthis
process. Hethankedallofthemembersforbeinghereandtakingtimeoutoftheirday
tovolunteerforthecommunityinhelpingmakingtherecyclingandsolidwaste
programsbetter. Heaskedthecommitteetointroducethemselvesandexplaintheirrole
todayandconnectionwithsolidwasteandrecycling.
BarbaraBell: ShewastheExecutiveDirectorforRecycleHawai‘ibeforePaul
Buklarewiczforacoupleofyears. ShewasalsoonthelasttwoSWACcommissions
andthroughthatbecametheDirectorofEnvironmentalManagement, fromwhereshe
retiredin2007.
AdamScharf: HeworkscurrentlyatPohakuloaArmyTrainingAreaastheProgram
ManagerofSolidWasteandRecyclingfortheUnitedStatesArmyontheBigIsland.
Pohakuloamanagesovertwomillionpoundsofrefuseayearandbeganaquality
recyclingprogram38monthsago. Theywereatafivepercentdiversionrate, diverting
wastefromtheCountyofHawai‘i’slandfill. Theyaretracking63percentofallrefuse
generatedatPohakuloaanddivertingitfromtheCounty’slandfillbywayofcomposting
foodwaste, grindandchipwoodandturnitintoorganicmatter). Theyalsomanageall
themetals, ferrousandnonferrous. Hehasalotofboots–on-the-groundexperiencein
buildingprograms, approaches, andtechniquestoapprovediversionrates. He
recognizestheimportanceofthiscommittee, andthat’swhyhehadvolunteeredtobea
partofit. Hedoesalotofdataanalysisandanalyzesthewastestreamonaregular
basistocomeupwithmetricsandpostsandtracksthedatatoensuretheyarealways
trackingwhothelargecontributorsareandwhattheyarecontributing, andthenbuild
programsaroundthatandmeasureimprovements. Heknowshewouldbeofvalueto
thiscommitteetohelpbuildabetterplanforthenexttenyears.
GeorjeanAdams: SheiscurrentlyretiredandistheVicePresidentandsecretaryfor
RecycleHawai‘i. SheisalsoontheboardofthehomeownersAssociationforwhereshe
livesatMaunaLaniResort. ShestartedherlifeasaJuniorBureaucratwithEPAafter
graduatingcollegeandworkedwithagroupthatdefinedwhathazardouswastewas.
Thenshegotajobat3M, wherethefocuswasonproductstewardship/lifecycle
management, tryingtofigureouthowtomakesurethatproductsthat3Mmakesdonot
causeissuesupondisposal. ShehasbeenactivewiththeAmericanChemicalSociety
andhasworkedasanindependentconsultantforthreeyears. Shebringsanindustrial
perspective, workingwithcompaniesandtheirproductsandissuesonhowtomanage
2
Dr
a
f
t
wastethroughthecommercialstream. Asaresidentofthisisland, shewantstokeepit
thebestandmakeitbetter.
StevenAraujo: HeownsandoperatesD&DRubbishServiceandhavebeendoingitfor
twenty-fiveyears. HestartedbackwhenStevenYamashirowasmayorandhasseen
thechangesfromthattimeuntilnow. Hedoesbelieveinsomeoftheprogramsandis
alsoarealist, askingquestionssuchasisitgoingtowork? Howmuchisitgoingtocost
thetaxpayer, isthereanactualbenefit? Andhowisthisgoingtoaffecthisbusinessand
therestoftherubbishbusinesses?
PaulBuklarewicz: HehasbeentheexecutivedirectorforRecycleHawai‘iforthepast
15years. RecycleHawai‘iisa501(c) (3) nonprofit. Educationistheprimarymission,
andresourcemanagementrecyclingpromotion. Hehasbeenfacilitating, initiatingand
expeditingalotoftherecyclingprogramshereontheisland (E-wastecollection, used
motoroil, homecomposting) andalongwithBarbaraservedonthelastgoaroundofthe
SolidWasteAdvisoryCommitteetenyearsago.
KeyraWong: SheisadeputycorporationcounselandadvisesDEM, DPWandtheReal
PropertyTaxDivision. Hercapacityhereistohelpthiscommitteeandprovidelegal
advice.
RobertEly: Heisaretiredchemicalengineerandenvironmentalengineerandis77
yearsold. Rightnowheisfullyemployedasaconsultantinaprojectthathasnothingto
dowithwhattheSWACisabout. Heprovidedsomebackgroundonprojectshehas
workedon --thedesignandmanagementofChem’sSecuritySystemsHazardous
WasteLandfillatArlingtonOregon; CasmaliaHazardousWasteLandfillinCasmalia
California; heworkedforZeffro, whichisbasedinWisconsin, asamanagerofprocess
designonsludgemanagementsystems; hehelpeddesigntheanaerobicdigestive
systemsforAlaskaLumberandPulpinSitkaAlaska; hegotinvolvedheavilyinthe
AinakoaPonoProjectandcameincontactprofessionallywithBillKucharskiwhenBill
waswithAECOM; andduringthelastgoaroundwiththeincinerator, heworkedfor
Covantaasaconsultantlookingatbothpoliticalaspectsandtechnicalaspects. Heis
hopingtolendprofessionalexpertisetothisgroup.
AlanOkinaka: HeisaretiredmanagerfromGTEHawaiianTel. Hewasformerlyan
electricalengineerandinitiallymanagedtechnologybutendedhiscareermanaging
people. Hefeelstheleastcertifiedwithanythingtodowithsolidwastemanagement,
butbeingapartofthecommitteeisprivilegedtobeapartofgroupthatistryingto
managesomethingthatisverydifficulttosolve. Hastwocompostpilesandembraces
1, 2and5plasticsforrecycling. Hegetsupsetifhehasmorethanone32gallonbagof
trasheveryweekandflattensallcorrugatedboxesdownreligiously.
Mr. OkinakaaskedhowtheEnvironmentalManagementCommission, theSolidWaste
CommissionandtheDepartmentofEnvironmentalManagementinteract. Mr. Goodale
respondedthatBillKucharskiandDianeNodaoverseetheDepartmentof
EnvironmentalManagementandthetwodivisionsthatarewithinit, whicharetheSolid
WasteDivisionandtheWastewaterDivision. TheEnvironmentalManagement
3
Dr
a
f
t
Commission’smembersarealsoappointedbythemayor, anditismoreofaformal
commissionthataddresssolidwastemanagementissuesaswellaswastewater
managementissues. TheSWACtakesonsolidwastemanagementbyitselfandis
requiredbytheStateofHawai‘itodevelopanupdatedplaneverytenyears.
Ms. NodaexplainedthattheEnvironmentalManagementCommissioniscreatedbythe
CountyCode, andpartofitsdutiesaretoadvisetheDepartmentonsolidwasteand
wastewaterprograms, includingwastereductionstrategies, recycling, littercontrol,
communityinvolvement, andotherissues. TheSolidWasteAdvisoryCommitteeis
createdbyStatelaw, anditslimitedpurposeandlimiteddurationisonlyuntilour
revisedsolidwasteplanissubmittedtotheStateOfficeofSolidWasteManagement.
ThedeadlineforthisisNovember2019. Aconsultanthasbeenhiredtosubmittheplan.
SheexplainedthebinderstheyweregivenincludedHRSChapter342Gwhich
addressestheIntegratedSolidWasteManagementPlan. Itestablishesthateach
Countyistohaveacommitteeappointedbythemayor. Thiscommitteeisconvening
becausetheten-yearmarkisnextyear.
3. STATEMENTSFROMTHEPUBLIC
None
4. ELECTIONOFCHAIRANDVICECHAIR
Mr. BuklarewicznominatedGeorgeHayducskoaschairandMs. Bellsecondedthe
nomination, andallvotedinfavor.
Ms. AdamsnominatedMr. Okinakaasvicechair; Ms. Bellsecondedthenomination;
andallvotedinfavor.
Ms. NodaexplainedthattheCharterpointsoutthatforanadvisorycommittee, you
wouldneedamajorityofthosepresenttomakeanyactionvalid, andforacommitteeof
eightmembers, theywillneedfiveforaquorum.
5. NEWBUSINESS
a. OrientationbyOfficeoftheCorporationCounselon:
1) SunshineLaw
Ms. WongprovidedabriefoverviewoftheSunshineLaw. Itappliestothiscommittee
becausethisbodywascreatedbyStatestatute; andcommittees, boardsand
commissionscreatedbyStatestatutearesubjecttotheSunshineLaw. Accordingtothe
CountyCharter, Section13-20, thiscommitteeissubjecttoopenmeetingsprovisions.
Thiscommitteehasbroaddiscretiontomakedecisionsandformpublicpolicy. They
havetoprotectthepublic’sinterestandtherighttoknowaboutthecommittee’s
decision-makinganddeliberations. TheSunshineLawrequiresnodiscussingboard
4
Dr
a
f
t
businessoutsideofanopenmeeting. Everymeetingmustbeopentothepublic, unless
thereisanexecutivesessionorlimitedmeetingasallowedbystatute. Boardsmust
providenotice, accepttestimony, andkeepminutes; andtheycannotconsidermatters
notincludedontheagenda. Thisbecomesimportantbecausepeoplefromthepublic
maytestifyonmattersnotontheagenda. Ifthathappens, itwouldbethechair’sroleto
tellthatpersonitisnotontheagenda. Committeemembersalsoshouldnotallowa
discussiontogettangential, becausethepublicwouldnothavehadtherightofnotice
andwouldnothaveknownthatwouldhavebeendiscussed. Basically, theycannot
discussissuesthatarenotontheagenda.
Mr. Scharfaskedwhether, iftheywereworkingonacomponentofthisprojectandhe
hadaquestionforMr. Okinaka, hecouldcallhimandaskthequestionorifhehadto
askitatanopenmeeting. Ms. Wongsaidithadtobeatameeting. Twomembersare
allowedtodiscussmattersbutcannotcommittovotingonanything.
Mr. Okinakawhetherthecommitteehastheauthoritytoacceptpublictestimonyon
somethingthatisn’tontheagenda, andMs. Wongsaidtheywouldhavetoamendthe
agendaby2/3votestoacceptthetopic. Ifit’sareasonablyimportanttopicthatwould
affectanumberofpeopleitcannotbeaddedtotheagenda, anditcouldbeplacedon
thenextagenda. Itisuptothechair’sdiscretion.
Mr. BuklarewiczsaidthatMs. AdamsisontheBoardofDirectorsforRecycleHawai’i,
andheisnotontheboardbutattendsthemeetings. IftheSWAChasdiscussionon
somethingthatisalsodiscussedattheboardmeetings, heandMs. Adamsmayneed
torecusethemselves. Ms. Wongsaidthatiftheydiscussmattersintheboardmeetings
thatsomehowrelatetotheSWACanditspurpose, thenheshouldnotparticipateinthat
discussion. IftheSWACisgoingtomakeadecisionwhichwouldimpacthowhedoes
hisbusiness, heshouldrecusehimselffromvotingonthatdecision.
Ms. WongcontinuedwithherSunshineLawpresentation, asfollows:
openmeeting” requirement. Everymeetingwillbeanopenmeetingandall
personswillbepermittedtoattendunlessotherwiseprovidedbyinthe
constitution. Portionsofmeetingscanbeclosediftheygointoexecutive
sessionorforotherlimitedexceptions. Allmeetingswillneedtobeheldina
publicplace, andboardshalltakeofficialactionandvotesinpublic. They
cannotvoteinexecutivesession. .
Ifsomeoneisdisruptingameetingtowherethemeetingcannotcarryon, the
chairhasthediscretiontoremovethatperson.
Anyinterestedpersonmaysubmitwrittenororaltestimonyonanyagenda
item. Mostboardssetareasonabletimelimitof3minutes.
ThenoticeandagendamustlistallitemsthattheBoardintendstoconsider,
andtheagendamustbesufficientlydetailedastoprovidethepublicwith
5
Dr
a
f
t
adequatenotice. Thenoticeandagendamustbefiledwiththecountyclerkat
leastsixdayspriortothemeeting.
Anagendamaybeamendedwitha2/3votesofallmembers, butanitemof
reasonablymajorimportancewhichwouldaffectasignificantnumberof
peoplecannotbeadded. Itwouldneedtogoonthenextagenda.
TheSunshineLawdoesnotapplytosocialeventsattendedbyboard
membersinwhichboardbusinessisnotdiscussed, anditdoesnotapplyto
non-boardmembers. Thereshouldbenodiscussionwithnon-boardmembers
regardingmattersdiscussedinclosedsessions.
Twoboardmembersmaydiscussboardbusinessoutsideofameetingtoseek
informationsolongasnocommitmenttovoteissoughtormade. Bewareof
serialcommunications--thelanguageisfoundinHRS92-2.5a.
Otherpermittedinteractions: Ms. Wongdescribedotherpermittedactions
pursuanttotheSunshineLaw.
Executivemeetingsareclosedtothepublic. Amotiontoenterexecutive
sessionshallbestatedinopensession, andatwo-thirdsvoteoftheboard
memberspresentisnecessaryinordertogointoexecutivesession.
Minutesarerequiredtoincludethe, date, timeandplaceofthemeeting,
membersabsentorpresent, thesubstanceofwhatwasdiscussed, votes
taken, andanyotherinformationthatanymemberwantstoaddtothe
minutes. Executiveminutesmaybewithheld, andminutesmaybe
transcribedorsummarizedbynotestaken.
Ms. Wongsaidthatiftherulesarenotfollowedandsomeonebringsanactionwithin
ninetydays, apersoncouldactuallybechargedwithamisdemeanorandthenremoved
fromtheboard.
2) RulesofProcedure
Ms. WongexplainedthattheSWACwillfollowthegeneralrulesofprocedure
formulatedbyacombinationoftheRobert’sRulesofOrder, theCountyCharter, and
theHawai’iRevisedStatutes.
Aquorumisthemajorityofthemembersoftheboardorcommittee, whichwouldbefive
fortheSWAC. Priortocallingthemeetingtoorder, thechairpersonhasthedutyto
determinewhetherquorumispresent. Ifquorumisnotpresent, thechairpersoneither
waitsuntilthereisoneor, ifitisknownthatquorumisnotgoingtobemet, thanthe
chairpersoncallsthemeetingtoorder, announcestheabsenceaquorum, and
entertainsamotiontoadjourn. However, youcanstillreceivetestimonyand
presentationsontheagendaitems, andquestiontestifiersand/orpresenters, provided
6
Dr
a
f
t
thatnodeliberation, andnodecision-makingorvotingismadeuntilthenextmeeting.
Membersshallcreatearecordofthetestimonyorpresentation, andthiswouldbe
presentedintheminutesbeforedeliberationordecision-makingatthenextmeeting, the
boardisrequiredtopresentacopyofthetestimonyandpresentationsreceivedatthe
canceledmeeting, andthecommitteehasanopportunitytoreporttotheothermembers
whoweren’tthereaboutwhatwassaid.
Ifamemberisnotabletomakeittoameeting, pleasecallthedepartmentandletthem
knowinadvance.
Mr. Okinakaaskedwhether, ifamemberofthepublicsubmittedalargedocumentwith
theirtestimony, ifitneededtobeaccepted, andMs. Wongsaidtheywouldneedto
receiveandacceptthewholetestimonyanddocument.
Ms. WongexplainedthatRobert’sRulesandgeneralproceduresprovidefororder,
decorum, fairness, efficiencyandclarity. Generallywhenthereisamotion, itisthen
seconded, thenthereisadiscussion, andthenyoucallforthevote. Forboardsadvisory
boardssuchasSWAC, theaffirmativevoteofthemajorityofthosewhoarepresentat
themeetingshallbesufficienttomakeanyactionvalid.
Thechair’sroleistobethemanagerofthemeetings, andthechaircannotmake
motionsorsecondanymotion. Thechaircanonlyrecognizethemotionandthe
second. Thechairmustmaintainaneutralpositiontoprovidecredibilityforrulings,
protectionofminoritypositions, andtomaintainthepublic’strust. Activeparticipationon
ofthechairtaintstheabilitytoproperlymanagethemeetings. Thechairhastomanage
themeeting, helpitbeproductive, anddemonstratethepowerofprocess. Thechair
mayrelinquishhisorherdutiestothevicechair, anditwouldbebesttodosopriorto
deliberationstakingplace. However, theabilitytorelinquishshallnotbeusedfrequently
andcannotbeusedbackandforthforconvenience. Theactingchairmustaccept
limitationsfortheagendaitem, keepthepeace, andmaintainorderanddecorum.
Leadershipandconflictresolutionisrequiredbothforboardmembersandanyonein
attendance. Publicparticipationshouldbeencouraged, buttherightsofoneperson
shouldnottrumptherightsoftherest. Itiseasiertomaintainorderifallpartiesbelieve
thatthechairisbeingafairandreasonablepersonwithoutpredispositions.
Everyoneshouldknowtheirroleasaboardmember. Thememberssetthepace. When
motionsaremade, theyshouldbevalid, clearlyarticulated, andeasytounderstand.
Avoidgettinginvolvedinpersonalityissues, respectotherswhohavethefloor, andwait
yourturn. Ifamemberwantstomakeastatementormotion, raiseahandtogetthe
chair’sattentionandwaituntilcalleduponbythechair. Addressingotherscasuallyis
okay; butusingsurnamesisrecommended. Keepthemeetingontrackanddon’trelyon
thechairtokeepdiscussionfocused. Ifdiscussionbecomesrepetitiveorirrelevant,
stateasmuchtothechairasapointofprivilege, andthechairshouldredirect
deliberationsorcallforthevote.
Ms. WongsaidshehasacheatsheetontheRobert’sRulesavailable.
7
Dr
a
f
t
Mr. Scharfaskedabouttheprocessforaspecialfieldtrip, andMs. Wongsaiditwould
countasalimitedmeeting. TheStatewouldneedtobeaskedforpermission, andthe
limitedmeetingwouldbeclosedtothepublic. Minuteswouldberequired. Memberscan
discussbutcannotvote. IftheSWACwantstohaveasitevisit, theyneedtomakea
requesttotheCorporationCounsel, whowillhelpgetpermissionfromtheState. There
isarequirementtoadvisethepublicofthelimitedmeetingandthatitisclosedforthe
public.
ChairHayducskocalledforafive-minuterecessat10:58a.m.
Themeetingreconvenedat11:07a.m.
b. SolidWasteDivisionprogramoverview.
ChairHayducskogaveanoverviewoftheCounty’srecyclingandsolidwasteprograms
usingaPowerPointpresentation. Themainpointsaresummarizedbelow.
HI5DepositBeverageContainerProgram – CertifiedRedemptionCenters
Wehave11Countysponsoredsitesatthetransferstations.
Thereare8privateCertifiedRedemptionsitesaroundtheCounty.
TheHI5BeverageContainerRedemptionProgramforFY2016-2017diverted
6,071tonsofrecyclablesfromtheCounty’slandfill.
TheHI5percentredemptionrateforHawai‘iIslandis87%.
2-BinRecycling
The2-Binprogramconsistsof2distinctcollectionbins: aMixedRecyclingbin
andaGlassbin
The2-BinRecyclingprogramfor2016-17diverted5,990tonsofrecyclablesfrom
theCounty’sLandfill.
Signageisprovidedatthe2-Binsitesatthetransferstations, buttheyareseeing
quiteabitofcontaminationatthesites, whenthepublicdoesnotabidebywhat
recyclablesaretobeputintothecontainers. Educationiscriticalandneedstobe
doneconstantlyoryouwilllosetheeffectivenessoftheprogram.
Mr. Elyaskedifthereisanydataavailableastothecostoftheseindividualsegments
oftheprogram? Mr. Hayducskosaidyes, thereiscostassociatedanditistracked.
Mr. Scharfaskedwhythereisadropoffin2BinrecyclingandMr. Hayducskosaidthe
containersaresometimesnotavailabletothepublicbecausetheyarefull, andtheyare
tryingtoaddressthat. Mr. Scharfsaidresidentscanbelazy, andthereisaculturein
thehometodisposeoftrashinwhateverwayisconvenient. Trafficflowcouldbe
anotherproblem. ChairHayducskosaidthesearethingsthattheywillneedtolookat
andaddress.
Ms. Bellaskedwhatthecontaminationispercentagewiseandwhethertheyhaddone
awastecompstudyrecently, andChairHayducskosaidhewasnotsureandthata
8
Dr
a
f
t
wastecompstudyhadnotbeendonefortenyears. Theyarenotanticipatingdoing
one.
E-WasteRecycling
E-WasteRecyclingforFY2016-17diverted235tons
TheCountyElectronicWasteRecyclingProgramforresidencesinHilo,
Kealakehe, Wai‘andWaimea
TheCountycontractswithMr. K’s. AtMr. K’sitisfreeforresidenceson
Saturdays (theCountysubsidizesonSaturdays), andthereisareducedrateon
Saturdayforcommercialentities. SundaytoFridaythereisafeeforboth
residenceandcommercialentities.
HouseholdHazardousWaste (HHW)
Over2,882participatedinHHWduringFY2016
FY2016-17collected53tonsofmaterials
Thereare4locationsIslandwide: Hilo – twiceayear, Kealakehe – twiceayear,
Waimea – onceayearand onceayear.
Mr. Okinakaaskedhowmuchitcoststorunadayofcollectinghazardouswaste, and
ChairHayducskosaiditcostsaround $50,000perevent. Thecontractorrequiredto
providepersonnelandmoveitemscollectedoffisland. Thereisnodisposalsiteonthe
island.
ScrapMetal/WhiteGoods/Automobiles
ScrapMetal/Automobiles(AV) forFY2016-17diverted9075tons
UsedMotorOil
16,547gallonsofUsedMotorOilwasprocessedforFY2016-17
TheCountyhasvolunteerUsedMotorOilcollectionsites, islandwide.
Mr. Elyaskedwhatismeantby “processed”, andMr. Hayducskosaiditmeanswhatis
receivedandtakenforre-use--Itisnotjustcollectedandstored, itisbeingutilized.
TireEducation
TheyareeducatingtirevendorthroughoutHawai‘iCountyoftheirobligationto
chargecustomersforacceptanceanddisposalofusedtires.
Mr. Goodalewantedtomakefulldisclosureregardingtireeducation. Theyhad
receivedanoticeofviolationregardingtires, andaspartofasettlementwiththestate
theydevelopedthetireprogram, whichcommunicatestotheretailerstheirobligationto
takeusedtires. Thefeehastobechargedregardless. Ithasproducedrelatively
beneficialresults, butamaintaskismakingsureeveryoneknowsaboutit.
GreenWaste
GreenwastereceivedinFY2016-17inEastHawai‘i – over10,000tons; inWest
Hawai‘i – justunder30,000tons.
9
Dr
a
f
t
ThecurrentcommercialtippingfeetodisposeofGreenwasteis $21.25perton,
whichis25% ofthecurrenttippingfee. Thereisnochargeforresidential
customers
Mr. OkinakaaskedwhattheCountydoeswiththegreenwaste, andChairHayducsko
saidtheycontractwithHERtogrindupgreenwasteandcreatemulch. InEastHawai‘i,
theycontracttomakeenhancedmulchwhichdestroysvectors. InWestHawai‘ithey
don’tmakeenhancedmulchduetothelackofvectorsinthemulch. Bothsitesare
testedforfireantsonamonthlybasis.
ReuseCenters
Thereuseprogramhelpstoensureusablematerialsaredivertedfromthe
Countylandfills.
TheReuseCentersdiverted350.66tonsfromthelandfillduringFY2016-17
EducationandOutreach
Theprogramfocusesoneducatingthecommunityaboutthevalueofrecycling,
reuseprogramsanddiversionofmaterialsfromtheCountylandfills.
TransferStations
Thereare22transferstationsislandwide
LandfilltonnageforFY2016-17: SouthHiloSanitaryLandfill72,247tons (36,291
Commercial, 35,956County); WestHawai‘iSanitaryLandfill122,915tons
78,892Commercial, 46,023County)
c. PreliminaryDiscussiononGoalsandObjectives.
Mr. Scharfsaiditwouldbegreattobenchmarkwheretheyaretoday, toprovidea
baselinefortodayasapartofsettinggoals.
Ms. Adamsaskedhowtheyaregoingtoscopeandupdatewhatwasdonetenyears
agoandsuggestedtheycomparenumbersfromtenyearsago, whichwouldbe
interesting. Wouldbeinterestingtocomparewhatthosenumbersweretenyearsago.
Mr. AraujosaidhewouldliketoseethecostofRecyclingProgramcontracts, andMs.
Bellsaidtheywouldlikeallavailabledata.
Mr. Okinakasaidtheyshouldlookatnewmethods, landfillmining – metal, plasticsthat
canberecycled; devices/containersdevelopedforsafebackyardburning; bonfires –
clearoutacresandhavebonfires. HOWABOUT: Mr. Okinakasaidtheyshouldlookat
newmethodsoflandfillmining, lookingatwhatmetalandplasticscanberecycledand
whetherthereareobjectsthatcanbesafeforbackyardburning. Theycouldclearout
landandhavelargebonfires.
Mr. Scharfsaidthereisfoodwastetechnologythatturnsfoodintopig/chickenfeed.
10
Dr
a
f
t
ChairHayducskosaidhedoesn’twantanyonetobehesitanttothrowoutanythoughts
orproposals. Asagroupit’sgoodtothrowoutideas.
Mr. BuklarewiczsaidtheZeroWasteImplementationPlanontheRecycleHawai‘i
websiteshowsthat90% oftheplanwasadoptedintotheISMP.
ChairHayducskosaidtheobjectiveistoupdatetheISWMP, nottorewriteit. Theyall
wanttoprotectthelandandenvironment. Fortheschedule, theywerethinkingof
havingmonthlymeetings, andthencompletingandsubmittingtheplantothestateby
theendof2019. TherewillbedraftplanstheconsultantswillpresenttotheSWACfor
reviewanddebate. Thereisalottodo.
Mr. Elyexpressedconcernsaboutwhattheconsultantswouldbedoing, whetherthey
wouldbereportingtotheSWAConaregularbasis, andwhattheirtimelinewasfora
firstdraft. Mr. Goodalesaidtheycouldprovidethescopeofworkandwhattheyexpect
togetforthemoneytheyarepayingtheconsultant. TheSWACwillhavealotof
influenceoverthedirectiontheplantakes. Hewouldarrangetohavetheconsultant
contractavailablefortheSWAC’sreview.
Mr. Leeexplainedthatheworkedfortheconsultant, andtheyhadbeenhiredtodo
basicallyfourtasks: firstisthedesignprocess--themethodologytodeterminehowthey
aregoingtodotheupdate. Thesecondistopresentapreliminarydraft. Thethirdtask
istoconductpublichearings, andthelastistofinalizethedraftandsubmittothe
DepartmentofHealth. Thereisaschedulewithdetailedtasking, generaltasking, and
milestonesforeachtaskalongwiththescope.
d. Discussiononfrequencyofmeetings, besttimeanddaytomeet, and
location.
WithMr. Tarnas’ assistance, thegroupsettledonthesecondWednesdayofevery
month, from1:00p.m. to3:00p.m. fortheirregularmeetings, oratsuchotherdate, time,
andplaceasmaybespecifiedbytheSWAC.
MotionandVote: Msr. BellmovedtomeetonthesecondWednesdayofeverymonth,
startingonApril11, 2018, from1:00p.m. to3:00p.m. inHilo, unlessotherwisenoted.
Mr. Scharfsecondedthemotion, andallmembersvotedaye.
e. Decideondate, time, andlocationofnextmeeting.
Seeabove.
6. ADOURNMENT
Motionandvote: Mr. Scharfmovedtoadjournthemeeting, Ms. Adamssecondedthe
motion, andallmembersvotedaye.
11
Dr
a
f
t
Themeetingadjournedat12:39p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted:
TinaDeMello, Secretary
12
Dr
a
f
t
SOLIDWASTEADVISORYCOMMITTEE
COUNTYOF
MeetingMinutes
Wednesday, May9, 2018
1:10p.m. to3:21p.m.
AgingandDisabilityResourceCenter (ADRC)
1055 Street, Suite101
Hilo, HI 96720
CommitteeMembersPresent:
1. CALLTOORDER
ChairHayducskocalledthemeetingtoorderat1:10p.m.
2. APPROVALOFMINUTES
Mr. Buklarewiczsaidacorrectionwasneededonpage11, wherethereisareferenceto
Mr.” BellratherthanMs. Bell.
Motionandvote: Ms. Bellmovedtoapprovetheminutesascorrected, Mr. Okinaka
secondedthemotion, andallmemberspresentvotedaye.
3. STATEMENTSFROMTHEPUBLIC
Therewerenomembersofthepublicpresent.
4. UNFINISHEDBUSINESS
a. Distributeacopyofthe2009CountyofHawai‘iIntegratedResourcesand
SolidWasteManagementPlan (“IRSWMP”) updatetotheCommittee
Members
Dr
a
f
t
ChairHayducskodistributedcopiestothememberswhosorequested. Ms. Adamssaid
shewouldlikecopiesavailableformemberstoviewatallfuturemeetings.
b. OverviewbyGeorgeHayducskooftheDivertedandLandfillTonnageand
theCostofRecyclingPrograms.
ChairHayducskogaveaPowerPointoverviewonthepercentageandtonnageof
materialsmanagedanddivertedfromthelandfill. Healsogaveanoverviewofthecostofthe
recyclingdiversionprograms.
Themainpointsofhispresentationaresummarizedbelow:
FY2016-17TonnageofMaterialsManaged
o Landfill: 195,162
o Greenwaste: 40,465
o OtherReuse & RecyclingPrograms: 19,330
FY2016-17PercentageofMaterialsManaged
o Landfill: 76%
o Greenwaste: 16%
o OtherReuse & RecyclingPrograms: 8%
FY2016-17TonnageofMaterialsDivertedfromtheLandfill
o Greenwaste: 40,465
o Metal/Automobiles: 9,075
o Glass: 4,935
o OldCorrugatedCardboard (OCC)/Paper: 3,575
o Plastics (1,2 &5): 1,043
o ReuseCenters: 350
o E-waste: 235
o HouseholdHazardousWaste: 93
o UsedMotorOil (UMO): 24
FY2016-17PercentageofMaterialsDivertedfromtheLandfill
o Greenwaste: 68%
o Metal/Automobiles: 15%
o Glass: 8%
o OldCorrugatedCardboard (OCC)/Paper: 6%
o Plastics (1,2 &5): 2%
o ReuseCenters: 1%
o E-waste: lessthan1%
o HouseholdHazardousWaste: lessthan1%
o UsedMotorOil (UMO): lessthan1%
DiversionProgramContractedExpensesandCostperTon (UtilizingFY2016-
17DisposalReportData)
o GreenwasteContractedExpenses: $4,205,675
CostperTon: $104
o Metal/AutomobilesContractedExpenses: $945,338
CostperTon: $104
o 2-BinRecyclingContractedExpenses: $1,018,060
CostperTon: $170
Dr
a
f
t
o ReuseCentersContractedExpenses: $211,209
CostperTon: $603
o E-wasteContractedExpenses: $192,071
CostperTon: $817
o HouseholdHazardousWasteContractedExpenses: $220,406
CostperTon: $2,370
o UsedMotorOil (UMO) ContractedExpenses: $25,723
CostperTon: $1,072
Ms. Bellaskedwhethertherewasalandfillcostperton, andMr. Goodalerepliedthatit
costapproximately $145toputatonintothelandfill.
ViceChairOkinakaaskedwhetherthecontractedexpensesdiscountthefeesthatarepaid
totakethingstothelandfill, andChairHayducskosaidno, thatitisthecosttheCountypaysto
thecontractor. ItisthecosttotheCounty.
Mr. Buklarewiczcommentedthattheincreaseincostfore-wastewentupabout3cents
perpound. RecycleHawai‘ihadpulledin225tonsina12-monthperiod, anditwasabout38
centsperpound. Thisisbasedona3-yearaverageforbothEastandWest
Ms. Bellsaidthatatsomepointshewouldliketoknowthenetpricesofgreenwaste
minustipfee. Shewouldliketoseetheoverallcosttodeterminewhetherthegreenwastetipfee
istoohighortoolow. ChairHayducskoansweredhewouldhavethatnumberforthenext
meeting.
Mr. BuklarewiczaskedwhethertheUsedMotorOil (UMO) figureincludeswhatis
collectedattheHouseholdHazardousWasteCollection (HHWC) events, orwhetheritis
separate. ChairHayducskosaidthecharttheywerelookingatshowstheUMOcollectedbyboth
theDIYUMOvendors, andtheUMOcollectedattheHHWCeventsislistedundertheHHWC
event. Mr. GoodaleexplainedthattheCountyischargedbythegallonfortheUMOcollectedby
theUMOvendorattheUMOvolunteercollectionsites, andtheCountyischargedprimarilya
lumpsumforallthewastecollectedduringtheHHWCevents.
Mr. OkinakaaskedhowDEMdeterminesthetonnageofgreenwaste, andChair
Hayducskosaidthereisascalethatweighsallthegreenwaste. Ifthegreenwastecomesfroma
business, therewillbeachargeforit. Ifitcomesfromatransferstationthroughthepublic, itis
weighedbutthereisnocharge.
5. NEWBUSINESS
a. OverviewbyGeorgeHayducskoofthe2009IRSWMP
ChairHayducskohandedoutadraftonthestatusof County’s2009IRSWMP
andexplainedthatitshowsitemsrecommendedinthatplanandthestatusofthose
recommendations. Somerecommendationswereimplemented, andsomewerenot. Thestatusis
notyetupdatedonalltherecommendationsthatarelisted. Asanexample, hepointedouta
recommendationtoexpandandimprovepubliceducationandawareness. Thestatusshowsthat
therehasbeennodedicatedpubliceducationandawarenessprogramsinceJune2014.
Dr
a
f
t
Mr. Buklarewiczcommentedthateducationisthemostimportantfactorifthepopulation
istorecycle. ChairHayducskoagreedthateducation iscriticalandexplainedthatDEM’s
websiteismaintained, facilitytoursareprovided, andtheyissuepressreleases, advertise, anddo
presentations. However, theydonothavestafftodesignaneducationprogram.
Mr. Scharfaskedwhethertheconsultantwillbewritinganewdraftplanorwillbe
workingfromtheformerplan. Mr. Millerexplainedthatthisisagreattooltodeterminehowwe
implementedthecurrentplan, andanewplanwillbeproducedtofollowthrough.
ViceChairOkinakaaskedwhethertheywouldgetabreakdownofwhatwasnot
implementedfromtheoldplan, andMs. Adamsaskedabouttheywouldbereevaluatingtheold
recommendationsandsolutions. ChairHayducskorepliedthattheywouldbecomingupwith
ideas, andtheideaswillbeputinfrontofstaffandtheconsultantsforinclusionintotheplan.
b. OverviewbyGeorgeHayducskoofthe2-BinRecyclingProgram
ChairHayducskogaveapresentationonrecyclablematerialsandexplainedthathaving
cleanrecyclablesisalwaysimportantandhighlyrecommended, andmoresonowthatChinaand
otherAsiancountriesareallowingverylittlecontamination. Thereisalotofcontamination,
however, inDEM’s2-binrecyclebins. HI5itemsshouldberecycledatcertifiedredemption
centersratherthanbeplacedintothe2-binrecyclingbins.
Plasticcontainersnumbered1, 2, and5areacceptedinthe2-binrecyclingcontainers. It
isimportantforpeopletolookatthenumberonthesecontainersbeforeputtingthemintothe
binsatthetransferstations. Educationiscritical.
TheCountycontractswithBusinessServicesHawai‘i (BSH) tocollect, transport,
process, andmarkettherecyclablesfromthe2-binrecyclingprogram. BSHtakesthe
recyclablesbacktotheirfacility, whereindividualssortoutthematerialsinasortingline. HI5
glassbottlesgetshippedintactofftheisland, asrequiredbytheDepartmentofHealth. 2-bin
glassgetsrecycledandusedontheisland.
CountyrecyclingstaffinspectsthattheHI5cansandbottlesarelabeledproperlyatboth
retaillocationsandCertifiedRedemptionCenters (CRCs).
ChairHayducskoannouncedashortbreak. Recesswasheldfrom1:56p.m. to2:02p.m.,
atwhichtimehecalledthemeetingbacktoorder.
c. PresentationbytheDepartmentofEnvironmentalManagement’s
ConsultantregardingtheISWMPRewriteMethodology
ChairHayducskointroducedourDwightMiller, whowouldbeprovidingtheplanoutline
andschedule.
Mr. MillerexplainedthatheiswithParametrixandhasbeenin forabout32
years. HeworkedonMaui’sSWMPbackintheearly1990sandhasworkedonmiscellaneous
partsofplanssincethen. Hedoesalotofsolidwasteplanningaswellasafullspectrumofsolid
Dr
a
f
t
wasteworkinfacilityplanning, designconstruction, andsoon. HesaidthatChairHayducsko’s
earlierhandoutontherecommendations fromthe2009planandstatusinformsthecurrent
SWACastheygoforwardintothe2019plan. Theyareessentiallylearningfromthe2009plan
onwhatwasrecommended, howtherecommendationswereimplemented, whatcouldnotbe
implemented, andthenusingallthatinformationcomingintothenewplanningeffort.
1) PlanOutline
Mr. MillerprovidedaPowerPointoftheplanoutlineandsummarizedthetopics. Several
SWACmembersprovidedcommentsduringthepresentation.
SolidWastePrioritiesandPracticeswithreferencetoHawai‘iRevisedStatutes
Section342G-2.
o LandfillandTransferStations – SupportSystem
o Recyclersrequireahighergradeofmaterial
Backgroundonfiscalyear2017onlandfillandwastediversion.
o SolidWasteAnnualReports
o DiversionIncentiveProgram, wheretheCountyusedtopayfordata. Thereis
nolongerafinancialincentiveforbusinessestoprovidedata.
o ChairHayducskosaidhehopestoaskcommercialentitiesforrecyclingdata.
o Requirerecyclerstoproviderecyclingdata; ittakesareallylongtimefordata
togetintothesystem.
Ms. Bellsaidshewouldlikeatleastthelasttenyearsofannualreports.
BackgroundonDemographicsandProjections
o Projectoutwastestream
o Increasepercapita - populationpercapitaperdayintenyears
o Countyof COH) populationpercentchangeestimate (2010-2017):
8.3%
o Statepercentchangeestimate (2010-2017): 5.0 %
o COHprojectedgrowthrate (2010-2040): .5%
o Stateprojectedgrowthrate (2010-2040): .8%
BackgroundonTourism
o Touristprojection (2015-2040): 7.5million - justunder10million
SummaryStatusof2009Recommendations: Whatdoesitmeanandwhatdowesee
goingforward:
1. Fundingconstraints
2. CommodityMarkets - limitedrecyclingopportunities
3. Tipfeesimplemented
4. Expandedgreenwastedrop-off
5. EnhancedHouseholdHazardousWaste (HHW) andE-WastePrograms
6. Reconstructingtransferstations - HOVEandWai‘
Dr
a
f
t
7. ClosingtheSouthHiloSanitaryLandfill (SHSL); transferringwastetothe
West SanitaryLandfill (WHSL)
SWAC’sRole
o Recommendationsutilizingthecurrentstatusofexistingconditions
o Alternativesdevelopment
Doingtheplanningprocessforthenexttenyears
Whatmorecanbedoneonisland? Greenwaste; compost; foodwaste;
organics; compostingprograms
Mr. Scharfsuggestedpigfeed.
Ms. Adamssaidshewouldliketolookatachangeoftechnologiesandsmaller
units.
PlanningApproach
o InvolvingtheSWAC; gatheringideasandhowtheywillwork
o Developingapragmaticplanbyimplementingrecommendations
o Maintainingandimplementingtheplan
Ms. Adamsrecommendedbringinginsomeonefrom totalkaboutcurbside
pickup. Mr. Goodaleagreeditwouldbegoodtoevaluatecurbsideserviceandthe
areaswhereitcouldbeimplemented, giventheruralnatureoftheisland.
Mr. Milleraddedthata23% diversionratewithasystemthatdoesnothave
curbsideserviceormandatoryrecyclingisreallygreat.
PublicReview: DOHreviewandpublictocomment
PublicReviewandCompletion
ActionItems
o Short-Term
Background
FieldVisits
AlternativesDevelopment
o Mid-Term
ISWMPReviewandUpdate
InterimDraftReview
o Long-Term
PreliminaryDraftReview
FinalDraftReview
PublicHearings
Mr. MillerexplainedthattheSWACwillbringideastothetable, andhewillbe
providingaprintoutofthemethodology, amemorandum, areviewofpastrecommendation, data
collection, infrastructureandhumaninfrastructure, anddevelopadraftbyNovember. The
Dr
a
f
t
SWACwilltakefieldtripsandhaveadditionalmeetings. Topicswillbereviewedaroundthe
keyareasasopposedtoworkingonachapteratatime.
Mr. ScharfaskedMr. Millerwhathisbestsuccessstorywas, andMr. Millerresponded
thatinWashington, hedidaback-to-backplan. Itwasaveryrealisticandupfrontplan, andit
includedrecyclingandfacilityimprovement. Healsoworkedonastudyofcurbsidecollection
ofrecyclablesandtrashpickupforanurbancounty.
Mr. ScharfaskedMr. Millerwhetheritishardtoconvinceacommunitytoimplement
newtechnologyintotheinfrastructureandwhetherhehadinsightonthat. Mr. Millersaidyou
don’twanttohangthewholeplanontechnology. Afeasibilitystudywouldhelptogetdeeper
onwastecharacteristicssotheywouldknowwhatthey’redealingwith.
ChairHayducskoexplainedthathehadaskedthecommitteememberstodelete/recycle
thecontractthatwassenttothemearlierviaemailandreplaceitwiththehardcopyprovided
today, asthecopysentviaemailhasproprietaryinformation.
ViceChairOkinakaaskedforclarificationabouttheterm “updatetheplan” andwhether
itwasassumedtheformerplanisquitesolidandthebackboneforhowsolidwastemanagement
willbeaddressedforthenextseveraldecades. ChairHayducskosaidhefeelsthecurrentSWAC
willhelpdesignthebestplantheycanwithtoday’sknowledge. Theplanissomethingthatis
nevertrulyfinished, asnewwaysofdoingthingsalwayscomealong. Theywilldotheirbestto
lookintothefuture, figureoutwhattodo, andprovidetheroadmap.
Mr. Goodaleaddedthatalotofdifferentmethodologieshavebeenlookedatondisposing
oftrash, recycling, anddiversion; andtherealityisthatovertheyearstherehasnotbeenalotof
change. DEMseestheupdatetotheplanasincorporatingwhatevernewtechnologieswould
makesense. Somemethodologieshavegottenbetter, andtheyneedtofigureouthowthe
Countycandobetter. Noonewantstolookattheplanasjustmaintainingthestatusquoor
beingstagnant. TheupdateistomakeitbetterforthewholeCounty. Itisastatemandatefor
theplantobeupdatedeverytenyears, buttherealityisthattheplanislookedatandused
frequentlybyDEM. Hiscopyoftheplanisdog-earedandtaggedallover. Theoverallsystem,
however, canalwaysbeimproved. Hedoesnotwanttheprogramtobeinflexibleorrigid.
2) Schedule
Mr. MillerprovidedthescheduleviaPowerPointandsaiditwouldbeemailedtothe
members.
d. DiscussproposedlimitedmeetingandsitevisitforJune13, 2018: The
proposedsitestovisitonJune13, 2018are RecyclingandTransfer
Station, Kea‘auRecyclingandTransferStation, HiloRecyclingandTransfer
Station, SouthHiloSanitaryLandfill, EastHawai‘iOrganicsFacilityand
EastHawai‘iRegionalSortStation. Areasofthesesitevisitswouldbe
potentiallydangeroustothehealthandsafetyofthepublicand
impracticableforthepublictotakepartinallsectionsofthesesitevisits, itis
recommendedthattheCommitteeapprovealimitedmeetingforthesite
Dr
a
f
t
visitspursuanttoHawai‘iRevisedStatues § 92-3.1, subjecttoconcurrence
andapprovalofthedirectoroftheOfficeofInformationPractices.
Motionandsecond: Ms. Adamsmovedthatthecommitteeapprovealimitedmeetingon
June13, 2018, forinformationalandeducationpurposesandforthecommitteememberstogain
anunderstandingoftheCounty’svariousfacilitiesandhoweachoneoperates. Theproposed
sitesarethe andHiloRecyclingandTransferStations, theSouthHiloSanitary
Landfill, East OrganicsFacility, andEast SortStation. Astheareasofthe
proposedsitevisitswouldbepotentiallydangeroustothehealthandsafetyofthepublicand
impracticableforthepublictotakepartin, itisrecommendedthattheCommitteeapprovea
limitedmeetingpursuanttoHRS92.3-1, subjecttothedirectoroftheOfficeofInformation
Practicesand, shewouldadd, Pele. ViceChairOkinakasecondedthemotion.
Ms. Bellaskedwhythepubliccouldnotbeinvited, andMs. Wongexplainedthat
realistically, itisimpracticableforthepublictobepresentforthislimitedmeetingandthereare
potentialdangers. Mr. Goodaleaddedthatonlycommercialhaulersgointothesortstation, and
thatfromalogisticsandsafetystandpoint, themeetingshouldbelimited. DEMdoesprovide
opportunitiesforgroupstotourthefacilitiesuponrequest.
ViceChairOkinakacalledforthequestion.
Vote: AllmembersvotedayeexceptforMs. Bell.
Ms. Wongsaidthatifthemeetingwasaregularmeeting, itwouldalsoneedtobeADA
compliant.
ChairHayducskoproposedtoamendtheagendatodiscusshavingasimilarsitevisitin
Julyonthewestsideoftheisland, andheaskedifanyonewouldmovetoamendtheagendato
addthis.
Motionandvote: Ms. Bellmovedtoamendtheagendatodiscussasimilarlimited
meetingandsitevisitinJulyinWest ViceChairOkinakasecondedthemotion, andall
membersvotedaye.
ThefacilitiestobevisitedinWest werediscussed. ChairHayducskosaidthey
wouldhavestaffavailabletoexplainwhattheywouldbeviewing.
Ms. Bellsaidthatassheistheclosestresidenttothe TransferStation, theycan
eitherstartorendthetourthereandhaverefreshmentsatherhome.
Motionandvote: Ms. BellmovedthatthecommitteeapprovealimitedmeetingonJuly
11, 2018, forinformationalandeducationpurposesandforthecommitteememberstogainan
understandingoftheCounty’svariousfacilitiesandhoweachoneoperates. Theproposedsites
aretheWest SanitaryLandfill, West OrganicsFacility, theRMPusedmotoroil
drop-off, andtheWaimeaRecyclingandTransferStation. ViceChairOkinakasecondedthe
motion, andallmembersvotedaye.
Dr
a
f
t
ViceChairOkinakaaskedwhatasanitarylandfillisasopposedtoanunsanitaryone.
ChairHayducskosaidasanitarylandfillisengineeredtoprotecttheenvironment. Mr. Goodale
addedthatthebiggestadvancementisthedailycoveringofthewaste.
6. FUTUREAGENDAITEMS
ViceChairOkinakasaidhewouldliketolearnaboutsomenewtechnologiesthatare
beingdeployed, notjustnationwidebutintheworld, tohandlesolidwaste. Hewouldliketo
knowtheireffectiveness, notjusteconomicallybutinkeepingcommunitiessafeandhealthy.
Mr. ScharfsaidthelieutenantcolonelathisbaseisinterestedinmeetingwithMr.
GoodaleandChairHayducskotodiscusspossiblypartneringwiththeCountyonreducing
operatingcosts. Hehassomeverygoodideasandlotsofinformationtoshare. Itmayalsomake
senseforhimtospeakwiththeSWAC.
Ms. AdamssuggestedhavingBioenergy speakwiththem. Theyareinthe
permittingprocesstoprovideawaste-to-energyandrecyclingfacilityonthewestsideofthe
island, andtheyarelookingatdifferenttechnologiestoimplementatthesite.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
ChairHayducskosaidthenextregularmeetingneededtobescheduledandaskedifthe
secondWednesdayinAugust (August8) wouldworkforeverybody, atthesamelocation. The
datewasagreedupon.
DiscussionwasheldonwhattimethelimitedmeetingsinJuneandJulywouldstartand
wheretheywouldmeet. Mr. Hayducskosaidtheinformationwouldbesentoutoncetheyhadit
finalized.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Motionandvote: Mr. Buklarewiczmovedtoadjourn, Mr. Scharfsecondedthemotion,
andallmembersvotedaye.
Themeetingadjournedat3:21p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted:
TinaDeMello, SecretaryDr
a
f
t
Draf
t
SOLIDWASTEADVISORYCOMMITTEE
COUNTYOF
MINUTESOFLIMITEDMEETINGANDSITEVISITS
June13, 2018
12:15p.m. to4:12p.m.
Committeemembers present:
12:15p.m.: ChairHayducskocalledthemeetingtoorderandannouncedallwhowere
present. Hestatedthataftertheyfinishedlunch, everyonewastomeetoutsideatthevanwhich
hadbeenarrangedtoprovidetransport.
Mr. Goodaleaddedthatsafetyvestswouldbeprovidedtoeveryonewherenecessary.
12:28p.m.: ThegroupdepartedtheDepartmentofEnvironmentalManagementat345
Street, Suite41, Hilo, inaCountyof van.
EAST SANITARYLANDFILL:
Arrivaltime: 12:40p.m.
Mr. Goodaledrovetothetopofthelandfill, whereeveryonegotout. Heexplainedthey
werestandingonthelastsectionofthelandfill, whichwouldbeclosinglatethisyearorearly
nextyear. Hespokeaboutwhattheworkersweredoingandhowtherubbishwascompacted,
drained, andcoveredafterworkeachday. Oncethelandfillcloses, itwillbecoveredwithatop
similartoAstroturf. TheDOTwillnotallowtheCountytoexpandthelandfillinHilobecause
ofhowitattractsbirds, whichareaproblematthenearbyairport. Also, itwillbecheaperto
trucktherubbishtoWest thantobuildanewlandfill.
EAST REGIONALSORTSTATION:
Arrivaltime: 1:13p.m.
Dr
a
f
t
Thesortstationisalargemetalbuildinginwhichsometherubbishfromthetransfer
stationsisdumped. Whentimepermits, staffwillsortOCC, metal, andotherrecyclablematerial
outofthetrash. Theremainingtrashispickedupbyaloaderandplacedintoatrailerfor
transportationtotheWest SanitaryLandfill.
EAST ORGANICSFACILITY:
Arrivaltime: 1:30p.m.
Greenwasteisdroppedoffatthisfacility. Thematerialisloadedintoamachinewhich
grindsitupintosmallpieces. Thematerialisthenlaidoutinwindrowsuntilitreachesahigh
enoughtemperature (130°) tokillinvasivespecies. Itiscalledenhancedmulch. Palletsareonly
acceptediftheyaremadeofuntreatedwood. Thereisnochargetodropoffresidential
greenwaste. Itcosts $60,000to $80,000permonthtooperatethefacility.
HILORECYCLINGANDTRANSFERSTATION:
Arrivaltime: 1:42p.m.
Mr. GoodaleexplainedthatthebuildinginthefrontofthegroupistheHI-5Redemption
Center, acrossistheReuseCenter, andbehindisthe2-binsystem.
ThegroupdepartedtheEast facilitiesatabout1:45p.m. anddrovebacktoHilo,
whereMr. Kamelamelawasdroppedoffathisofficeat1:55p.m. KeyraWongreplacedMr.
Kamelamelainthegroup.
RECYCLINGANDTRANSFERSTATION:
Arrivaltime: 2:30p.m.
EveryonelookedattheThriftStoreaswellasthevariousrecyclingbins, trashchutes,
andthegreenwastearea. Mr. Goodalesaidtheasphaltpavingincludedrecycledglass, andthey
weretryingtoincorporatesomereusableproductlandscapingatthefacility.
RECYCLINGANDTRANSFERSTATION:
Arrivaltime: 3:22p.m.
EveryonelookedattheThriftStore (twolargetentedstructures), andviewedthevarious
recyclingbins.
At3:53p.m., thevanheadedbacktotheDepartmentofEnvironmentalManagement. En
route, ChairHayducskosaidthatfornextmonth’sfieldtrip, theplanwastomeetattheoffice
again, andMs. AdamsandMs. BellwouldbepickedupattheWaimealandfill, whichiscloser
towheretheylived. Moredetailedinformationwouldbeprovidedasthedateapproached. Ms.
Bellremindedeveryonetheywereinvitedtoherhomeforrefreshmentsafterwards.
Dr
a
f
t
Motionandvote: Ms. Adamsmovedtoadjourn, Ms. Bellsecondedthemotion, andall
membersvotedaye.
Themeetingadjournedat4:12p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted:
MaryE. Fujio, Assistant
Dr
a
f
t
Draf
t
SOLIDWASTEADVISORYCOMMITTEE
COUNTYOF
LIMITEDMEETINGMINUTESANDSITEVISITS
July11, 2018
8:30a.m. to3:15p.m.
Committeememberspresent:
8:30a.m.: ThegroupdepartedtheDepartmentofEnvironmentalManagementat345
Street, Suite41, Hilo, inaCountyof van. Thegroupconsistedofcommittee
membersHayducsko, Okinaka, Bucklarewicz, aswellasGregoryGoodale, DwightMiller, andKiana
Suganuma.
Mr. Goodaleaddedthatsafetyvestswouldbeprovidedtoeveryonewherenecessary.
WEST SANITARYLANDFILL:
Arrivaltime: 10:03a.m.
ThegroupmetcommitteemembersAdamsandBellattheofficeandhadameetingwithall
committeemembersandstafflistedpresent. Therewasdiscussionaboutthehistoryofthelandfillandan
overviewofthelandfillinregardstoacreageandthedivisionofcells. Itwasalsonotedthatthisparticular
landfillislined. Thegroupproceededtothetopofthelandfillforfurtherdiscussion.
WEST ORGANICSFACILITY:
Arrivaltime: 11:24a.m.
Greenwasteisdroppedoffatthisfacility. Greenwasteisloadedintoagrinderwhichgrindsthe
materialintomulch. CommitteeChairHayducskoledthediscussionregardingthedifferencesofthe
mulchprocesshereattheWest OrganicsFacilitycomparedtoEast OrganicsFacility
EWOF). ItwasdiscussedthatbecausethereisverylittlemoistureanditishotterthanHilo, theydonot
needtoprocessthemulchthesamewayastheEHOF. Thefacilityalsocollectsuntreatedandunpainted
pallets, astheyalsodoatthe (EHOF). SherriIzunocreatedahandoutthatshowsasummaryofthecosts
andvolumesofcommoditiesforthefacility.
Dr
a
f
t
PUAKORECYCLINGANDTRANSFERSTATION:
Arrivaltime: 11:43a.m.
Mr. Goodaleprovidedanoverviewofthe2-binsystematthislocation, andstaffprovidedan
overviewoftheothercomponentsofthesite.
Afterleavingthe RecyclingandTransferStation, thegroupconvenedatMs. Bell’shome
forlunch.
WAIMEARECYCLINGANDTRANSFERSTATION:
Arrivaltime: 1:13p.m.
Mr. GoodaleandTanyaBuckleyexplainedhowtheWaimealocationworksinregardstothe2-
binsystem. Mr. GoodalealsonotedthatanewGreenwastedrop-offwascreated, whichisfavoredby
residentsandlocatedtowardsthebottomofthetransferstation. Thegroupthenlookedthroughthereuse
storeandproceededbacktothevan.
ThegroupdepartedforHilo, andtheotherCommitteemembers (Ms. AdamsandMs. Bell)
proceededtogohome.
ThevanarrivedbackinHiloat3:15p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted:
GeorgeHayducsko, Chair
Dr
a
f
t
SOLIDWASTEADVISORYCOMMITTEE
COUNTYOF
MeetingMinutes
Wednesday, August8, 2018
1:02p.m. to3:05p.m.
AgingandDisabilityResourceCenter
1055 Street, Suite101
Hilo, 96720
Committeememberspresent:
GeorjeanAdams
StevenAraujo (arrivedat1:14p.m.)
BarbaraBell
PaulBuklarewicz
RobertEly
GeorgeHayducsko, Chair
Staffandotherspresent:
MaryFujio, Director’sprivatesecretary (DEM)
DennisLee, WesleyR. Segawa & Associates, Inc.
DwightMiller, Parametrix (viaphone)
GeneQuiamas, EnvironmentalComplianceSpecialist (DEM)
KatherynSeckel, Parametrix
KeyraWong, DeputyCorporationCounsel
Notpresent:
AlanOkinaka, ViceChair
AdamScharf, Member
1. CALLTOORDER
ChairHayducskocalledthemeetingtoorderat1:02p.m. Hepointedoutthata
correctionwasneededonagendaitem5.a. TheJulysitevisitoccurredonJuly11, 2018, not
onJuly7, 2018.
2. APPROVALOFMINUTESOF:
a. May9, 2018, Meeting
Motionandsecond: Ms. Bellmovedtoapprovetheminutes, andMs. Adams
secondedthemotion.
Dr
a
f
t
ChairHayducskosaidacorrectionneededtobemade. Mr. Scharfwasincorrectly
listedasnotpresent; however, hewaspresentandmadecomments.
Mr. Buklarewiczwantedacorrectionmadeonpage3, wherehesaidRecycle
pulledin225tonsofe-wasteina12-monthperiodat38centsperpound. Heclarifiedthat
thisisbasedona3-yearaverageforbothEastandWest
Motionandvote: Ms. Adamsmovedtoapprovetheminuteswiththecorrections,
Ms. Bellsecondedthemotion, andallmembersvotedaye.
b. June13, 2018, LimitedMeetingandSiteVisits
Motionandsecond: Ms. Bellmovedtoapprovetheminutes, andMs. Adams
secondedthemotion.
Ms. Adamsnotedthatthephrase “commissionerspresent” neededtobereplaced
with “committeememberspresent.”
Motionandvote: Ms. Bellmovedtoapprovetheminutesascorrected, Ms. Adams
secondedthemotion, andallmembersvotedaye.
c. July11, 2018, LimitedMeetingandSiteVisits
Motionandsecond: Mr. Buklarewiczmovedtoapprovetheminutes, andMr. Ely
secondedthemotion.
ChairHayducskopointedoutthatagaintheword “commissioners” neededtobe
replacedwith “committeemembers” whereveritappeared.
Motionandvote: Ms. Adamsmovedtoapprovetheminutesascorrected, Ms. Bell
secondedthemotion, andallmembersvotedaye.
ChairHayducskointroducedKatherynSeckel, whoiswithParametrixandworks
withDwightMiller. HeexplainedthatMr. Millerwouldbeparticipatingintoday’smeeting
byphone, ashewasnotabletobethereinperson. Hewillbeabletohearandcanjumpin
ifheneedsto.
3. STATEMENTSFROMTHEPUBLIC
Noonefromthepublicwaspresent.
4. UNFINISHEDBUSINESS
a. Distributeanddiscussthe “DraftStatusof County’s2009
IRSWMP” recommendations.
2
Dr
a
f
t
ChairHayducskoexplainedthatheandMs. Seckelwouldbetag-teamingonthe
variousagendaitems.
Ms. Seckelpassedouttwohandouts, oneatimelineforthereportandtheothera
workbookforrecommendationsandoptions. Sheexplainedthatthe2009planhad
extensiveworkputintoitandisagoodplan. SheclarifiedthattheSWAC’staskisnotto
createanewplan, buttorevisetheplanwithcurrentandnewinformation. Itwasbrought
toherattentionthattheprocessneededtomoveforwardalittlefaster, sothetimelineis
aggressivebutdoable, giventhattheyarerevisingtheplanandnotdoingatotalrevamp.
Ms. SeckelsaidsheisworkingwithDwightMillerforParametrix. Sheexplainedher
backgroundandhistoryinsolidwasteplanning, andhowitrunsinherfamily. Shecreated
theSWACWorkbookforRecommendationsandOptions (“workbook), whichiscloselytied
tothescheduleandisdesignedtohelpthemembersmakedecisions. Theobjectiveisto
engagetheSWACandCountyintolookingatoptionsandrecommendationsforthe2019
planbystartingwiththe2009plan. Sincethemembershavevisitedthesolidwastesites
andaresavvyonthecurrentCountyconditions, theycanfocusonoptionsand
recommendations.
Sheexplainedthatthememberswerebeinggivenhomework, andtheywouldhavetwo
weekstodoit. Theyweretolookthroughthe2009planandmakedecisions. Sheprovided
instructionsonhowtousetheworkbook, whichincludeseachrecommendationinthe2009plan,
thechaptertofindthem, andthestatusofeachrecommendation. Theirhelpisneededto
determinewhethertoretainorremovearecommendation, andprovidecontextandtheirown
ideas. Theycanexpandasmuchastheywant.
Severalmembershadquestionsabouthowtousetheworkbook, andMs. Seckeland
ChairHayducskoprovidedanswers. ChairHayducskosaidthatifamemberwasinterestedonly
incertainsectionsoftheplan, he/shecouldconcentrateonthosesections. Theydidnotneedto
gothrougheverysinglechapterandrecommendation, butcouldfocusonwhattheyweremost
interestedin.
Itwasdecidedtheworkbookneededtobemadefillablesothatmemberscouldtypein
theircommentsandideas. Thefontalsoneededtobemadebiggertomakeitmorereadable.
Ms. SeckelsaidshewouldhavesomeoneatParametrixconverttheworkbookintosomethingthe
memberscouldworkwith.
Ms. Wongremindedthemembersthattheyneededtodotheirhomeworkontheirown,
withoutinteractingwithothermembers. Atanopenmeeting, theycandiscusseverything.
Ms. Seckelstatedthataftershereceivestheirinput, theCountywillalsoprovideinput.
AttheSeptember12, 2018, meeting, theCountyandSWACwillcometogether.
Shetransitionedtothetimelinehandout, whichshowedtheschedule. Itgoeschapterby
chapter, showingwhenroughdraftsaretobeprepared, submittedtotheCounty, andthento
ParametrixbytheCountywithcomments. TheyareworkingwiththeCountytomakesurethey
3
Dr
a
f
t
areaccuratelydepictingexistingconditionsandwanttogetasomewhatcompletedrafttothe
SWACbeforetheystartreviewingthoseexistingconditions. Theyhavealreadypreparedrough
draftsonseveralchapters.
Lookingatthetimeline, theSWACmemberswillhavetwoweekstolookthroughand
providecommentstotheCountyonChapters3through7. TheCountywillreviewanddigest
theSWAC’sinput. TheywillmeetonSeptember12todeliberateagainandtalkaboutoptions
andrecommendations. Parametrixwillbeparallelingthem, workingonaninterimdraftthatwill
ultimatelygototheSWACforreview. Astheinterimdraftisbeingworkedon, theSWACwill
bemakingdecisionsonChapters8through10. Parametrixisslatedtoprovidetheinterimdraft
onNovember9, 2018. TheSWACwillmeetonNovember14, 2018, wheretheycantalkabout
theirimpressionsandbringupanyredflags. TheyCountyandSWACwillreviewandcombine
theircommentstogetherontheinterimdraftandsubmitittoParametrixonNovember23, 2018,
andParametrixwillstartworkingonthenextdraft, whichwillgototheStateDepartmentof
Health (“DOH”) byDecember14, 2018. TheDOHwillhave90daysbylawtoreviewthe
preliminarydraft. TheSWACdoesnothaveameetingscheduledduringthetimetheDOHwill
bereviewingthepreliminarydraft. Ameetingwillbescheduledastheygetclosertothe
process.
ChairHayducskoexplainedthatthedraftsParametrixpreparedsofarareonlyon
existingconditions, whichneedtobeupdatedtoshowwhatispresentlygoingon—howmany
transferstationsexistnow, howmanyrecyclingsites, etc.
TheSWACmemberswereinstructedtodotheirhomeworkandsubmittheir
recommendationsandoptionstoMaryFujiobyAugust22, 2018.
Discussionwasheldonwhetherthereisawaytoprioritizerecommendations, assome
aredefinitelymoreimportantthanothers. ChairHayducskosaidtheyneededtofigureouta
mechanismonhowprioritizeasagroup. Ms. Seckelsuggestedthattohelpprioritize, theycould
reflectonthegoalsthatwereestablishedintheplan. Allofthegoalsareontwopages, and
perhapstheycouldprioritizebasedonthesevenbulletsthere.
Ms. Adamsaskedwhy “resources” wasnotinthetitleoftheplannow, andChair
Hayducskosaidtheyarefollowingwhatthestateiscallingtheplan. Thecontentswillbethe
same.
5. NEWBUSINESS
a. SummarybyGeorgeHayducskooftheJune13, 2018, andJuly11, 2018,
LimitedMeetingsandSiteVisitsanddiscussionregardingfacilityconditions.
ChairHayducskobrieflysummarizedtheSWAC’ssitevisits. AttheJunevisittheyspent
sometimeatthelandfillitself, receivinganoverviewoftheprocess. Theyalsostoppedbythe
sortstation, wherehaulersandbusinessesdumptheirrubbish. Whileremaininginthevan, they
drovebytheorganicsfacility, theHI-5RedemptionCenter, andthe2-binrecyclingarea. Then
theyvisitedthe RecyclingandTransferStationandviewedthesystemthere, andthen
madeaquickstopatthe RecyclingandTransferStation.
4
Dr
a
f
t
OnJuly11, 2018, theyvisitedthewestside. FirsttheysawtheWest Sanitary
Landfill, whereGregGoodaleandGeneQuiamasprovidedanoverview. Theythensawthe
West OrganicsFacility, andthenthe RecyclingandTransferStation. Theyhad
lunchatMs. Bell’shome. TheirlaststopwasattheWaimeaRecyclingandTransferStation,
whereamajorissueistheheavywind.
Heheardfromthemembersthatsignageandeducationareproblems. Signsneedtobe
updated, andmoreeducationisneeded. TheSWAC’sgoalasacommitteeisnottomicro-
managebuttomakesureinformation, suchasthesignageandeducationissues, getsintothe
report.
Hewentaroundthetableandaskedeachmemberfortheirthoughtsfromthesitevisits.
Ms. Bellsaidtherehastobeawaytohavethesecurityguardsortransferstation
attendantshelpeducatepeoplewhentheydisposeoftheirtrash. Sheknowsthereareunion
issues, butitisnotacceptablewhenshegoestothe TransferStationandseestheworker
justsittingthereinhistruck.
Mr. Buklarewiczsaidhestillwonderswhyhecan’tbringhisusedmotoroiltothe
transferstations.
Mr. Elysaidheusesthe TransferStationfrequentlyandwouldsaythatabouta
thirdofthetime, thebinsareoverflowing. Inaddition, thereisanewcontractorhandlingthe
ReuseCenter, andthechangesmadetherehavenotbeenforthebetter. Mainly, itisverymessy.
Ms. Adamssaidshehasthesamecommentsastheothers. Thereisaseparateneedfor
education. Itiseasiertothrowthingsawaythantorecycle. Shewassorelydisappointedatthe
sortstationinHilo, becausethereisalotofcommercialwastethatcouldberecycled. The
signagealsoneedsimproving. Thereneedstobeconstantawarenessandtraining. Peoplejust
don’tknowwhatcanandcannotbedone. Managementneedstobemoreontopofthings. At
theWaimeaTransferStation, whichsheuses, itisoftenoverflowing. Pressureneedstobeput
onthepeoplewhorunthethriftstores.
Mr. Araujosaidheechoeseverybody. Theregionalsortstationwasoriginallybuiltasa
reloadstationbeforeMayorKim’sadministration, andhedoesn’tknowhowitgotchanged. The
Countyneedsbetterpersonnelmanagementatthetransferstations, sortstation, andlandfills.
Scrapironandoilstillgetdumped. Heseescommercialvehiclesdumpingtheirloadsatthe
transferstations. Therecycleandreuseareasarelikewaywardthriftstores, withrustyandopen
containersofpaint. Alotoftheitemspeopledonateendupinthelandfillbecausetheyarenot
storedproperly. TheCountyneedsbettercontractswithvendors. Vendorsneedtobeheldto
theirresponsibilities. Thegreenwastesystem, ontheotherhand, isworkingperfectlyandisnice
andclean.
ChairHayducskothankedeveryonefortheircomments.
5
Dr
a
f
t
b. Statusofplandevelopmentandschedule.
ChairHayducskosaidthiswasalreadydiscussed, butiftheyhadanyquestions, Ms.
Seckelwastheretohelp. Ms. Bellaskedforclarificationonwhentheirworkwouldbedone,
andMs. SeckelansweredthattheSWACistotrytocompletetheirworkinDecember. They
mayneedtomeetagain, dependingonthedegreeofcommentsreceivedfromtheDOH.
c. County’sproposedrecommendationsdiscussion.
1) ProposedEast OrganicsFacilityupdate.
ChairHayducskoaskedGeneQuiamastoupdatethemonthestatusofthisnewproject.
Mr. QuiamassaidtheEAisdoneandwaitingtobepublished.
ChairHayducskopresentedseveralslides, showingamapoftheprojectlocationandan
aerialphotographofthearea. Healsoshowedslidesofatypicalprocessflowdiagram, a
conceptualsiteplan, an “unwindingdevice” andblowerunit, andcoveredwindrows. The
proposedsiteisonaboutthreeacresattheShipmanIndustrialPark. Thefacilityistobeoperated
byHawaiianEarthRecycling. Theconceptualplanhasawastereceivingarea, biofilter, scale,
office, andwindrows. Thecompostingwillbeaerobic. Itwillbeaclosed, controlledsystem
andisonthehighendforcomposting.
Ms. Adamsaskedwheretheorganicswillcomefrom, andChairHayducskosaidalotof
thematerialwillbegreenwasteandfoodwaste. Exactlywheretheadditionalmaterialwillcome
fromorhowitwillgettothefacilityhasnotyetbeenidentified. ThevendorhastoldtheCounty
theycanmakecompostwithwhattheyhave, buttheCountyshouldlookintocapturing
additionaltonnageoforganicsandhowtocollectandtransporttheorganics.
ChairHayducskosaidiftheSWACisconcernedabouthowtheorganicsfacilitywillget
thewaste, theyshouldincludeitinthereport. Doesastudyneedtobedonetofigureoutwhere
thematerialwillcomefrom? Canthefoodbepickedupeveryday? Theseareafewofthe
questionsthatcouldbeansweredinareport.
ThenextslideshowedtheminimumannualtonnagewhichtheCountyguaranteesto
HERandthetonnageguaranteestartingJuly1, 2020.
Ms. Bellaskediftherewasacontractortobuildthefacilityandrunit, andChair
HayducskosaidtheCountywouldbebuildingit, andtherewouldbeacontractforthe
managementandoperation.
Mr. QuiamassaidthedraftEAistobepublishedonAugust23, 2018. Assoonasthe
Countyreceivesthefunds, theywillgointothedesignofthefacility. Thedesignisrelatively
simple. Thevendorwillneedtogothroughsometestingtoensurethecompostbeingmade
meetsthecriteriasetbytheU.S. CompostingCouncil. Fromthere, theCountycanstarttaking
inmaterialforcomposting. Thedrop-deaddateisJuly1, 2020.
6
Dr
a
f
t
Mr. AraujoaskediftheCountyboughttheparcelfromShipman, andMr. Quiamassaid
Shipman’sindicationsaretheywanttolease. However, everythinghingesontheoutcomeofthe
finalEA. ThelandacquisitionanddesigncannotbecompleteduntilthefinalEAisdone.
Mr. AraujosaidtheintersectionbyShipmanIndustrialParkisverydangerous, anditwill
bebadifthegeneralpublichastogothere. Mr. QuiamassaidtheDOThasaprojecttofundand
signalizethatintersectionduringthenextfiscalyear.
2) Newtechnologies.
ChairHayducskosaidsomemembershadaskedhimtocheckoutBioEnergy
HehasbeenplayingphonetagwithGuyKaniho. Hewilltrytogetsomeinformationaboutthe
projectandperhapshaveMr. Kanihogiveashortpresentationonit.
Ms. Seckelsaidtherearealotofnewtechnologiesoutthere, buttheyareveryspecificas
tosizeofcommunity, populationcenters, howmuchwasteisgenerated, andwhatistryingtobe
done. TheSWACneedtonarrowwhattheywanttolookat—aretheylookingtoreduce
greenhousegasemissions? Improvethesortingofrecyclables? Improvethesortingofsolid
wasteresidualsbeforegoingtothelandfill? OncetheCommitteeidentifieswhatneedstobe
improved, thenastudycanbedone.
Ms. Adamsaskedifthewastecharacterizationwasgoingtobeupdated, andChair
Hayducskosaidthereisnoplantodoawastecharacterizationstudyfortheplan. However, if
theSWACrecommendsit, theycanmakethatsuggestion. Ms. Seckelsaidtherewasa2008
studyreferencedinthe2009plan, andshebelievesitwouldhavesimilarresultsnow.
Ms. Adamssaidshewasjustaskingthequestion, asshewonderswhetherthingshave
changedenoughtowarrantanotherstudy.
Mr. Araujosaidthatbeingahauler, hefeelshowtonnageiscalculatediswrong. Itisthe
volumethatshouldmatter, nottheweight. Thelandfillisnotgettingtooheavy—itisgettingtoo
full.
ChairHayducskosaidwastecompositionstudiesareuseful, butheisconcernedbecause
theyalwaysgetjustasnapshotofthewaste, whateverwasdumpedinthattimeframe. Thewaste
couldbeverydifferentinanotherhour.
DwightMiller (viaspeakerphone) askedtoweighinonthis. Hesaidawaste
characterizationstudycouldbedone, focusingonthoseareasofgreatestinterest. Somemajor
demographicandsocialchangeshaveoccurredinthepast10years, particularlywithonline
shoppingandthepackagingwiththat, andthetypesofplasticsbeingused. Astudywouldhelp
getabetterfeelfortherecyclablesthataretogointothevariousfacilitiesbeingproposed. He
wouldliketodoawastecharacterizationstudyandfocusonthoseareasofparticularinterestto
theCountyandwherethebestopportunitiesareforpullingmaterialoutofthelandfill.
7
Dr
a
f
t
Mr. Araujosaidbeforeawastecharacterizationstudyisdone, theymaywanttogoback
andlookatpreviousstudiesdone. Onewasdonebeforetheinitiationofthetippingfee. The
companythatdidthestudywentthroughandweighedeverythingthatwentintothelandfill.
Ms. Bellsaidtherewasalsoastudydonein2002.
3) Otherpotentialoptionsofemphasisforwastediversion: constructionand
demolition, cardboard, promotionandeducation.
Ms. Seckelthatforawastecompositionstudy, theywouldtrytoidentifyparticularlow-
hangingfruit. Inlookingatthe2008study, cardboardwasanitemthatcoulduseabetter
system. Notalltransferstationshavetheoptionofseparatingcardboard, soanideathatcouldbe
integratedintotheplanistoseparatecardboardatallstations.
Thecommitteemembersdiscussedideasonhowtoimplementhavingcardboard
recyclingatallthetransferstations.
Onconstructionanddemolition, Ms. Seckelsaiditcouldstayontheisland, asfaras
reusingmaterialsfromconstructionprojectsinnewprojects—suchasreusingconcrete. The
permittingprocesscouldrequirecommercialdeveloperstodosomesortofwastereductionplan.
Ithasbecomemoreregulatedacrossthenation. TherearealotofopportunitiestoreuseC&D
materialontheisland.
Ms. BellwonderedhowC&Dmaterialcouldbereusedontheisland, andMr.
BuklarewiczsaidthereisanOahucompanythatwillbehiringinKonatomarketC&Dmaterial.
Thereisabigmarketforit.
Mr. Millersaidthereissomematerial, suchasdrywallandcleanwood, thatwouldhavea
strongmarketincertainlocations. Therearedefinitelyopportunitiestouseit. Itisalsobetterto
usealotofthismaterial, suchasconcreteandasphalt, asaninertfillratherthanhaveitgotoa
mixedlandfillwhereitisjustmixedinwithothergarbage, whichdoesnottakeadvantageofthe
inertcharacteristics. Whenconstructioncompaniesstartidentifyingthematerialstheyare
generating, thenmarketswilldevelopwithvendorswhowillactuallystartusingthematerial. It
wouldalsobegoodtohavepre-demolitionorpre-constructionrecyclingplansforcommercial
projectssotherecyclersouttherecanseewhatmaterialswillbecomeavailableandsecurethem
fortheirrecyclingfacilities. Ifthemessagegetsoutthatmaterialsareavailable, marketscanbe
developedaroundthem.
Regardingeducationandoutreach, ChairHayducskoprovidedanoverviewonwhatis
beingdonethisyear. Theyhaveabudgettodoeducationandoutreach, butitconcernshimthat
notenoughisbeingdone. Theycurrentlyhave $85,000budgetedfortheeducationandoutreach
projectdiscussed. Indevelopingtheoutreach, thefirstthingistodecidewhatmessagetheywant
togetouttothepublic—itneedstobeamessagethatreachespeoples’ hearts. Itshouldbe
simpletoupdatetheirhandoutsandpublications.
Thenextstepistodevelopsignageatthetransferstations, whichisontheirscheduleto
do. Anotherstepistoreachouttothecommunity, throughradioads, TV, publicservice
8
Dr
a
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
Draf
t
3/,)$ 7!34% !$6)3/29 #/--)44%%
Wednesday, September 12,
2018 1:01 p.
m. to3:50 p.m. AgingandDisability
ResourceCenter1055KinooleStreet,
Suite101Committee memberspresent:
AlanOkinaka, Vice
ChairRobert ElyBarbara
BellPaul
BuklarewiczGeorge
Hayducsko, Chair
StevenAraujo (arrived
at1:05p.m.) Staffandothers
present: KeyraWong, Deputy
CorporationCounsel GeneQuiamas, Environmental
ComplianceSpecialist (DEM) TinaDeMello, Clerk
III (DEM) Otherspresent: Katheryn
Seckel, Parametrix (
viaphone) Consultant Notpresent: Georjean
Adams, Member
AdamScharf, Member
1. CALL TO
ORDER ChairHayducskocalled
themeetingtoorderat1:01p.m. 2. APPROVALOF
MINUTES OF: August8, 2018, MeetingMotion and Vote:
Ms. Bellmoved to approvetheminutes, andMr. Okinaka secondedthe motion. Allmembers
voted ayetoapproveminutes. 3. STATEMENTSFROM
THE PUBLICNostatementsfrom
thepublic
Dr
a
f
t
4. UNFINISHEDBUSINESS
a) $¨²¢´²²¨®- ®- ³§¤ *´-¤ 3¨³¤ 6¨²¨³² ¡¸ #®¬¬¨³³¤¤ ¬¤¬¡¤±² ¶§® ¶¤±¤ meeting. Chair Hayducsko explained
that committee members spent a lot of time ontoursin
June
andJulyandmentionedthatsinceMr. OkinakaandMr. Scharfwerenotableto
makethelastmeetinghewouldlike togivethem theopportunitytogivetheirthoughts,
concerns, oriftheyhadanythingtosharewiththecommittee. Mr. Okinakastartedwith
the topthingthatheRETAINsthinkingaboutisthefact
that wecallthesortstationasortingstation; andthathefeelsthatthefacility
shouldbemadeintoasortingstation. When Mr. Okinakaobservedthesortstationsoperationonthe
tour, hefeltthatthe sortstation issimplyaplacetoloadtrucks
indiscriminately. He observedthattherewasalotofplasticsandmetalsthatwereloadedinto the
truckthatwenttothelandfill. Hethinksitisagoodideaforsortingoutrecyclables.
Hesuggestedarobotic sensingsortingsystem, wherethemachinecouldpickoutrecyclablematerials andthat
itwouldbemorerapid andaccurate. Mr. Okinakaexplainedthattherobotic
sensing systemwoulddetectmetalsandplasticsandthen sort itoutofthetrash
beforegettingloadedintothetrucksthatwouldgoingtothelandfill. Mr. Okinakabelievesthat
sortingisagoodideaandweneedtodoit. He wasverydisappointed
toseethatitwascalledasortingstationwhenit ismoreofatransferstation. Mr. Okinakareally
likesthereusestores. Hewouldliketoknowhowwecould
get thepublictoknowmoreabout thereusestores. Hesuggestedthatthereusestoreshave
anonlinecatalogwithalist ofwhat itemsthestoreshaveavailable
forsale. Mr. Okinakastatedthatheagreeswithalotofthecommentsmadeinthe
last meetingminutes. Heagreesthatthetransferstationsandrecyclingareasneedmoresignage. Heobserved
that therearealotofbinsintherecyclingareawitha mixture
ofthingsandthatthewrongitemsintothewrongbinsduetothelackofsignage. Mr.
Okinaka wouldliketoseeifthecommitteecouldfind
awaytoreuse
plastics ofallsorts. Hestatedthatitwouldbegoodtohavethepossibilitytorecycle, reuse
and reengineerplasticshereontheislandinsteadofsendingitoffisland. He wantedto
advisethecommitteethatChinaisnottakingdirtyplasticsanymore. curityguardsat
thetransferstationscouldproviderecyclingeducation/help. Shewouldliketo
suggestmaybewecouldstartgentleand
havethesecurity guardsoffertohelpbreakdownacardboardboxesto
putintotherecyclingbins. ChairHayducskoadvisedthattheSolidWasteDivisioncurrentlyhavetwo
employeesonlightduty
postedattherecyclingareaonboththeeastandwestside
oftheIsland.
Dr
a
f
t
Heexplainedthatthelightdutyemployeesareeducatingthepublicaboutrecycling. He
saidthatweareseeingagoodreturnforthetimespentoutthere. Healsoadvisedthat
theworkersaredirectingcommercialentities/businessesnottousetheresidential
transferstationsandinformingthemofwhatalternativesareavailableforthem. Chair
Hayducskostatedthatitisworkingoutreallywellanditwouldbenicetohave
someoneattherecyclingareasatthetransferstationsemifulltime.
Mr. Okinakaaskedifitwerepossibletonotmakeourtransferstationslooksodumpy.
Hefeltthatthe transferstationslookednice. But, healso
feltthat andHilotransferstationlookeddumpyanddepressing. Hewas
wonderingiftherewasawaytomakethetransferstationslookbetter.
ChairHayducskoadvisedthattheDepartmentdoeshaveascheduleonimprovingeach
site. However, ChairHayducsko actualschedulebut, wantedtoassure
thecommitteethattherewillbeimprovementstoeachsiteovertime.
Mr. Buklarewiczadvisedthecommitteethatthesortstationwasoriginallydesignedas
justonesmallcomponentofalargesystemapproach. Healsoexplainedthatafewyears
backbothheandMs. BellhadattendedabrainstormmeetingattheNaniloaHotelthat
wasfacilitatedbythelateJimChannon. Hewentonexplainingthatatthatmeeting
thereweredrawingsmadeofabigcircularResourceRecoveryCenter. Healso
explainedthattheResourceRecoveryCenterincludedcompostingandwindrows, as
wellasreuseoperationsandrecycling. Mr. Buklarewiczsaidthatthesortstationwas
isnotbeingusedforthepurposethatitwas
originallyintendedfor.
ChairHayducskoleteveryoneknowthatKathrynSeckelwithParametrixattending
viaconferencephone.
b) 2¤µ¨¤¶2¤¢®¬¬¤-£Chair Hayducsko handed outthe
survey result of the SWAC
WorkbookofRecommendationsandOptionsforChapters37. ChairHayducskowanted
tothankthecommitteememberson the feedbackgivenandthatthere
werealotofexcellentcommentsandconcernsnoted. Andheadvisedthatthecommittee
wouldbegoingover thechapterreferencestoday. Heestimatedthattherewouldbe
93itemstogo through. Healsoexplainedthatwhengoingthroughtheworkbookthey
wouldbeagreeingoneitherretainingrecommendationsorremovingrecommendations. 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
DevelopCountypoliciesorordinancesthat
mandate cert actions tobe
takentoreducethesourceofwastecurrentlyenteringlandfillsRETAIN
Dr
a
f
t
Developordinancesrequiringthatawastereductionplanbesubmittedtoobtain
commercialorresidentialbuildingpermits RETAIN
2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Develop
EPRpolicystatementsorresolutionsexpressingstrongsupportinitiativesthatrequire
manufacturersofcertainproductsormaterialstotakeresponsibilityofthelifecycle
costsoftheirproducts Ms. Bell suggested
dropping
it becauseCountyprobablydoesnothaveanyresourcestodothisandthatthis
wouldbemoreofaStateeffort. Mr. Elyalsoagrees
with Ms. Bellandstatedthat atthislevelwewouldbewastingourtimeandthisshouldbe
donefurtherupthefoodchain. Ms. Bellsaidthat
County policystatementsandresolutionsdonotcarryenoughweightforthisactiontobe
effective. ChairHayducskoexplainedthat
asaCounty, itisgoodto workwithotherCountiesinthestateandasa
grouptheyshouldpitchwhatisagreedupontolegislature. ChairHayducskoalsoexplained
thatthereareafewEPRProgramsthattheCountyisworkingwithrightnow
whichincludestheBottleBill, HI5Program; theE-wasteProgram wherewearereceiving
moneyfromthemanufacturerstomanageoure-waste; AdvanceDisposalFeefor glass,
whichimporterspayper container. Itdoestakean enormousamountoftimeto
implementanEPRprogram; but, itcanbe effective onceimplementedbecauseitforcesmanufacturers
tobemoreresponsibleandlookatthewholeprocessespeciallyiftheyhave
totakethebacktheirproduct. Ms. Bellwouldlike
to recommendthatthesolidwasteand/orrecyclingstaffto gettogethereachyearandmake
alistandpickoffaprojectortwo. Shesuggestedtomaybe startwithtires; andsaidthat
there couldbeatleastfifteenthingstoputonalist. Mr. Araujosuggestedto
RETAIN thissectionbutre-wordingittomakeitmorerealistic. Hesuggestedtoword it
asafutureproject; listatimespan inthewordingthatwouldmakeitmoreacceptable. Ms. Bell
askedif
there isatimeframefortherecommendationssection; andifweare weprioritizingrecommendationsinthe
workbook. ChairHayducskoansweredthat
heandKatherineareworkingaproceduresandhopingtohaveaprocedureestablished
bynextmeeting. Mr. Okinakaaskedwhat
is theinitialthoughtorpurposeofthissection.
Dr
a
f
t
ChairHayducskoexplainedthatthissectionistomakemanufacturersmoreresponsiblefor
theirproductswiththehopetomakeremanufacturingeasier. Thehopewouldbethat,
manufacturerswouldmaketheirproductslesstoxicandmakeiteasiertorecycle. Also,
hopingtoputtheresponsibilityonthemanufacturertorecycletheirproduct; ratherthan
thegovernment.
ImplementacampaigntodevelopEPRfordifficult-torecycleproducts, andlobby
stateandfederallawmakerstoadvanceEPRinitiatives refocus
3³2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Implementa
County government sourcereduction program, by implementing policies, procedures, and incentive programs
that will reducewaste streams currently being
generated within various County
departmentsandagencies. RETAIN2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Implement
PAYT program orotherfundingmethodRETAINMs. Bellcommentedthat
thisisacriticalsectionandthatwe need
to move in thisdirection.
Mr. Araujobelievesthatifwestart charging
people tothrowawaytheirrubbishatthetransferstations, thatpeoplewillbedumpingtrashallover
the place. Heseesillegallydumpingdailyeventhoughgoingtothetransferstationisfree.
Hefeels thatthereshouldbesomekindofstrategyforthis program. Ms. Bell
commentedthatitwouldtakeatleasttwoyearsofeducation togetpeopletounderstand.
Startingwithstep1startbyissuinga
sticker foryourbag, butit'sfree. Thenthestickerswouldbe $.05cents, then $.25
cent to $4.00. She suggestedtostartwithaslowapproach. Mr. Buklarewiczcommentedthatwhen doing
researchonanysuccessful PAYTprogram; that youwouldsee aspike inillegaldumping; but, itwouldlevel
off
after awhile. Hesaidthatthepeoplethatchoosetoillegally
dumpwillcontinuedumpillegallyandthatwouldbe problem tobeaddressedseparately. Mr. Araujowould liketo
knowwhowillberesponsibleforthetrashthatisbeingillegallydumped. Hewouldlike
toknowifitwould
it bethegovernmentthatwillberesponsibletopickitupanddisposeofitor
would itbethelandowner, whowouldneedtopayatippingfeetothrowitaway? He
saidthatthisshouldbeathingthatisreallythoughtoutbefore implementing. ChairHayducskosuggestedthatasa
groupwecouldrecommenddoing astudyandlookatwhatoptionsareoutthereandatthesame
time
getthecommunitiesinvolved.
Dr
a
f
t
2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Expand
reusefacilities, including improvingandexpandingservicesattheexistingon
ofnewreusefacilities
atotherrecyclingandtransferstations. RETAIN Ms.
Bell wouldliketosuggesttoimprovereusefacilitiesandthatthat we
needtoaddmorefacilities. Chair
Hayducskosaidthatthereusefacilitiesalreadyprovidegreatserviceandthatitwould
nothurttoprovidebetterservicetothecommunitybyhavingbetterfacilities. Mr.
Buklarewicz suggestedthatweshouldexpandservicesinareassuchasHouseholdHazardous
Waste; instead ofhavingoccasionaltwiceayearprograms. He suggestedthatwe
shouldtrainreusefacilityoperatorstoacceptHouseholdHazardousWastetypematerial.
Mr.
Okinaka thoughtforexpandingservicesmeantthatthepublicwouldbringstuffintothe
reusecentersandthestaffwouldrepairit, then sellingit. Chair
Hayducskoexplainedthatitemsthataredonatedaresoldasis, and thatthereisnomass
repairareaavailableatthereusefacilities. 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Develop public-
privatepartnershipswithorganizationssuchasGoodwillIndustriestodevelop
reusecentersatexistingoutletswithintheCounty. - 2¤¶®±£ ³® ¢®-³¨-´¤ ³® Mr. Araujo would like
to get more clarity because thereis no
details involved. IftheCountywouldmakeapartnershipwithanorganization; wouldthe publicthanbe
takingthematerialstothecountiesfacilities, ortheorganizationsfacilities, orhalfand
ahalf? ChairHayducskosaid thatatthistime theCountyislistingorganizations
suchasGoodwillasanentitytodonatereusableitemstoonourwebsite. Mr.
OkinakaaskedhowiswhattheGoodwillIndustriesdoinganythingdifferent
from whattheCounty'sreusecentersaredoing. ChairHayducskosaidthathe
feltthatbothentitiesprovidesimilarservice,
butsaidthatthetransferstationisaonestopshopfor manypeople. Hestated
thatitisconvenienceforpeopletodonatetheiritems atatransferstationreusestoreswhen
theygetridoftheirtrash. 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Dr
a
f
t
Developabusinesswasteauditandeducationprogramtofostersourcereduction
withinthelocalbusinesscommunity. RETAIN
ChairHayducskonoticedthatinoneofthecommentsquestionediftheCountyhadenough
capacity, andheassumesthatthecommentwasreferringtostaffing. Heexplainedthatthe
haveadequatestaffingtodobusinessoutreachandeducation. . Itishardto
geteverythingdonethatwearecurrentlytryingtoachieve. Thereisabusinessworkbook
outtherethatweshouldgivetobusinessestouse. Heaskediftherewasanydiscussion
fromthecommittee.
Mr. Okinakasaidthatwhenyouhavesourcereduction, thattheideaistoreallyreducethe
amountstuffthatcomesin.
Mr. Araujosaidthatconsumersgeneratetrashbecausetheypurchasethetrashandthat
whateverwebuycomeswithrubbish. Heexplainedthatthemainthingthateverybody
buysisfood. Mr. Araujosaidthatwhenhewasgrowingupherememberedthattheywould
purchasetheirmeatwrappedinpinkpaperandthattodaywhenwebuymeatinthestore,
wegetStyrofoamandaplasticwrapping. WhydoweneedtheStyrofoam, whydoweneed
theplasticwrapping? Hesaidifweeliminatethoseitemswewouldhaveathreepoint
sourcereduction. Healsosaidthatinthiseducationprogramweshouldeducate
consumersandsupermarketsonislandandstatewide.
Ms. BellwonderedifDOHhadchangedtheirregulationstoeliminatethepinkpaper
wrapping. Ms. Bellwouldliketorecommendthatweencourageorinformbusinessesto
utilizethebusinessworkbook.
Mr. Araujosuggestedthatweshouldeducatethebusinessowners, localandstatewide.
TakeforinstancethegovernmentenforcedaStyrofoambandandpissedoffeverybody,
and
canberelaxedandbecompliant.
ChairHayducskowouldliketoRETAINthissectionandworkwithbusinesses.
2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Develop
avisitorindustrywastereductioneducationprogramthatincludespromotional
eventsoradvertisementstargetingspecificsectorsofthevisitorindustry. RETAIN
2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Develop a
reuseeducation, outreach, and public awarenesscampaigntoencouragepublicparticipation
anduseofthereusecenters. 2¤¶®±£ ³® ±¤¬®µ¤ $¤µ¤«®¯ Chair Hayducsko read a
comment from the committee
membersunderremoveasrecommendednotesthatthereusecentersreallyshould
sellthemselves. ChairHayducsko
Dr
a
f
t
saidthatotherprogramsneedadvertisementconstantlyandagreesthatifyouhaveagood
program, itreallyshouldsellthemselves.
Ms. Bellsaidthatitisnotabadrecommendation, butisverybroadapproachoutreachand
publicawareness.
ChairHayducskoagreeswithMs. Bell. Hesaidthati needtodevelopbuttocontinue
publicawareness.
Ms. Bellsaidthatanidealplanorrecommendationwouldbeacouplepagesandreferenced
todiscussandthisworkbooksfeelsreallyunrealtoher.
Mr. Okinakasaidthatthisfallsinlinewithoneofthethingsthathehadrecommendedand
suggestedthatadatabasetowhat'savailableatthereusecenterswouldbeagreatidea.
3®´±¢¤ 2¤£´¢³¨®- - recommendation 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Expand the home
compostingprogramwithaggressivepromotioncampaignwithatleasta25
percentsingle-familyhouseholdstargetinfiveyearsRETAIN ChairHayducsko said that this
wasaverysuccessfulprogramforRecycleHawaii. Ms. Bellfeltthatthis
was themostbeneficialprogramforreducingsourcereductionintothelandfill. Ms. Bellasked
ifhouseholds will betakingfoodwastetotheCounty'scompostinglocations. ChairHayducskoexplained
thathow
wearegoingto becollectingtheresidentialfoodwastethat
muchfoodisoutthere.
Ms. SeckeladdedthatParametrix
found thattherearequite
afewareasacrossthecontinuousunitedstatesthathavetransfersitesystemsforcomposting.
Otherstatesprovideaplace forpeopletodumptheirfoodwastespecifically. Shealso
addedthatthere arespecificsystemsinplacewheretheyprovidethepeoplewithcompostable
bagsorpeoplepurchasethebags. Sheexplainedthatitdoes occurandhas
beensuccessful. Therearealotof rulesandalotofeducationbehindit; but, itishappening.
Chair Hayducsko suggestedthatwe
shoulddoastudyonhowtocapturethefoodwasteforMr. Araujosaidthatwe
should leavethisasanoption. Hesaidthatwhenlooking atthewholecompostingoption, work. He
saidthatthere enough rubbishtomakecompost and
wearegoingtoendupwithmulch. Hesaidthatweshould reallyfocusontheprogram.
Dr
a
f
t
2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ To
expandthereusablebagprogram, the Countycouldsignificantlyincreasethenumber
ofreusablebagsthataredistributedtoresidents, and increaseitsoutreachtoencourage
participatinggrocerystorestoincreasethefinancialdiscountforusingreusablebags.
2¤¬®µ¤ option 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Build capacity and
knowledgeamonglocalgovernments, andbuildrelationships withstakeholders, to
bringabout producerfinancedandmanagedsystemsforproductdiscards, including, but
not restricted to, productscoveredby theUniversalWasteBan. 2¤¬®µ¤ optionProvide
a forum for
theexchangeofinformationregardingexistingandproposedEPRprograms. 2¤¬®µ¤ option
Provideeffective leadership on EPR
initiativesinCaliforniaanddevelopaprioritizedlist, withtimelines, of
futureEPR programs. R¤¬®µ¤ optionChairHayducskowould like to RETAIN
thestrategyfromthefirstpageinregardstoEPR. Ms. Bellaskedwhatweare
going todowiththecommentsthatwassuggested, shesaid thatshefeelsthat
alotofthecommentsarereallygood. Shewantedtoknowifthe commentsweregoingtobeincluded
aspartoftheplan. Ms. Seckelunheardoftoincluded
comments into theplanandthatitoincludeitintotheappendix.
Shesaidthatitwouldbe goodandthatitwouldaddvalueif
peoplecouldseethechainofthoughtsthroughoutthisprocess. Ms. Bellwashopingtohave
some ofthecommentsworkedintosomeofthelanguageoftherecommendations. Ms. Seckelagreedthatwe
could
include someofthecomments, butmaynotincludeeverycomment intothebody. Shebelieves
thatifitis goingtoaddvalueandcontext, thatitissomethingbethoughtful about. Educateelected
andappointedofficialsand
otherdecisionmakersonthebenefitstolocalgovernmentofEPR. 2¤¬®µ¤ ¡´³ ed ³® %
02 ²¤¢³¨®- ®- ³§¤ ¥¨±²³ ¯2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ In order to encourage localinnovation andparticipation the County could
fund community zero
wasteinitiativeswithfeesleviedonlandfilldisposal2¤¬®µ¤ ®¯³¨®- 2¤¢¸¢«¨-¦
2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Dr
a
f
t
DevelopCountypoliciesorordinancesthatmandatecertainactionsbetakento
improverecyclingrates RETAIN
2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Establish
adifferentialtipfeeordinanceencouraginglandfilluserstorecyclebycharging
higherfeesforcertainrecyclablematerial. Reword Chair
Hayducskosuggestedtochangelanguagetoencouragelandfilldiversion. We shouldstructure
ourtippingfeesinduceorincreasefeesasneeded. Mr.
Buklarewicz advisedthatontheislandofOahu, if customersbringsinaloadwithmajority
ofrecyclablesinit; they wouldnotonlygetrejectedfromdisposalbutcouldalsoget
bannedfromdisposingatthelandfill. 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Establishan
ordinancemandatingbusinessesandinstitutionstorecycleselectmaterials. RETAIN
Ms. Bell
personally believesthatweshouldmandatemajorityofrecyclablematerials. Mr. Araujo
would liketoRETAINthissection. Mr. Araujo believes thatweshouldputdefinitionson
whatcanandshouldberecycled, andmake itclearforthepublic. Hesaid thatwe
shouldhavealistofcommonthingsthatcanberecycled. Mr. Okinaka
would liketoaddalistofbusinessesthatrecycleitemsaswellwhathappenstothe
endproduct. Hisexample wouldphonebookshewouldliketolistwheretheycanbetakento
andwhatthematerialsarebeingturnedinto. 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Develop legislationrequiring
multi-familyownerstoprovide recyclingservices. RETAINChange
County procurement
policiestorequiretheuseofrecycledglass, organics, andother materials
totheextentpracticable. 2¤¬®µ¤ ¥±®¬ ±¤¢®¬¬¤-£2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Work with County
and State legislators andencourage
othercommunitiesintheregiontoadoptzerowastegoalsandplans.
RETAIN2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Conductresearchand coordinate
with legislators and wastemanages
withinMaui, Kauai, andHonoluluCounties, toevaluatethepotentialfor
combining effortstodevelop astatewidezerowastestrategy. RETAIN2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Dr
a
f
t
LobbytheStatetochangeschoolwastecollectioncontractstomandatethat
recyclingservicesareincluded. RETAIN
2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Complete
capitalprojectstofacilitateimplementationofexpandedrecyclingprograms.
RETAIN 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Expandrecycling
opportunitiesatrecyclingandtransferstationsbymodifyinginfrastructureto
accommodaterecyclingprocesses. - RETAINImprove signage
atrecyclingandtransferstations. - RETAIN2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
while theSHSL
isactive. 2¤¬®µ¤ ¨-£¨¢stationChair Hayducsko advised that facility will be used as a transfer station to
transport
wastetothewestsidewhenthelandfillcloses. 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Constructa
newmaterialsrecovery (bailin - REMOVE2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Expand opportunities forcommercial
recycling. - RETAIN2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Allow
small businesses to usethe
recyclingandtransferstationsto recycle
selected materials. - RETAIN Ms. Bell
thinksthatpayasyouthrowwillresolveissuewithbusinessesusingthe
residential transfer
stations. 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Modifytheoperatingpermitsoftherecyclingandtransferstations
toaccommodateexpanded
recycling services by workingwith
theHDOH. - RETAIN2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Hireonefull-timestaff
membertoserveascommercialrecyclingspecialist. REMOVE Mr.
Okinaka asked what arecycling
specialistis.
Dr
a
f
t
ChairHayducskoexplainedthatwehave2HI5recyclingspecialistthatmanagesHI5island
wide. Thereisalso2recyclingspecialistthatmanageotherprogramsislandwidei.e.
HouseholdHazardousWasteandcomposting (justtonameafew). Thereare5peopletotal
Expandbusinesseducationandoutreachprogramsforlargeandsmallbusinesses.
RETAIN
2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Expand
opportunitiestorecycleinpublicareasandduringpublicevents. RETAIN Install
recyclingbinsinparksandotherpublicareas. RETAIN 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Conductadditional
recyclingeventswithinthecommunityeachyear. RETAIN2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Implement andexpand
theRecyclingArtcampaigninpublicschools. 2%-/6% 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Improve education and outreach
programsthatpromoteimprovedmanagementoforganics. RETAIN2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Hire one full-time staff
membertoserveastheorganicsprogramcoordinator. REMOVEChairHayducskoexplainedthat
our
contractwithHawaiianEarthRecyclingrequiresHERtoprovidemarketingandeducation.
Hesaidthatthissection canberewordedtosaythatwearealreadydoingthis.
Ms. Bellwantstomake
sure thatnottoomuchorganicmaterialsaregoingintothelandfill. Shewouldliketoalso
confirmthatorganicsprogramisgoingasintended. 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Expand
and further develop a master
composterprogram. RETAIN ¢®¬¡¨-¤ ¶¨³§ Ms. Bell believes there
isa need for a home
composting program; sothecountyprogram2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Developa trainingprogramandguidance
materials for farmers RETAIN Mr.
Araujosuggestedtochangewordfarmerstogardeners
Dr
a
f
t
RETAIN
Partnerwithotherlocalgroupstoestablishcompostdemonstrationgardensat
recyclingandtransferstationsandothercommunitylocations. RETAIN
Schoolincludedcompostingaspartof
theircurriculum, andthatitisalsohappeninginschoolsinKohala. Thewaythecountygot
involvewasto byprovidingcomposterstoschoolsand
communities.
2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Initiate
anon-sitecompostingprogramforresidentsandbusinessesbydistributingsubsidized
unitstobothresidencesandbusinesses. RETAIN 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Conduct a
studytoevaluatethepotentialforimplementationoflandfillbanonorganics. RETAIN ±¤¶®±£ ³® ¨-µ¤²³¨¦
from ³§¤ «2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Implement addedorganicsmanagement
facilities and equipment 2¤¶®±£
Mr. Buklarewiczsuggestedtohavemulchpick up
available atrural transfer stations.
2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Addgreenwastedrop-offlocationsatrecyclingand
transfer stations. RETAIN 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Processgreenwastedrop-offlocationsatselectrecycling and
transfer stations. RETAIN 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
DevelopanorganicscompostingfacilityattheWHSLorother
sites.
RETAIN 7(3,
2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Investigateopportunitiesforpilotfoodwastedemonstration projects
for the eventual expansion into full-scalefood waste managementprograms.
RETAIN Mr. Araujo believes that
theCountyismissingalotofstepstoensure
thatthecompostingfacilityreceivesanadequateamountof food
to makecompost. wastewouldneedtobemixedinwithothermaterialoritwillburn(
kill)theplants.
Dr
a
f
t
2¤¢¸¢«¨-¦recommendation: 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Develop of a curbsidecollection program for
the
processing of recyclables
fromresidents. RETAIN2¤²¤Investigate. Mr. Araujobelievesthatweshoulddefine
recyclables. Ms. Bell believes that we should do a
pilot
program. ChairHayducskosaidthatwewouldneed
to doastudyandinvestigationoncurbsiderecycling. 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Integrategreenwasteintoaresidentialcurbsiderecyclingandgreenwastecollectionprogram. RETAIN2¤¢®¬¬¤-£2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Integrate food and
otherorganicsintoaresidentialcurbsiderecyclingandgreenwastecollection
program. RETAIN 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Coordinate with development opportunities.
RETAIN 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤
Expandvisitorindustryrecyclingathotels, resorts, andotherbusinessesthat
RETAIN 2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Promote
both large and
smallscale
privateorganics composting operations by
modifying zoning rules
andCountycodes. RETAIN2¤¥¤±¤-¢¤ Sourcereductionrelatedto
C&D waste, extended
producer responsibility, pay asyou throw system, and zero-waste
fund. $¨£ -®³ £¤¢¨£¤ ³® RETAIN ®± 2%-/6%
5. NEWBUSINESSDr
a
f
t
a) #§b) "¸ &±¨£3³0«9 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS Next
meeting is scheduled for October
10, 2018 at the ADRC TrainingRoom at1055 Kinoole Street, Ste#
101 Hilo, HI 96720. 7. ADJOURNMENTMotion and
vote: Mr.
Buklarewiczmovedtoadjourn, Mr. Elyseconded themotion, andallmembersvotedaye. The
meetingadjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
TinaDeMelloSolid Waste Division, ClerkIII
Dr
a
f
t
Draf
t
SOLIDWASTEADVISORYCOMMITTEE
MeetingMinutes
Wednesday, October10, 2018
1:00p.m. to3:52p.m.
AgingandDisabilityResourceCenter
1055KinooleStreet, Suite101
Committeememberspresent:
AdamScharf
AlanOkinaka, ViceChair
RobertEly
PaulBuklarewicz
GeorgeHayducsko, Chair
GeorjeanAdams
Staffpresent:
DianaMellon-Lacey, DeputyCorporationCounsel (inplaceofKeyraWong)
TinaDeMello, SWDClerk
GregGoodale, SWDChief (arrivedat1:17p.m.)
Alsopresent:
GregLarson, CostofGovernmentCommission
DaydayL. Hopkins, CostofGovernmentCommission
JenipherJones, CostofGovernmentCommission
DanielH. Cunningham, Memberofthepublic
PaulMontague, Memberofthepublic
Notpresent:
BarbaraBell, Member
StevenAraujo, Member
1. CALLTOORDER:
ChairHayducskocalledthemeetingtoorderat1:00p.m.
2. APPROVALOFMINUTES: September12, 2018, Meeting
Mr. Buklarewicznotedthatacorrectionwasneededonpage4and5intheextended
producerresponsibilitysectionthewordmanufacturerisspeltfivetimesasmanufacture. Mr.
Okinakacaughtthesamething.
Dr
a
f
t
Mr. Okinakasaidthatalotofthecommentsmadebymemberssaysthatwefeelorwefeltas
ifitwereanunqualifiedobservationandsaidthatthecommentsarequalifiedstatements.
Mr. Buklarewiczalsonotedthatacorrectionofthewordchooseshouldbeinplaceofthe
wordchoseinregardstoillegaldumping.
ndMotion: ViceChairMr. Okinakamovedtoapprovetheminutes; Mr. Buklarewicz2 the
motion.
Vote: Allmemberspresetvotedayetoapprovetheminuteswiththecorrections.
3. STATEMENTSFROMTHEPUBLIC:
Fortherecord, ChairHayducskoreadastatementreceivedbyemailinregardstopayasyou
throwprogram:
Emailread: Ijustreadthearticleinth
AdvisoryCommitteeisproposingapayasyouthrowprogram. Ifyouwanttoincrease
recycling, youmusthaveabetterrecyclingprogramandemptyyourbinsmorefrequently.
Also, thephotoshowsawomanthrowingoutherrecyclablesinaplasticbag. Anothertrash
thatIhavelivedforrecycling. IwouldliketogetontheSolidWasteAdvisoryCommitteeto
trytomakeabetterprogramforeveryone. Thanks, Paul
Onememberofthepublic, DanielCunningham, hadsigneduptotestify.
DanielH. Cunningham: Mr. CunninghambroughtabookwithhimtitledSeasteading; he
explainedthatthebookgoesintodeepdepthonthesubjectof3Dprintingandheseesthatis
theonlyfutureforourchildrenofthisaina. Mr. Cunninghamexplainedthathehasbeen
problemsovertheyearsandhebelievethereneedstobeanincreasedvalueintrash. Hesaid
thattheonlywaythatheseesanincreasevalueintrashisthrough3Dprintingandcreatinga
localeconomywhererecyclablessuchasplasticbottlescanbemadeintolocalbuilding
materialswhereithastwicethevalueandthepeoplewouldbemoreinclinedtorecyclingit.
HesaidthatSeasteadingisbookwrittenbyJoeQuirkandsaidthatitisasciencebook. He
itthathehas
neverheardof. Hesaidthatitisaveryimpressive bookandherecommendsanybodyto
pleasecheckthisbookoutandhethinksthatthisbookcouldanswersolidwasteproblems.
Hesaidthatthetechnologyof3Dprintingismovedtowhereyoucanmakeanyaviationpart
foranyairplanehightechalloysinvolvingveryhigh-quality3Dprinting. Hesuggestedto
implement3Dprintinglocallytowherewecouldmakeanythingandwewouldnotneedto
haveanythingshippedinwithMatson. Mr. Cunninghamsaidthatif3Dprintingbecomesa
realityofthisainaandwecolonizetheoceanandturnthisislandbackintoabirdsanctuary
andhebelievesthatitistheonlywaytotrulycreateafutureforourchildren.
4. UNFINISHEDBUSINESS:
Dr
a
f
t
4a. BioEnergy
tothismeeting. Healsoexplainedthatacommitteememberhadaskediftheywereableto
individualorcommitteememberandhe
industryandfindoutmoreinformation. ChairHayducskosaidthatbecauseofthesunshine
Mellon-
discussionaboutthisgroupsbusinessordiscussanythingthatwouldbemovedtowardsa
voteorpromiseanyspecificdirection; but, asanindividualforinformationalpurposesis
fine.
4b. CostofGovernment (COG) Commissionpresentationontheirpurposeandgoals.
GregLarson: Mr. LarsonisacommissionerfortheCostofGovernmentCommissionhereto
doapresentationheisherealongwithDaydayHopkinsandJenipherJoneswhoarealso
COGcommissioners. Mr. LarsonexplainedthattheCOGcommissionhasninemembersin
theirgrouptotalandheishererepresentingtheSanitationsub-committeethatincludedboth
himselfandMs. Hopkins. HealsoadvisedtheSWACmembersthatMs. JonesistheChair
personfortheCOGcommission. Mr. Larsonhandedoutdocumentsonwhatheisgoingto
covertoday. HeexplainedthattheCOGcommissionistaskedwiththestudyofallCounty
Departments, CommissionsandBoardsandtolookintothefinanceandcostofeverything
th
financesinwholetheCOGcommissionisfocusingonspecificportionsthatwouldmakethe
heaviesteffect. HewentonexplainingthatthecommissionislookingateachDepartment
individuallyandtheyhavechosenanumberofindividualDepartmentstoscrutinizeandget
moreinformationthanwhatisreadilyavailableandthatoneofthosetheyarelookingintois
SolidWaste. Heaskedforthecommitteetolookatthelastpageofthehandoutthatlistthe
lastCOGrecommendationsfortheDepartmentofEnvironmentalManagement. TheCOG
goalistocoordinatemorewithdepartmentsandcommitteestofindoutwhatthosegoalsare
newithinformationgathering. Headvised
thattheyaretheretogatherinformationandsupporttheSWACsowewouldhavemore
voicesgoinginthesamedirectionandhesaidthattheybelievethatitistherebesttoolto
havesomethingpositivehappen. COGgoalheretodayistogatherinformationandtakeit
backtotheircommission, butmostimportantlytheyareheretosupportourSWAC. Mr.
LarsonsaidthatMs. HopkinshadputtogetheralistofquestionsfortheDepartmentto
generatediscussion. ChairHayducskoadvisedthathewouldtakethequestionsbacktothe
DepartmentandaskthemtorespondtothequestionsfromtheCOG.
5. NEWBUSINESS:
a. Review, discussandcategorizeChapters5
s (ISWMP) Recommendationsandoptions.
Chapter5: PublicEducationandInformation
Dr
a
f
t
ChapterReference5.5.1and5.6 (1)
Implementa3yearzerowasteeducationandsocialmarketingprogramtoeducatethepublicand
businesscommunityaboutzerowasteinitiativesandopportunities. - RETAIN, butchange3-
yearzerowastetoongoinglandfilldiversion.
ChapterReference5.5.1and5.6 (2)
Hireonefulltimestaffmembertoserveasthezerowasteprogramcoordinator. - RETAIN, but
rewordtoappropriatestaff.
ChapterReference5.5.4and5.6 (3)
Implementacommunitywidesocialmarketingplan. - RETAIN, DEMwebsiteandMayor's
page
Chapter5: PublicEducationandInformation
recommendation
ChapterReference5.5.2
Developunifiedpromotionalmaterial, includingatheme, slogan, and/orlogo. - RETAINasan
option
ChapterReference5.5.3
Conductawastemanagementattitudesurveytoassesspublicattitudesaboutwastemanagement
intheCounty. - MOVEtorecommendations.
ChapterReference5.5.4
websiteandincreasingparticipationatcommunityevents. - RETAINasanoption
ChapterReference5.5.5and4.6.R (5)
Expandschooleducationprogramstoincorporatearangeofagegroupsandzerowasteconcepts.
Mandatehaulingcontractorsthatserviceschoolstohaulrecyclables. - RETAINasanoption
ChapterReference5.5.6
Expandbusinesseducationprogramstoincludeexpandededucationalmaterialaswellas
individualtechnicalassistanceforbusinessownersandtradegroups. - MOVEto
recommendations
ChapterReference5.5.7
Developvisitorindustryeducationalandpromotionalprogramsandmaterials. - RETAINasan
option
ChapterReference5.5.8
Evaluateeffectivenessandcontinuetorefineeducationprograms. Evaluationmayinclude
analysisofthepublic'sunderstandingofvariousprograms, establishingbenchmarksforsuccess,
Dr
a
f
t
andevaluatingtheeffectivenessofeducationandpromotionalcampaigns. - MOVEto
recommendations
Chapter6 HouseholdHazardousWasteandElectronicWaste
ChapterReference6.5and6.6 (1)
HireaHouseholdHazardousWaste/ElectronicsWastespecialist. - RETAIN, rewordtostaff
necessaryasneeded
ChapterReference6.5and6.6 (2)
ImplementHHWandewastepublicoutreachandeducationprogramsthrougheventspecific
announcements, additionalsignage, andexpandedoutreachprogramsinthecommunity. -
RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5.3and6.6 (3)
ExploreewastetakebackprogramswithStateandmanufacturers/sellers. - RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5.3and6.6 (3)
Conductresearchtoassesswhatlegislationmayberequiredtomandateandmanagetakeback
programsforspecifictypesofewaste. - RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5.3and6.6 (3)
Evaluatetheelementsofsuccessfulsimilarprogramsimplementedinotherjurisdictionsduring
theplanningprocess. - RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5.3and6.6 (3)
CoordinatewithothercountiesandtheStatetodevelopandimplementewastetakeback
programs. - RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5.3and6.6 (3)
Coordinatewithlocalretailbusinessestofacilitateimplementationoftakebackprogramsfor
ewaste. - RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5and6.6 (3)
Assesswhatlegislativeactionsmaybenecessarytofacilitatestorageandhandlingofewasteat
varioustypesofcollectionlocations. - RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5.2and6.6 (3)
Incorporateinformationaboutexistingandnewewastetakebackprogramsinthecommunity
outreachandeducationeffort. - RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5.2and6.6 (4)
ConductadditionalHHWcollectionevents. - RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5.4and6.6 (5)
Dr
a
f
t
Explorelegislativeactionsforhazardousproductsandpackagingtakebackprograms. -
RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5.3and6.6 (5)
Conductresearchtoassesswhatlegislationmayberequiredtomandateandmanagetakeback
programs. - RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5.3and6.6 (5)
Coordinatewithlocalretailbusinessestodevelopandimplementtakebackprograms. -
RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5and6.6 (5)
Assesswhatlegislativeactionsmaybenecessarytofacilitatestorageandhandlingofhazardous
wasteproductsandpackagingatvarioustypesofcollectionlocations. - RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5and6.6 (5)
Incorporateinformationaboutexistingandnewhazardousmaterialsandpackagingtakeback
programsinthecommunityoutreachandeducationeffort. - RETAIN
ChapterReference6.5.6and6.6 (6)
ExploreapublicprivatepartnershipforalocalEscrapcampaign. Potentiallyinitiateastudyof
differentmodelsforpromotinglocaldismantlingofelectronics. - RETAIN
Chapter6: HouseholdHazardousWasteandElectronicWaste Optionsthat
ChapterReference6.5.1
Installfixed (permanent) collectionfacilitiesatrecyclingandtransferstations. - RETAINasan
option
ChapterReference6.5.4
Implementanadvanceddisposalfeeforcertaintypesofewaste. - RETAINasanoption
ChapterReference6.5.5and3.5.4
Addewasteproductexchangeandreusecentersatrecyclingandtransferstations. - RETAIN
asanoption
Chapter7 SpecialWaste
ChapterReference7.4.1
Includespecialwastedrop-offandcollectionareasinthedesignofneworrenovatedrecycling
andtransferstations. - RETAIN
ChapterReference7.4.2
Continuethecurrentefforttomodifyconveniencecenterpermitstoallowwhitegoodsrecovery
atrecyclingandtransferstations. - RETAIN
Dr
a
f
t
ChapterReference7.4.3
Includeinformationregardingtheenvironmentalbenefitsofproperlydisposingofscraptires,
andcurrentdisposaloptionsintheCounty'seducationandpromotionprograms. - RETAIN
Chapter8 CollectionandTransfer
ChapterReference8.7.1.Aand8.8.1
1) RetaintheCounty'ssystemofrecyclingandtransferstations. 2) Acomponentofretainingthe
systemincludescompletingupgradestoaddressstructuraldeficienciesandto3) provide
expandedservicesinsupportofzerowasteinitiatives. - RETAIN
ChapterReference8.7.3, 8.7.7.2, and8.8.2
1) Reconstructoneormorerecyclingandtransferstationsannually, includinganewSouthKona
recyclingandtransferstationatOceanView. 2) TheCountyshouldalsoconsiderinstalling
compactionunitsforrecyclablesatselectedstations. Consideradoptinga "satellite" system
wherecompactorswouldbeinstalledatselectedstations, whichwouldacceptuncompacted
recyclablesfromnearbystationslackingcompactors. - RETAIN
ChapterReference8.7.4, 8.7.6and8.8.3
Implementfulltimestaffingandreducedoperatinghoursatrecyclingandtransferstations, and
considerclosingoneormorestations. - RETAIN
ChapterReference8.7.2and8.8.4
Developasystemtolicenseprivatecollectionfirms. Inthisprogram, allfirmsthatcollect
garbagefromresidentsorbusinesseswouldberequiredtoregistervehicles, documentthatthe
vehiclesmeetsafetyrequirements, andpayanominallicensingfee (tocoverthecostof
licensing). AsdiscussedinChapter4, Recycling, Bioconversion, andMarkets, anadded
requirementofthelicensewouldbethatalllicensedfirmsmustofferarecyclingservicealong
withitsgarbageservice. MOVEtooption
ChapterReference8.7.2and8.8.5
ChangepermitstoallowsmallcommercialbusinessestodropoffrecyclablesatCounty
recyclingandtransferstations. Thesepermitswouldmakeitmuchmoreconvenientforsmall
businessesinruralareastorecycle. Toensureefficientandsafeoperations, onlytrucksbelowa
certainsizethreshold (forexample, lessthanoneton) wouldbeallowedtousethestations. -
RETAIN
ChapterReference8.7.6and8.8.6
Conductanoperationalefficiencyanalysis. - RETAIN
ChapterReference8.7.8and8.8.7
Developabaseyardfacilityandequipmentmaintenancefacilityfortransfervehiclesatthe
SouthHiloSanitaryLandfill. - MOVEtooption
DidnotfinishChapter8and9ChapterReferences
Dr
a
f
t
b. ReviewtheISWMPschedule.
DidnotReviewISWMPSchedule
6. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
NextmeetingisscheduledforNovember14, 2018attheADRCTrainingRoomat1055
KinooleStreet, Ste#101Hilo, HI96720.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Motionandvote: Mr. Buklarewiczmovedtoadjourn, Ms. Adamssecondedthemotion, and
allmembersvotedaye.
Themeetingadjournedat3:52p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted:
TinaDeMello
SolidWasteDivision, ClerkIII
Dr
a
f
t
SOLIDWASTEADVISORYCOMMITTEE
MeetingMinutes
Wednesday, November14, 2018
1:01p.m. to4:03p.m.
AgingandDisabilityResourceCenter
1055KinooleStreet, Suite101
Committeememberspresent:
AlanOkinaka, ViceChair
RobertEly
PaulBuklarewicz
GeorgeHayducsko, Chair
GeorjeanAdams
BarbaraBell
StevenAraujo (arrivedat1:25p.m.)
Staffpresent:
DianaMellon-Lacey, DeputyCorporationCounsel (inplaceofKeyraWong)
TinaDeMello, SWDClerk
GregGoodale, SWDChief (arrivedat2:02p.m.)
DwightMiller, Parametrix
KatherineSeckel
Alsopresent:
PaulMontague, Memberofthepublic
GlenHisashima, Memberofthepublic
Notpresent:
AdamScharf, Member
1. CALLTOORDER:
ChairHayducskocalledthemeetingtoorderat1:01p.m.
2. APPROVALOFMINUTES: October10, 2018, Meeting
Mr. Buklarewicznotedthatacorrectionisneededtothewordgroupsonthetopofpage2.
ndMotion: Ms. Adamsmovedtoapprovetheminutes; Mr. Ely2 themotion.
Vote: Allmemberspresetvotedayetoapprovetheminuteswiththecorrections.
3. STATEMENTSFROMTHEPUBLIC:
Dr
a
f
t
Nostatementsfromthepublic.
4. NEWBUSINESS:
a. BioEnergyHawai
wasnotheretodayandisuncertainif
theywouldbeabletoprovideapresentationtothecommittee.
5. UNFINISHEDBUSINESS:
a. Review, discussandcategorizeChapters8i Count
Chapter8 CollectionandTransfer
ChapterReference8.7.1.B
LicenseandpromoteallexistingcollectioncompaniesRETAIN
ChapterReference8.7.1.C
Licenseallexistingcollectioncompaniesandrequirebi-weeklycurbsiderecycling. RETAIN
ChapterReference8.7.1.D
Establishanewcollectiondepartmentandcrewtoimplementweeklycurbsidecollectionof
garbageandbi-weeklycollectionofrecyclables, prohibitingprivatecollectionbusinesses.
RETAIN
ChapterReference8.7.1.E
EstablishanexclusivefranchiseforacollectioncompanytocollectMSWfromresidential
customersinanarea. RETAIN
RETAINABOVECHAPTERREFERENCESUNDERCURBSIDECOLLECTION
STUDY
ChapterReference8.7.5
Addfulltimeattendants, reduceoperatinghours, andimplementaPAYTatrecyclingand
transferstations. REMOVE
ChapterReference8.7.7.1Convertingongarbagechuteintoamixedrecyclablescontainertothenbetransferredintothe
compactiontrailer. REMOVE
ChapterReference8.7.7.2
Installastationaryrecyclingcompactorateachoftherecyclingandtransferstationsfor
recyclables. MOVETORECOMMENDATION
Dr
a
f
t
Chapter9 ResidualsManagement
ChapterReference9.6.3and9.7.1(1) Developaconversiontechnologyfacility. REMOVE
ChapterReference9.7.3(1) Countytoconductamorein-depthevaluationsofthefeasibilityandcostofre-configuringthe
reloadfacilityattheSHSLandtruckingwastetotheWHSL. REMOVE
ChapterReference9.7.3(2) Countytoprepareamasterplanningdocumentforthe1) WHSLand2) SHSLfacilities.
RETAIN, rewordtocontinuefacilityplanning
ChapterReference9.7.3(2)
CountyengageinadialoguewithotherHawai`icountiesaboutthepotentialformutually-
beneficialjointsolutions. RETAIN
ChapterReference9.7.3(2)
CountyconductafeasibilitystudyofremediatingtheclosedKailua-Konalandfill. REMOVE
ChapterReference9.5.2, 9.5.2.1R-1. NoAction; WaittoAssessSuccessofCurrentConversionTechnologyProjectsRETAIN,
rewordforCountytocontinuetoevaluatelandfillandtransfertechnologyoptions. Agree
toconsolidateallchapter9referencesbelowwiththisreference
ChapterReference9.5.2, 9.5.2.2
R-2WTEFacilityforEastHawai`i; AshandBypassMaterialstoSHSL
ChapterReference9.5.2.3R-3WTEFacilityforallCountyResiduals; AshandBypassMaterialstoWHSL
ChapterReference9.5.2.4
R-4ModularIncineratorsinRuralAreas; AshandBypassWastetoSHSLandWHSL
ChapterReference9.5.2.5
R-5Developmechanicalbiologicaltreatment (MBT) FacilitiesattheSHSLand/orWHSLSites
MotiontoapproveChapters8and9: Ms. BellmovedtoapprovedecisionanddiscussionsmadendinChapters8and9; Ms. Adams2.
b. ReviewanddiscussChapter10recommendations
Mr. MillersummarizedChapter10recommendations andevaluatedsourceoffundsavailableto
Dr
a
f
t
exerciseChapter3-9.
RecommendationtoaddeducationalandadditionalresourcestotheDepartments
website
RecommendationtoidentifyresourcesandsourcereductionandpostonDepartments
website
Recommendationtoincorporateteachingoflifecyclethinkinginschoolsand
communities
ByconsensustheSWACagreedtothe3aboverecommendations
d. DiscussexpectationsofInterimDraftReview, whichwillincludeprioritization
exercise.
DidnotreviewordiscussInterimDraftReview.
e. ReviewtheISWMPschedule.
DidnotreviewISWMPschedule
6. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
NextmeetingisscheduledforDecember12, 2018attheADRCTrainingRoomat1055
KinooleStreet, Ste#101Hilo, HI96720.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Motionandvote: Ms. Bellmovedtoadjourn, Mr. Okinakasecondedthemotion, andall
membersvotedaye.
Themeetingadjournedat4:03p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted:
TinaDeMello
SolidWasteDivision, ClerkIII
Dr
a
f
t
SOLIDWASTEADVISORYCOMMITTEE
COUNTYOFHAWAI‘I
MeetingMinutes
Wednesday, January9, 2019
1:14p.m. to4:01p.m.
AgingandDisabilityResourceCenter (ADRC)
1055 Street, Suite101
Hilo, Hawai‘i96720
Committeememberspresent:
GeorgeHayducsko, Chair
AlanOkinaka, ViceChair
PaulBuklarewicz
StevenAraujo
GeorjeanAdams
BarbaraBell
Staffpresent:
DianaMellon-Lacey, DeputyCorporationCounsel
TinaDeMello, SWDClerk
DwightMiller, Parametrixbyphone
KatherineSeckel, Parametrixbyphone
Notpresent:
AdamScharf, Member
RobertEly, Member
1. CALLTOORDER:
ChairHayducskocalledthemeetingtoorderat1:14p.m.
2. APPROVALOFMINUTES: November14, 2018, Meeting
ndMotionandvote: Ms. Bellmovedtoapprovetheminutes; Ms. Adams2 themotion. All
memberspresetvotedayetoapprovetheminutes.
3. STATEMENTSFROMTHEPUBLIC:
Nostatementsfromthepublic.
4. NEWBUSINESS:
a. BioEnergy Update:
ChairHayducskoopenedthediscussionstatingthatmultiplecommitteemembershad
attemptedtoreachouttoBioEnergyHawai‘iandwasnotsuccessfulwithhavingBio
Dr
a
f
t
EnergyHawai‘iattendtoprovideapresentation. Ourmembersreachedoutbyleaving
phonemessagesandsentmultipleemailstorequestforapresentation.
b. Review, discussandrecommendchangestoChapters2-6oftheIntegratedSolid
WasteManagementPlan’s (ISWMP):
ChairHayducskoexplainedthattheformatbeingutilizingtodayshowstheChapter,
Page, LineNo. andComments. ChairHayducskowouldliketohaveaconsensusby
chapterofchangesandhaveamotionbychapterapprovingedits, changes, etc.
CHAPTER2 – WASTESTREAMASSESSMENT
Motionandvote: Page2-5, Line11: Eliminatereferencetoplasticbagshavingany
impactonthissection. Ms. Adamsmovestoeliminatereferencetoplasticbags, Ms. Bellnd2themotion.
Motionandvote: Mr. Okinakamovestoacceptedits, changes, anddeletionforChapternd2; Ms. Bell2 themotion, andallmembersvotedaye.
CHAPTER3 – SOURCEREDUCTION
Motionandvote: Ms. Adamsmovestoacceptedits, changes, anddeletionsforChapternd3; Ms. Bell2 themotionandallmembersvotedaye.
5. UNFINISHEDBUSINESS:
a. ReviewtheISWMPSchedule:
Review, discussandrecommendchangestoChapter4-10oftheISWMPnextmeeting.
6. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
NextmeetingisscheduledforFebruary13, 2019attheADRCTrainingRoomat1055
Street, Ste#101Hilo, HI96720.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
ndMotionandvote: Mr. Buklarewiczmovedtoadjourn, Mr. Araujo2 themotion, andall
membersvotedaye.
Themeetingadjournedat4:03p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted:
TinaDeMello
SolidWasteDivision, ClerkIII
Dr
a
f
t
SOLIDWASTEADVISORYCOMMITTEE
COUNTYOFHAWAI‘I
MeetingMinutes
Wednesday, February13, 2019
1:03p.m. to3:39p.m.
AgingandDisabilityResourceCenter
1055Kino‘oleStreet, Suite101
Hilo, Hawai‘i96720
Committeememberspresent:
GeorgeHayducsko, Chair
AlanOkinaka, ViceChair
PaulBuklarewicz
GeorjeanAdams
BarbaraBell
Staffpresent:
DianaMellon-Lacey, DeputyCorporationCounsel (inplaceofKeyraWong)
TinaDeMello, SWDClerk
SanneBerrig, DEMSWDRecyclingSpecialistI
KatherineSeckel, Parametrixbyphone
Alsopresent:
NancyCookLauer, WHTReporter
Notpresent:
AdamScharf, Member
StevenAraujo, Member
1. CALLTOORDER:
ChairHayducskocalledthemeetingtoorderat1:03p.m.
2. APPROVALOFMINUTES: January9, 2019, Meeting
MotionandVote: Ms. Adamsmovedtoapprovetheminutes; Mr. Buklarewicz
secondedthemotion. Allmemberspresentvotedayetoapprovetheminutes.
3. STATEMENTSFROMTHEPUBLIC:
Nostatementsfromthepublic.
4. UNFINISHEDBUSINESS:
Dr
a
f
t
a. Review, discussandrecommendchangestoChapters2–9ofISWMP
Chapter4 – RECYCLING, BIOCONVERSION, ANDMARKETS
MotionandVote: Ms. Bellmovestoacceptedits, changes, anddeletionsforChapter4
asdiscussed; Ms. Adamssecondedthemotionandallmemberspresentvotedaye.
Motioncarries.
Chapter5 – PUBLICEDUCATIONANDINFORMATION
MotionandVote: Ms. Bellmovestoacceptedits, changes, anddeletionsforChapter5
asdiscussed; Mr. Buklarewiczsecondedthemotionandallmemberspresentvotedaye.
Motioncarries.
Chapter6 – HOUSEHOLDHAZARDOUSWASTEANDELECTRONICWASTE
MotionandVote: Mr. Buklarewiczmovestoacceptedits, changes, anddeletionsfor
Chapter6asdiscussed; Ms. Adamssecondedthemotionandallmemberspresentvoted
aye. Motioncarries.
Chapter7 – SPECIALWASTE
MotionandVote: Ms. Adamsmovestoacceptedits, changes, anddeletionsforChapter
7asdiscussed; Ms. Bellsecondedthemotionandallmemberspresentvotedaye.
Motioncarries.
b. ReviewtheISMPSchedule
Review, discussandrecommendchangestoChapters2 – 10oftheISWMP.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
NextmeetingisscheduledforMarch13, 2019attheADRCTrainingRoomat1055
Kino‘oleStreet, Ste#101Hilo, HI96720.
6. ADJOURNMENT:
Motionandvote: Ms. Bellmovedtoadjourn, andallmembersvotedaye.
Themeetingadjournedat3:39p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted:
TinaDeMello
SolidWasteDivision, ClerkIII
Dr
a
f
t
SOLIDWASTEADVISORYCOMMITTEE
COUNTYOFHAWAI‘I
MeetingMinutes
Wednesday, March13, 2019
1:12p.m. to3:45p.m.
AgingandDisabilityResourceCenter
1055Kino‘oleStreet, Suite101
Hilo, Hawai‘i96720
Committeememberspresent:
GeorgeHayducsko, Chair
AlanOkinaka, ViceChair
PaulBuklarewicz
GeorjeanAdamsbyphone
BarbaraBell
AdamScharf
Staffpresent:
DianaMellon-Lacey, DeputyCorporationCounsel
TinaDeMello, SWDClerk
SanneBerrig, DEMSWDRecyclingSpecialistI
KatherineSeckel, Parametrixbyphone
DwightMiller, Parametrixbyphone
Notpresent:
StevenAraujo, Member
1. CALLTOORDER:
ChairHayducskocalledthemeetingtoorderat1:12p.m.
2. APPROVALOFMINUTES: February13, 2019, Meeting
MotionandVote: Ms. Bellmovedtoapprovetheminutes; Mr. Scharf themotion. All
memberspresetvotedayetoapprovetheminutes.
3. STATEMENTSFROMTHEPUBLIC:
Nomemberofthepublicpresent
4. UNFINISHEDBUSINESS:
a. Review, discussandrecommendchangestoChapters2–10oftheIntegratedSolid
WasteManagementPlan (ISWMP).
Dr
a
f
t
b. Review, discuss, andprioritizetheISWMPrecommendations.
WasteManagementPlan – MasterSummaryofComments
Chapter8
MotionandVote: Ms. Bellmovestoacceptedits, changes, anddeletionsmadefor
Chapter8asdiscussed; Mr. Scharf themotionandallmemberspresentvotedaye.
Motioncarries.
Chapter9
MotionandVote: Ms. Bellmovestoacceptedits, changes, anddeletionsmadefor
Chapter9asdiscussed; Mr. Scharf themotionandallmemberspresentvotedaye.
Motioncarries.
c. ReviewtheISWMPschedule.
Discussedprioritizationofprogramsforrecommendationsandranking.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
NextmeetingisscheduledforApril10, 2019attheAgingandDisabilityResource
Center (ADRC) TrainingRoomat1055Kino‘oleStreet, Ste#101Hilo, HI96720.
6. ADJOURNMENT:
Themeetingadjournedat3:45p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted:
TinaDeMello
SolidWasteDivision, ClerkIIIDr
a
f
t
SOLIDWASTEADVISORYCOMMITTEE
COUNTYOFHAWAI‘I
MeetingMinutes
Wednesday, May8, 2019
1:00p.m. to3:25p.m.
AgingandDisabilityResourceCenter
1055Kino‘oleStreet, Suite101
Hilo, Hawai‘i96720
Committeememberspresent:
GeorgeHayducsko, Chair
PaulBuklarewicz
GeorjeanAdams
AdamScharf
StevenAraujo
Staffpresent:
DianaMellon-Lacey, DeputyCorporationCounsel
TinaDeMello, SWDClerk
SanneBerrig, DEMSWDRecyclingSpecialistI
KatherineSeckel, Parametrixbyphone
DwightMiller, Parametrixbyphone
Notpresent:
BarbaraBell, Member
AlanOkinaka, ViceChair
Public:
BrainMoyer, IntergovernmentalSupportAgreements
GregoryFleming, U.S. ArmyGarrison
1. CALLTOORDER:
ChairHayducskocalledthemeetingtoorderat1:00p.m.
2. APPROVALOFMINUTES: March13, 2019, Meeting
ndMotionandVote: Ms. Adamsmovedtoapprovetheminutes; Mr. Scharf2 the
motion. Allmemberspresetvotedayetoapprovetheminutes. Motioncarries.
Dr
a
f
t
3. STATEMENTSFROMTHEPUBLIC:
GregoryFleming – DiscussionofRecyclingProgramsat Recycle,
Repurpose, andReuse@PTA. Goodstewardsoftheenvironment.
BrianMoyer – Discussionofintergovernmentalsupportagreementsand
opportunitiesofferedbytheFederalGovernmenttoworkwithlocalgovernmenton
managingsolidwasteandrecyclables
4. UNFINISHEDBUSINESS:
a. Review, discussandrecommendchangestoChapter1goalsandChapter
10oftheIntegratedSolidWasteManagementPlan (ISWMP).
Chapter1Goals:
MotionandVote: Ms. Adamsmovestoacceptedits, changes, anddeletionsforndChapter1goalsasdiscussed; Mr. Buklarewicz2 themotionandallmemberspresent
votedaye. Motioncarries.
Chapter10:
MotionandVote: Mr. Buklarewiczmovestoacceptedits, changes, anddeletionsndforChapter10asdiscussed; Ms. Adams2 themotionandallmemberspresentvotedaye.
Motioncarries.
b. Review, discuss, andprioritizetheISWMPrecommendations. PowerPoint
presentationbySanneBerrigonRecommendedPrioritizationof
Programs.
Chapter8 #5.:
MotionandVote: Ms. Adamsmovedtoaccepttodeletewordingof “commercial
recycling” andreplacebusinesswith “businesses” inChapter8, #5asdiscussed; Mr. Scharfnd2themotionallmemberspresentvotedaye. Motioncarries.
ReviewofISWMPRankingsSummary – GroupedbyRanking.
ReviewofEachRecommendedPrioritizationProgramAverageScore.
c. ReviewtheISWMPschedule.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
NextmeetingisscheduledforJune12, 2019attheAgingandDisabilityResource
Center (ADRC) TrainingRoomat1055Kino‘oleStreet, Ste#101Hilo, HI96720.
2
Dr
a
f
t
6. ADJOURNMENT:
Motionandvote: Ms. Adamsmovedtoadjourn, Mr. Scharf2ndandallmembers
votedaye.
Themeetingadjournedat3:25p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted:
TinaDeMello
SolidWasteDivision, ClerkIII
3
Dr
a
f
t
Draf
t
ent
SOLIDWASTEADVISORYCOMMITTEE
COUNTYOFHAWAI‘I
MEETINGMINUTES
Wednesday, June12, 2019
1:00p.m. to2:15p.m.
AgingandDisabilityResourceCenter
1055Kino‘oleStreet, Suite101
Hilo, Hawai‘i96720
Committeememberspresent:
GeorgeHayducsko, Chair
PaulBuklarewicz
GeorjeanAdams
AdamScharf
StevenAraujo
Staffpresent:
DianaMellon-Lacey, DeputyCorporationCounsel
TinaDeMello, SolidWasteDivisionClerk
SanneBerrig, SolidWasteDivisionRecyclingSpecialistI
KatherineSeckel, Parametrix (byphone)
Notpresent:
BarbaraBell, Member
AlanOkinaka, ViceChair
Public:
NancyCookLauer, WestHawai‘iToday
1. CALLTOORDER
ChairHayducskocalledthemeetingtoorderat1:00p.m.
2. APPROVALOFMINUTESOFTHEMAY8, 2019, MEETING
Motionandvote: Ms. Adamsmovedtoapprovetheminutes; Mr. Buklarewicz
secondedthemotion. Allmemberspres votedayetoapprovetheminutes. Motioncarried.
3. STATEMENTSFROMTHEPUBLIC
None.
Dr
a
f
t
4. UNFINISHEDBUSINESS
a. ReviewtheISWMPschedule.
b. Review, discussandrecommendchangestotheISWMP.
SWACdiscussion ontexthandout: Considerrecoveryandtreatmenttechnology
Motionandvote: Mr. Buklarewiczmovedtoacceptedits, changes, anddeletionstextforndhandoutonconsiderrecoveryandtreatmenttechnology; Mr. Scharf2 themotionandall
memberspresentvotedaye. Motioncarries.
c. Review, discussandprioritizetheISWMPrecommendedranking.
Motionandvote: Ms. AdamsmovedtoacceptISWMPRankingsSummarywitheditsand
changesasdiscussed; Mr. Scharfsecondedthemotion, andallmemberspresentvotedaye.
Motioncarried.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. NoadditionalSWACmeetingsarescheduled.
b. Thefollowingtwo (2) ISWMPpublichearingshavebeenscheduled:
Kona: Monday, December9, 2019
CommunityHaleattheWestHawai‘iCivicCenter
74-5044AneKeohokaloleHighway
5:00p.m. – 7:00p.m.
Hilo: Wednesday, December11, 2019
AupuniCenterConferenceRoom
101PauahiStreet, Ste#1
5:00p.m. – 7:00p.m.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Motionandvote: Mr. Buklarewiczmovedtoadjourn, Ms. Adamsseconded, andall
membersvotedaye.
Themeetingadjournedat2:15p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted:
TinaDeMello
SolidWasteDivision, ClerkIII
2
Dr
a
f
t
Appendix B
SWAC Recommendation Ranking Summary
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
ISWMP Rankings Summary – Grouped by Rankings
Page 1 of 3
1. Education & Outreach
This item received priority rankings: 2-1s, 2-2s, 3-3s, and 1-4.
1 3.4–Expand public education and outreach & 4–Organics: Improve education and
outreach programs that promote improved management of organics
1 Education
2 Education
2 Expand and improve public education and awareness programs
3 5.1 Education and marketing plan (rolling 3 year/update routinely to meet needs and
program changes)
3 Education
3 3.1 – Organics -improve education and outreach programs that promote improved
management of organics
4 Education – educate SWFAs to assist customers at R&TS
2. Renegotiate Contract with Waste Management HI
This item received priority rankings: 1-1, 1-3, and 1-4
1 Regularly review and when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract
3 Regularly review and when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL contract
4 Renegotiate contract with Waste Management
3. Additional HHW Collection Events
This item received priority rankings: 3-4s
4 Conduct additional HHW collection events (10 to 12 additional per year)
4 Conduct additional HHW collection events (10 to 12 additional per year)
4 Conduct additional HHW collection events (10 to 12 additional per year)
4. Change County Code to Allow Small Businesses to Drop Off Recyclables at
Recycling and Transfer Stations.
This item received priority rankings: 1-1 and 1-5. Also, when this item was
discussed at the May 8, 2019 SWAC meeting, all members stated they [also] had
misread item 8.5. (Item reads to allow recycling businesses to utilize R &TS)
1 Expand commercial recycling – first step: approve small businesses using Transfer
Stations (8.5)
5 Expand the opportunities for commercial recycling
ISWMP Rankings Summary – Grouped by Rankings
Page 2 of 3
5. Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental
impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full
life cycle impacts, in addition to tonnage-based landfill diversion or waste
recovery goals.
This item received priority rankings: 1-2 and 1-4
2 Chapter 4 - #5. Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of
environmental impacts ([e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use] and
consider full life cycle impacts, as opposed to (replace with in addition to) tonnage-based
landfill diversion or waste recovery goals. Add Negative Emission Technologies [NETS]).
4 Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of environmental impacts
(e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity, energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts,
as opposed to tonnage-based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals. (Chapter 4)
6. Develop County Policy and Ordinances Related to Source Reduction and
Recycling
These 2 items received priority rankings: 1-1 and 1-3. They were listed here as
they are very similar and interrelated.
1 Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to reduce
the source of waste currently entering landfills
3 Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain actions be taken to improve
recycling rates
________________________________________________________
The rest of the SWAC recommendations are listed below, grouped by ranking given by
SWAC member. Each of these only had a single (1) vote.
Number 1s – i.e. a SWAC member gave this items a #1 in their individual ranking
Conduct research and coordinate with legislators and waste managers within Maui, Kauai,
and Honolulu counties, to evaluate the potential for combining efforts to develop a
statewide landfill diversion strategy. (Chapter 4) This would also cover the
recommendation n in Chapter 9, Engage in dialog with the State/Counties about joint
solutions (e.g., Discuss with City and County of Honolulu, the shipping of market-driven
unrecyclable materials to their H-Power WTE plant). (Chapter 9)
Number 2s – i.e. SWAC members gave these items a #2 in their individual ranking
4.4 Organics Collection – management facilities and equipment.
ISWMP Rankings Summary – Grouped by Rankings
Page 3 of 3
Thoroughly investigate mandates prior to implementation including assessment of
markets (should be well-established), operational viability (solicit input from recycling and
transfer station attendants, haulers, landfill operators), and implementation in other
jurisdictions with an emphasis on other Hawai`i counties. (Chapter 4)
Chapter 3 - #3 - Improve the current Reuse Facility Program.
Number 3s – i.e. a SWAC member gave this items a #3 in their individual ranking
Chapter 9 - #2 - C&D sorting and reuse.
Number 5s –i.e. SWAC members gave these items a #5 in their individual ranking
3.2 PAYT – Pay As You Throw
Conduct an operational efficiency analysis to lower costs. (Chapter 8)
Chapter 8 - #3 - "Satellite" compaction units to cut down on full and overflowing roll-off
bins.
Chapter 10 - #1 - Prepare a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis
Comment from SWAC member –
Landfill use by infrequent residential users is currently complicated: permit, waiting
period, etc. Need to make process “…easier for people who want to do the right thing”
Draf
t
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawai’i
1
Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score
Program
Low
Priority
0-1.4
Medium
Priority
1.5-2.4
High
Priority
2.5-3.0
Ch 3 Source Reduction
1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain
actions be taken to reduce the source of waste currently entering
landfills, including:
-- 2.4 --
Develop a County ordinance that requires a waste reduction
plan be submitted to obtain a commercial or residential
building permit.
-- 1.8 --
Work with other counties to develop EPR policy statements
or resolutions. As a component of EPR policy, implement a
campaign to develop EPR for difficult-to-recycle products,
and lobby state and federal lawmakers to advance EPR
initiatives.
-- 2.4 --
Implement a County government source reduction program
policies, procedures, and incentive programs that will reduce
waste streams currently being generated within various
County departments and agencies.
-- 2.2 --
2. Investigate a PAYT program or other funding method. -- 2.2 --
3. Improve the current reuse facility program. -- 2.4 --
Work with contractor to create a list for public distribution,
which describes what items are preferable donations. -- 2.2 --
Work with the contractor managing the reuse centers to be
more selective about merchandise, emphasizing items that
are lightly used, clean, and in good condition. Improve
signage, organization, and display of merchandise.
-- 2.2 --
Provide more covered space at reuse centers. -- -- 2.8
Collaborate with the volunteer-based Laupāhoehoe Reuse
Center to increase participation of volunteers. -- 1.8 --
Continue public-private partnerships with organizations such
as Goodwill Industries to develop reuse centers at existing
outlets within the County.
-- 2.4 --
Consider expanding the program to other recycling and
transfer stations or upgrade the Laupāhoehoe Reuse Center -- 2.2 --
4. Expand and improve public education and awareness programs. -- -- 2.6
Develop a business waste audit and education program to
foster source reduction within the local business community. -- 2.2 --
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawai’i
2
Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score
Program
Low
Priority
0-1.4
Medium
Priority
1.5-2.4
High
Priority
2.5-3.0
Develop a visitor industry waste reduction education
program. -- -- 2.6
Continue reuse education, outreach, and public awareness
campaign to encourage public participation and use of the
reuse centers.
-- -- 2.8
Ch 4 Recycling, Bioconversion, and Markets
Recycling
1. Develop County policies or ordinances that mandate certain
actions be taken to improve recycling rates. -- -- 2.6
Thoroughly investigate mandates prior to implementation
including assessment of markets (should be well-established),
operational viability (solicit input from recycling and transfer
station attendants, haulers, landfill operators), and
implementation in other jurisdictions with an emphasis on
other Hawai`i counties.
-- -- 3.0
Establish a differential tip fee ordinance -- 2.2 --
Investigate the feasibility of establishing a mandatory
curbside collection program for some single-family
residences.
-- 2.2 --
Establish mandatory source separation and recycling
ordinance, which would require all businesses and
institutions to recycle selected types of materials. This could
include implementing landfill bans for select recyclables.
-- 2.4 --
Develop legislation that requires owners and managers of
multi-family dwellings and multi-tenant commercial buildings
to provide recycling
-- 2.4 --
Conduct research and coordinate with legislators and waste
managers within Maui, Kauai, and Honolulu counties, to
evaluate the potential for combining efforts to develop a
statewide landfill diversion strategy.
-- 2.4 --
Lobby the State to change school waste collection contracts
to mandate that recycling services are included. -- -- 2.6
2. Complete capital projects to facilitate implementation of expanded
recycling programs. A common theme expressed during discussions
with the SWAC is that the County needs improved facilities to
manage recyclables.
-- -- 2.6
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawai’i
3
Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score
Program
Low
Priority
0-1.4
Medium
Priority
1.5-2.4
High
Priority
2.5-3.0
Modify infrastructure at recycling and transfer stations to
accommodate recycling processes. -- -- 2.8
Improve signage at recycling and transfer stations to
provide the public with comprehensive information about
recycling opportunities and procedures.
-- -- 2.8
3. Expand the opportunities for commercial recycling. -- -- 2.6
Allow small businesses to use the recycling and transfer
stations to recycle selected materials. -- -- 2.6
Work with the HDOH Solid Waste Division to modify
recycling and transfer station operating permits to
accommodate expanded recycling services.
-- -- 3.0
Expand education and outreach programs for both large
and small businesses to foster participation in commercial
recycling programs.
-- -- 2.8
4. Expand opportunities to recycle in public areas and during public
events. -- -- 2.8
Install additional recycling bins in parks and other public
areas. -- -- 2.6
Conduct additional recycling events within the community
each year. -- -- 2.4
5. Establish goals that are expressed and measured in terms of
environmental impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, toxicity,
energy use) and consider full life cycle impacts, in addition to
tonnage-based landfill diversion or waste recovery goals.
-- -- 2.4
5. Annually or bi-annually assess existing local and regional markets
for materials across the waste stream; study service voids for
missed opportunities to recover commodities.
-- 2.4 --
Organics
1. Improve education and outreach programs that promote
improved management of organics. -- 2.4 --
Ensure that the contractor responsible for administering the
organics program is meeting contractual requirements. -- -- 2.8
Expand and further develop a master composter program
(low priority). 1.4 -- --
Develop a training program and guidance materials for
farmers and gardeners. -- 2.0 --
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawai’i
4
Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score
Program
Low
Priority
0-1.4
Medium
Priority
1.5-2.4
High
Priority
2.5-3.0
Implement a ‘Stop Wasting Food’ program that would benefit
programs such as local food banks. -- 2.4 --
Partner to establish compost demonstration gardens at
recycling and transfer stations or other visible locations in the
community
-- 2.0 --
2. Onsite composting program (subsidized bins and distribution to
residents and businesses) -- 2.0 --
3. Landfill organics ban implementation study -- 1.8 --
4. Organics management facilities and equipment -- -- 2.7
Add food waste drop-off bins at recycling and transfer
stations that already collect green waste -- 2.2 --
Formulate compostable bag ASTM D6400-compliance
legislation -- 2.0 --
Add organics/yard waste disposal to existing
brochures/signage -- -- 2.8
Expand the number of drop-off locations for green waste
and/or food waste at recycling and transfer stations -- 2.4 --
Continue operation of mulch facilities at WHSL and SHSL -- -- 2.7
Investigate organics collection programs, including a
residential curbside collection program and transfer
station drop-off facilities. As part of this investigation,
perform pilot food waste demonstration projects with the
potential for eventual expansion into full-scale food waste
management programs.
-- -- 2.6
Ch 5 Education, Outreach, and Public Awareness
1. Implement a 3-year education and social marketing program to
educate the public and business community about landfill
diversion initiatives and opportunities.
-- -- 2.8
2. Conduct a waste management attitude residential survey. -- 2.4 --
3. Ensure County has staffing levels commensurate with the needs of
the public outreach program. -- -- 2.6
Ch 6 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) / Electronic Waste (E-Waste)
1. Ensure enough staffing to operate HHW/ e-waste programs
successfully. -- -- 2.8
2. Implement HHW/ e-waste education, outreach, and public
awareness program. -- -- 2.8
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawai’i
5
Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score
Program
Low
Priority
0-1.4
Medium
Priority
1.5-2.4
High
Priority
2.5-3.0
3. Research and evaluate elements of successful e-waste/ HHW
programs implemented in other jurisdictions and integrate those
successes into the County’s program
-- 2.2 --
4. Explore e-waste take-back programs with State and
manufacturers/sellers -- 2.2 --
Conduct research to assess what legislation may be
required to mandate and manage take-back programs for
specific types of e-waste.
-- 2.0 --
Coordinate with other counties and the State to develop
and implement e-waste EPR take-back programs. -- 2.2 --
Coordinate with local retailers to facilitate implementation
of take-back programs for e-waste. -- 2.4 --
Assess legislative actions that may be necessary to
facilitate e-waste programs including demanufacturing,
storage and handling at various types of collection
locations, and funding equity.
-- 2.4 --
5. Conduct additional HHW collection events (10 to 12 additional per
year) -- -- 2.6
6. Explore legislative actions for hazardous products and packaging
take-back programs. -- 2.2 --
Conduct research to assess what legislation may be
required to mandate and manage take-back programs for
specific types of hazardous waste or packaging.
-- 2.2 --
Assess what legislative actions may be necessary to
facilitate storage and handling of hazardous products and
packaging at various types of collection locations, and
funding equity.
-- 2.2 --
7. Explore a public-private partnership for a local e-scrap campaign
(on-island demanufacturing). -- 2.6 --
Ch 7 Special Waste
1. Integrate a Do-It-Yourself Used Motor Oil program within the
County’s public education and information program. -- -- 2.8
2. Increase the number of Recycling and Transfer Stations that
accept white goods. -- 2.2 --
3. Promote tire recycling best management practices within the
County’s public education and information program. -- -- 3.0
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawai’i
6
Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score
Program
Low
Priority
0-1.4
Medium
Priority
1.5-2.4
High
Priority
2.5-3.0
4. Ensure that recycling facilities responsible for dismantling of white
goods are trained properly for the recovery and recycling of Freon-
containing appliances.
-- 2.4 --
Ch 8 Collection and Transfer
1. Retain the County’s system of recycling and transfer stations, but
also explore alternative funding methods via a feasibility study as
discussed in Chapter 3 recommendations (Recommendation #2).
Until a decision is made on the best method of collection and
transfer, the County will continue to maintain and upgrade
Recycling and Transfer Stations to address structural deficiencies
and provide expanded services to divert waste from the landfill.
-- -- 2.8
2. Reconstruct one or more recycling and transfer stations annually. -- 2.0 --
3. Consider ‘Satellite’ compaction units for recyclables at select
stations -- 2.6
4. Implement full-time staffing and reduced operating hours at
recycling and transfer stations and consider closing one or more
stations.
-- 2.0 --
5. Change County code to allow small businesses to drop off
recyclables at Recycling and Transfer Stations. -- -- 3.0
6. Conduct an operational efficiency analysis to lower costs. -- -- 2.8
Ch 9 Residuals Management
1. Consider recovery and treatment technology (e.g., WTE) if: (1)
other waste diversion approaches (e.g., proposed compost facility
in Hilo, shipping of market-driven unrecyclable materials to the
City and County of Honolulu) are unsuccessful or infeasible, (2) it
can definitively be demonstrated that it is environmentally and
economically feasible, and (3) the technology has a verifiable and
viable commercial track record (successful operation >5 years) in
the handling municipal solid waste.
-- 1.6 --
2. Investigate the feasibility of a landfill with a sorting and reuse area
for construction and demolition materials. -- -- 2.6
3. Update infrastructure at the WHSL and EHRS. -- 2.4 --
4. Engage in dialog with the State/Counties about joint solutions
(e.g., Discuss with City and County of Honolulu, the shipping of
market-driven unrecyclable materials to their H-Power WTE plant).
-- -- 2.6
Ch 10 Administration and Funding
1. Prepare a Solid Waste System Financial Analysis. -- 2.2 --
2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update
County of Hawai’i
7
Each Recommended Prioritization Program Average Score
Program
Low
Priority
0-1.4
Medium
Priority
1.5-2.4
High
Priority
2.5-3.0
2. Regularly review and when appropriate, renegotiate WHSL
contract. -- -- 2.8
Considerations for ranking
Diversion Potential – What is the measure’s tonnage diversion potential from landfill?
Local Authority – How much control must the local government exert over the discard management
system (e.g., service providers, infrastructure collection/transfer/disposal, and/or waste generators) in
order to accomplish the measure?
Implied – indirectly through culture or practice – less likely to accomplish measure
Influenced – by policy, permit, license or ordinance – moderately likely to accomplish measure
Explicit - directly through contracts or operations – highly likely to accomplish measure
Receptivity – What is the relative ease and level of effort to initiate and obtain local buy-in for the
measure? For example, does it involve promotional activities, recognition, no requirements on waste
generators, minor costs (generally easier), or does it involve setting mandatory requirements,
restrictions, or higher costs (generally more difficult)?
Environmental outcome – (e.g., ecological toxicity, human heath, greenhouse gas emissions generated
by raw materials extraction and product manufacturing)
Staff Knowledge – How much staff knowledge or specific expertise is needed to implement the
measure? Can it be implemented by mid-level local agency staff without outside legal or contractor
assistance?
Community Led Initiatives – How easy or hard is it for individuals or groups to initiate adoption or
implementation of the measure without actions required by the jurisdiction? Can a local non-profit or
group of interested residents carry out the activity (e.g., develop a “how-to guide”) or will it require
initiation by local jurisdiction staff or elected bodies (e.g., adopt a local ordinance).
Draf
t
Appendix C
20-Year De Facto Population Recycling, Generation,
and Disposal Projections
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
20‐Year De Facto Population Recycling, Generation, and Disposal Projections
Year
Projected
De Facto
Population1
Average
Annual
Growth
Rate2
Disposal
Tonnage
(tons/ year) 3
Recycling/
Diversion
Tons/Year4
Total
Generation
without
Increased (8%)
Diversion/
Recycling Rate
Increased
Recycling/
Diversion
Rate
Total Disposal
with Increased
(8%) Diversion/
Recycling Rate
2016 222,485 1.60% 195,162 57,921 253,100 -- 253,100
2017 226,045 224,196 64,309 288,500 -- 288,500
2018 229,661 224,796 52,028 276,800 -- 276,800
2019 233,336 212,900 55,360 268,300 -- 268,300
2020 237,069 1.30% 216,300 56,240 272,500 8.0% 252,300
2021 240,151 219,100 56,980 276,100 8.0% 255,600
2022 243,273 222,000 57,720 279,700 8.0% 259,000
2023 246,436 224,900 58,470 283,400 8.0% 262,400
2024 249,640 227,800 59,230 287,000 8.0% 265,700
2025 252,885 1.20% 230,800 60,000 290,800 8.0% 269,300
2026 255,919 233,500 60,720 294,200 8.0% 272,400
2027 258,990 236,300 61,450 297,800 8.0% 275,700
2028 262,098 239,200 62,180 301,400 8.0% 279,100
2029 265,244 242,000 62,930 304,900 8.0% 282,300
2030 268,426 1.10% 244,900 63,680 308,600 8.0% 285,700
2031 271,379 247,600 64,380 312,000 8.0% 288,900
2032 274,636 250,600 65,160 315,800 8.0% 292,400
2033 277,931 253,600 65,940 319,500 8.0% 295,800
2034 281,267 256,700 66,730 323,400 8.0% 299,400
2035 284,642 1.00% 259,700 67,530 327,200 8.0% 303,000
2036 287,488 262,300 68,210 330,500 8.0% 306,000
2037 290,938 265,500 69,030 334,500 8.0% 309,700
2038 293,847 268,100 69,720 337,800 8.0% 312,800
2039 296,786 270,800 70,410 341,200 8.0% 315,900
Notes:
-- = 2016–2020 no percent increase in diversion and recycling
Projected tonnage rounded to nearest 100 tons.
1 2016 base year de facto population is derived from the State of Hawai`i Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (2016). Table 01.09 De
Facto Population, by County: 2000-2016
2 Average annual rate is derived from the Hawaiʻi Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (2018). Table A-3. Hawaii County Population
Projection, Selected Components, 2010-2045.
3 Disposal tonnage is based on the 2016 disposal tonnage divided by the de facto population for 2016 (6 pounds per person).
4 Recycling/Diversion Tons/Year is based on the median diversion rate for FY 2009–2010 through FY 2016–2017: 29 percent per County of Hawai`iDEM , Solid Waste
Division. 26 percent of 6 pounds is 1.7 pounds per day diversion on average.
Draf
t
Appendix D
2008 Waste Composition Study
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
Final
Waste Composition Study
County of Hawai`i
Prepared by
In Association with
Sky Valley Associates
September 2008
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC iii
Contents
Section Page
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Sources of Disposed Waste ......................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.2.1 Sampling Procedures ................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.2 Calculations ................................................................................................... 1-4
2 Countywide Sampling Results ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Total County, West Hawai`i, and East Hawai`i Composition ........................... 2-1
2.2 Comparison of Hawai`i Composition to U.S. Average ....................................... 2-2
2.3 Transfer Station, Commercial, and Self-Haul Substreams ................................. 2-2
2.4 Explosive and Hard-to-Process Items .................................................................... 2-3
3 West Hawai`i Sampling Results ............................................................................................. 3-1
4 East Hawai`i Sampling Results ............................................................................................... 4-1
Attachments
A Detailed Sampling Results
B Detailed West Hawai`i Commercial Substream Results
C Waste Component Definitions
D Sampling Methodology and Calculations
E Field Sampling Forms
Exhibits
1-1 Samples per Day by Substream
1-2 Number of Samples, Total and Average Sample Weight
1-3 Flow Diagram of Composition Calculations
2-1 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Total County
2-2 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Hawai`i
2-3 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawai`i
2-4 Top Ten Components: Total County
2-5 Top Ten Components: West Hawai`i
2-6 Top Ten Components: East Hawai`i
2-7 Composition and Quantities for West Hawai`i and East Hawai`i Main Categories
2-8 Comparison of Hawai`i County Composition to U.S. Average
2-9 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Transfer Stations
2-10 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Commercial
2-11 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Self-Haul
2-12 Top Ten Components: County Transfer Stations
2-13 Top Ten Components: County Commercial
2-14 Top Ten Components: County Self-Haul
Dra
f
t
CONTENTS
iv APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
3-1 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Hawai`i Transfer Station
3-2 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Hawai`i Commercial
3-3 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Hawai`i Self-Haul
3-4 Top Ten Components: West Hawai`i Transfer Stations
3-5 Top Ten Components: West Hawai`i Commercial
3-6 Top Ten Components: West Hawai`i Self-Haul
3-7 Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Individual Transfer Stations
4-1 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawai`i Transfer Stations
4-2 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawai`i Commercial
4-3 Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawai`i Self-Haul
4-4 Top Ten Components: East Hawai`i Transfer Stations
4-5 Top Ten Components: East Hawai`i Commercial
4-6 Top Ten Components: East Hawai`i Self-Haul
A-1 Composition Estimates: Total County
A-2 Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i
A-3 Composition Estimates: East Hawai`i
A-4 Composition Estimates: Total County Transfer Stations
A-5 Composition Estimates: Total County Commercial
A-6 Composition Estimates: Total County Self-Haul
A-7 Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Transfer Stations
A-8 Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Commercial
A-9 Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Self-Haul
A-10 Composition Estimates: East Hawai`i Transfer Stations
A-11 Composition Estimates: East Hawai`i Commercial
A-12 Composition Estimates: East Hawai`i Self-Haul
B-1 Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Commercial Packer Trucks
B-2 Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Commercial Drop Boxes
B-3 Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Commercial Other
Dra
f
t
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC 1-1
SECTION 1
Introduction
The County of Hawai`i is updating its Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. The plan
will examine waste management options in the County. To aid in the evaluation of these
options, CH2M HILL conducted this waste composition study to provide statistically valid
data on the types and quantities of waste currently being disposed of at the West Hawai`i
(Pu`uanahulu) Landfill. The field work for this study was performed by Sky Valley
Associates.
This report presents the results of the waste composition study, which include composition
estimates, both for the overall waste stream and for the transfer station, commercial, and
self-haul wastes disposed at the landfill. The results are based on samples taken during
May of 2008. A similar study was performed at the South Hilo Landfill in 20011. We have
used the results of that study to represent the composition of waste that enters the East
Hawai`i landfill. The results are combined to provide waste composition estimates for total
County disposal.
There are four major sections of this report. Section 1 briefly summarizes the project,
including a description of the sources of disposed waste and the project methodology.
Sections two through four provide sampling results for the overall waste stream; results for
the transfer station, commercial, and self-haul substreams; and substream estimates for
West Hawai`i and East Hawai`i.
Following the main body of the report are attachments that included detailed sampling
results (Attachments A and B), descriptions of waste components (Attachment C),
descriptions of the sampling methodology and calculations (Attachment D), and field
sampling forms (Attachment E).
1.1 Sources of Disposed Waste
For analysis and planning purposes, landfill disposal quantities can be divided into
substreams. A waste substream is defined according to its source of generation, its means of
collection and transport to the disposal facility, or both2. For the purposes of this study, the
waste disposed at the West Hawai`i Landfill was divided into the following three substream
categories:
1. Transfer Station – This is waste hauled from one of nine transfer stations on the west
side of the Island. It is transported to the West Hawai`i Landfill in transfer station
compactor boxes. Transfer station loads are composed primarily of residential waste.
1 Cascadia Consulting Group, 2001. Waste Composition Study, South Hilo Landfill, County of Hawai`i.
2 It should be noted that this study estimates the composition of waste disposed, not waste generated. Waste generation is
equal to the sum of both the disposed and recycled amounts.
Dra
f
t
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
1-2 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
2. Commercial – This is waste hauled by commercial hauling companies. Commercial
haulers use a variety of vehicles to transport this waste to the West Hawai`i Landfill,
including packer trucks (garbage trucks), roll-offs (primarily open boxes), and other
vehicles (e.g. flatbeds, pickups, etc.). This waste is collected both from residences and
businesses.
3. Self-Haul – This is waste that residents, contractors, businesses, and public entities haul
directly to the West Hawai`i Landfill. These loads are transported either in small
vehicles (e.g. autos, pick-ups, etc.) or large vehicles (e.g. dump trucks, flatbeds, etc). As
with waste in the commercial substream, self-haul waste comes from both residences
and businesses. Waste from public agencies (such as the County of Hawai`i Parks
Department) is also included in this category.
The waste stream was broken down further in the transfer station and commercial
substreams as follows:
• During field sampling, samples taken from the transfer station substream were also
recorded by station so that information about the waste composition at individual
stations could be recorded. Note, however, the relatively few number of samples taken
at any individual station make any resulting composition estimates highly uncertain: the
results should be viewed accordingly.
• Samples from the commercial substream were divided among the three main vehicle
types (packers, rolloffs, and other).
Each of the three substreams contributed a portion of the approximately 128,500 total tons of
waste disposed at the West Hawai`i Landfill from July 2007-June 2008 (FY 2008). About 32
percent (or about 41,700 tons) of this waste was hauled from transfer stations. Commercial
hauling companies disposed of nearly 63 percent (81,000 tons), and the remaining 5,900 tons
(approximately 5 percent) were transported to the landfill by self-haulers.
1.2 Methodology
This section presents a summary of the sampling and calculation procedures used in this
study. The complete sampling methodology including descriptions of the main calculations
can be found in Attachment C. The procedures summarized in this section were used
during the recent sampling event at the West Hawai`i Landfill. Sky Valley Associates
conducted both the recent sampling event at the West Hawai`i Landfill and the 2001
sampling event at the South Hilo Landfill; the same procedures were used during both
events.
1.2.1 Sampling Procedures
A sampling plan was developed to produce statistically valid composition data for the three
substreams described above. A total of 100 samples were captured and sorted at the West
Hawai`i Landfill on May 15, 16, and 19 through 21, 20083. The allocation of these samples
among the three substreams was determined according to each substream’s contribution to
3 Because all sampling occurred during May of 2008, these results do not account for any seasonal variation.
Dra
f
t
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC 1-3
the total waste stream, with one exception. There is relatively little mixed self-haul material
delivered to the West Hawai`i Landfill (1,200 of 128,000 tons in FY 2008, or less than
1 percent). Therefore, it was decided that overall sampling accuracy would be improved by
using self-haul sampling results from the 2001 study to represent the composition of mixed
self-haul loads in West Hawai`i, and assigning samples that would have been obtained from
the self-haul stream to the other two substreams. The composition profile of mixed self-haul
loads from the 2001 study was used to estimate the mixed self-haul composition for the
West Hawai`i Landfill.
In addition to the mixed self-haul loads delivered to the West Hawai`i Landfill, there were
about 4,700 tons of pure loads i.e., loads that could be assigned to a single waste component
such as confidential documents or tires (or in the case of construction and demolition debris,
assigned to a subset of the waste stream). The 2001 composition profile was applied only to
the mixed self-haul loads: the pure loads were added to the mixed load profile resulting in a
total self-haul profile.
Finally, adjustments were made so that a sufficient number of samples were taken from
each substream and vehicle type to assure that sample data are representative of
composition. The commercial substream was oversampled to account for the increased
variability typically encountered in that substream.
Exhibit 1-1 presents the number of samples taken per day.
EXHIBIT 1-1
Samples per Day by Substream and Vehicle Type
Number of Samples
Transfer
Station
Commercial
Packer
Commercial
Rolloff
Commercial
Other
Total
May 15, 2008 6 5 6 3 20
May 16, 2008 6 8 5 1 20
May 19, 2008 6 7 6 1 20
May 20, 2008 6 4 9 1 20
May 21, 2008 6 6 4 4 20
Total 30 30 30 10 100
All loads were systematically selected for sampling4. From each selected load, a 200- to
300-pound representative sample was hand-sorted into 58 prescribed component material
categories, which were then weighed and recorded. Evidence of explosive or hard-to-
process items was noted for each load. A listing and description of the component material
categories is included in Attachment C. Exhibit 1-2 summarizes the number of samples and
the total and average sample weight.
4 Systematic sampling is outlined in more detail in Attachment B. In short, this procedure assures that the correct number of
samples is taken randomly and throughout the day by selecting every “nth” vehicle from each substream (i.e. every 4th
commercial packer truck).
Dra
f
t
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
1-4 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHIBIT 1-2
Number of Samples, Total and Average Sample Weight
Sample Weights
(in pounds)
Sample Count Total for All Samples Average
Transfer Station 30 6,986 232.9
Commercial Packer 30 6,724 224.1
Commercial Drop Box 30 6,902 230.1
Commercial Other 10 2,376 237.6
Total 100 22,988 231.2
1.2.2 Calculations
A weighted averaging process was used to prepare the waste composition estimates in
which composition percentages from substreams were multiplied by FY 2008 tons from that
substream. The result is FY 2008 tons for each waste component in each substream.
Exhibit 1-3 presents a flow chart that summarizes the calculation process for the waste
composition estimates. For West Hawai`i, composition estimates were calculated for the
sample groups, the three substreams, and the overall waste stream using the linked
procedure shown. For the transfer station substream, composition percentages were
calculated for each of the nine transfer stations. Sample loads that came from each of the
nine stations determined these composition percentages. The percentages were weighted
according to the tons disposed by each station during FY 2008, and then pooled to produce
an overall transfer station composition5.
For the commercial haulers, separate composition percentages were calculated for three
vehicle types: packer, roll-off, and other vehicles. These percentages were weighted
according to the estimated tons disposed by each vehicle type during FY 2008. They were
then combined to give composition percentages for the commercial substream.
For waste from East Hawai`i delivered to the South Hilo Landfill, the waste quantities by
component were determined by multiplying the 2001 waste composition percentages by
FY 2008 deliveries from each substream (transfer stations, commercial loads, and self-haul
loads. As described above, pure loads delivered to the South Hilo Landfill were assigned to
specific waste components.
The overall waste stream composition for West Hawai`i and East Hawai`i was calculated as
an aggregate of the sample group compositions, which were weighted according to their
tonnage contribution to the overall waste stream. Finally, a similar process is used to
combine results from West Hawai`i and East Hawai`i into a total county waste composition
profile.
5 Tonnages from the West Hawai`i Landfill and the South Hilo Landfill provided all tonnages used to “weight” each sample
group for this study. The weighting process is described in Attachment C.
Dra
f
t
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC 1-5
Sample Groups
West Hawai`i
Transfer Station Boxesa
Honoka`a
Ka`u
Kailua
Keauhou
Kohala
Pa`auilo
Puako
Waiea
Waimea
Commercial Loads
Packer Trucks
Roll-offs
Other Vehicles
Self-Hauled Loads
Mixed Waste Loadsb
Pure Loads
East Hawaii (from 2001 study)
Transfer Station Boxes
Hilo
Kea`au
Pahhoa
Kalapana
Glenwood
Volcano
Pahala
Papaikou East Hawai`i Totals
Honomu
Commercial Loads
Packer Trucks
Roll-offs
Other Vehicles
Self-Hauled Loads
Mixed Waste Loads
Pure Loads
aNot sampled because quantities were small. The 2001 composition was used for these loads.
Substream
Composition
West and East Hawai`i
Summaries
Self-Haul Composition
Total County
Composition
West Hawai`i Totals
Commercial
Composition
Transfer Station
Composition
bNo waste was sampled from the Laupahoehoe, Miloli`i and Ke`ei stations. Tons from these stations were assigned a waste composition profile from one of the
other stations.
Self-Haul Composition
Transfer Station Composition
Total County
Composition Estimates
Commercial Composition
EXHIBIT 1-3
Flow Diagram of Composition Calculations
Dra
f
t
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
1-6 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
For the West Hawai`i substreams, low and high estimates are shown that represent a
90 percent confidence level, meaning that there is a 90 percent certainty that the actual
composition is within the calculated range6. In exhibits and charts throughout this report,
the values graphed represent the mean component percentage, not the range.
6 The low and high estimates could not be calculated for any profile that blends information from more than one East Hawai`i
substream because the relative quantity of waste delivered to each substream has changed since 2001.
Dra
f
t
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC 2-1
SECTION 2
Countywide Sampling Results
This section presents a summary of countywide composition results for the total waste
stream and the three substreams (transfer stations, commercial, and self-haul), and includes
data for both West and East Hawai`i. Most of this information is presented in one of the
following two formats:
• A bar chart that depicts the composition by nine main waste categories: paper, glass,
metal, plastic, organics, construction and demolition, household hazardous, special, and
mixed.
• An exhibit that lists the ten largest of the 58 waste components, by weight.
More comprehensive exhibits that details the full composition results for the 58 component
categories are presented in Attachment A (Exhibits A-1 through A-6).
2.1 Total County, West Hawai`i, and East Hawai`i Composition
Exhibits 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 are bar charts that show the overall composition results for the nine
main waste categories of waste disposed for the entire County, for West Hawai`i, and for
East Hawai`i, respectively. When combined, organics and paper comprise more than half of
the waste stream. Construction and demolition waste accounts for another 22% by weight.
The construction and demolition category includes such components as clean lumber and
gypsum scrap. The organics main waste category contains such components as food,
textiles, and prunings.
The composition of waste disposed in West Hawai`i is similar to the composition of
disposed waste in East Hawai`i. Two differences that merit mention include: there are more
organics disposed of in West Hawai`i (35.3%) than in East Hawai`i (29.6%); and more special
waste disposed of in East Hawai`i (5.2%) than in West Hawai`i (1.9%). The types of special
wastes disposed most often in East Hawai`i include industrial sludge, bulky items, and tires
(see Exhibit A-3 in Attachment A).
Exhibits 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 show the ten largest waste components for the entire County, for
West Hawai`i, and for East Hawai`i. In all three areas, the largest three components by
weight are food, clean and treated lumber7, and cardboard, which combined make up
approximately a third of the total waste stream.
Notable differences between West Hawai`i and East Hawai`i include:
• One component in each area appears on the list in one area but not in the other:
R/C metal8 is in the top ten for West Hawai`i, and film plastic in East Hawai`i.
7 Most of the disposed lumber in the waste stream is treated, and is not appropriate for composting.
8 The R/C components include waste that is made mostly of one component but contains significant amounts of other
components, or waste that is part of a broad waste category but cannot be put into any of its component categories. Examples
of R/C organic waste includes carpet and disposable diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated milk cartons
belong to R/C paper.
Dra
f
t
SECTION 2 COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS
2-2 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
• Clean and treated lumber accounts for 8.8% by weight in West Hawaii versus 14.3% in
East Hawaii.
• Food accounts for 17.7% by weight in West Hawai`i versus 12.8% in East Hawai`i.
Exhibit 2-7 shows a summary comparison of composition and quantities for the nine main
waste categories for West Hawai`i and East Hawai`i.
2.2 Comparison of Hawai`i County Composition to U.S.
Average
Exhibit 2-8 provides an aggregated comparison of the Hawai’i County disposed waste
stream with the U.S. average, as compiled by the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The data are shown in aggregated form because the EPA data is grouped somewhat
differently and excludes construction and demolition debris. As shown, Hawaii County’s
disposed waste stream includes somewhat more paper, metal, and organics and somewhat
less plastic and glass than U.S. averages.
2.3 Transfer Station, Commercial, and Self-Haul Substreams
Exhibits 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11 are bar charts that show the overall composition results of waste
disposed countywide in the main waste categories for the transfer station, commercial, and
self-haul substreams. The composition by category for transfer station and commercial
substreams are similar with organics, paper, and construction and demolition waste
accounting for 70-80% of the waste disposed. Construction and demolition waste is more
pronounced in the commercial substream (24.0% vs. 14.4%) and organics is more
pronounced in the transfer station substream (37.6% vs. 31.5%). In comparison, the self-haul
substream is quite high in construction and demolition waste (45.6%) and special waste
(21.6%). As shown in Attachment A (Exhibit A-6), most of the self-haul special waste
consists of industrial sludge.
Exhibits 2-12, 2-13, and 2-14 show the ten largest waste components for the transfer station,
commercial, and self-haul substreams. The top ten components make up 69%, 76%, and 87%
of the transfer station, commercial, and self-haul substreams, respectively. Food, clean and
treated lumber, and cardboard are each in the top 5 components in the transfer station and
commercial substreams. The largest self-haul substream components include clean and
treated lumber (20.5%), industrial sludge (15.1%), and green waste (11.4%).
It is important to note that many of the top ten components are good candidates for re-use
or are potentially recyclable. For example, the estimates indicate that there is over
15,800 tons of cardboard disposed by the transfer station and commercial substreams:
cardboard represents 5.9% of the transfer station substream, and 10.0% of the commercial
substream. Dra
f
t
SECTION 2 – COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC 2-3
2.4 Explosive and Hard-to-Process Items
During the process of capturing and sorting samples, the field supervisor noted loads that
contained hard-to-process or potentially explosive items. Hard-to-process items include
anything that would be difficult or impossible to manually sort, automatically process, or
transfer by conveyor belt due to weight or size constraints. Examples of these items are
appliances, mattresses, and carpet. Of the 100 loads sampled, 9 contained hard-to-process
items: three with mattresses, three with bulky furniture, and one each with large-sized
demolition materials, large crates, and large plastic pipe. Five of the hard-to-process items
came from the transfer station substream and four came from the commercial substream.
No potentially explosive items were identified during the 2008 and 2001 sampling events.
Dra
f
t
SECTION 2 COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS
2-4 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHIBIT 2-2
Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Hawai`i
22.6%
1.7%
7.7%8.5%
35.3%
22.1%
0.2%1.9%0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed
Sa
m
p
l
e
M
e
a
n
EXHIBIT 2-1
Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Total County
22.4%
2.2%
7.8%8.3%
33.1%
22.2%
0.3%3.2%0.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed
Sa
m
p
l
e
M
e
a
n
EXHIBIT 2-3
Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawai`i
22.2%
2.9%
8.0% 8.1%
29.6%
22.5%
0.3%
5.2%
1.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed
Sa
m
p
l
e
M
e
a
n
Dra
f
t
SECTION 2 – COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC 2-5
EXHIBIT 2-4 Top Ten Components: Total County
Tons Disposed Percent of Total Cumulative Percent of Total
Food 34,230 16.3% 16.3%
Clean and Treated Lumber 22,984 10.9% 27.2%
Cardboard 16,182 7.7% 34.9%
Green waste 15,858 7.6% 42.5%
R/C Organic 13,875 6.6% 49.1%
R/C Demolition 12,819 6.1% 55.2%
R/C Paper 11,443 5.4% 60.7%
Miscellaneous Paper 8,634 4.1% 64.8%
Ferrous Metal 7,441 3.5% 68.3%
Film Plastic 6,170 2.9% 65.4%
EXHIBIT 2-5
Top Ten Components: West Hawai`i
Tons Disposed Percent of Total Cumulative Percent of Total
Food 22,804 17.7% 17.7%
Clean and Treated Lumber 11,363 8.8% 26.6%
Cardboard 10,211 7.9% 34.5%
Green Waste 10,211 7.9% 42.5%
R/C Demolition 10,172 7.9% 50.4%
R/C Organic 8,573 6.7% 57.1%
R/C Paper 6,400 5.0% 62.0%
Miscellaneous Paper 6,233 4.8% 66.9%
Ferrous Metal 4,417 3.4% 70.3%
R/C Metal 4,169 3.2% 69.0%
EXHIBIT 2-6
Top Ten Components: East Hawai`i
Tons Disposed Percent of Total Cumulative Percent of Total
Clean and Treated Lumber 11,621 14.3% 14.3%
Food 11,426 12.8% 12.8%
Cardboard 5,970 6.8% 33.8%
Green Waste 5,644 6.9% 40.8%
R/C Organic 5,302 6.0% 46.7%
R/C Paper 5,043 4.6% 51.4%
Ferrous Metal 3,025 3.3% 54.7%
R/C Demolition 2,647 3.2% 57.9%
Miscellaneous Paper 2,401 2.5% 60.5%
Film Plastic 2,157 2.3% 62.7%
Note: The abbreviation “R/C” stands for Remainder/Composite. The R/C components include waste that is made mostly of
one component but contains significant amounts of other components, or waste that is part of a broad waste category but
cannot be put into any of its component categories. Examples of R/C organic waste includes carpet and disposable
diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated milk cartons belong to R/C paper.
Green waste includes leaves and grass, prunings, and stumps.
Dra
f
t
SECTION 2 COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS
2-6 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHIBIT 2-7 Composition and Quantities for West Hawai`i and East Hawai`i Main Categories
Percent of Total FY 07-08 Tons
West
Hawai`i
East
Hawai`i West
Hawai`i
East
Hawai`i
Paper 22.6% 22.2% 29,031 18,099
Glass 1.7% 2.9% 2,234 2,359
Metal 7.7% 8.0% 9,861 6,526
Plastic 8.5% 8.1% 10,895 6,588
Organics 35.3% 29.6% 45,346 24,102
Construction and Demolition 22.1% 22.5% 28,405 18,298
Household Hazardous 0.2% 0.3% 267 260
Special 1.9% 5.2% 2,504 4,259
Mixed Residue 0.0% 1.2% 1 996
100.0% 100.0% 128,543 81,487
EXHIBIT 2-8
Comparison of Hawai`i County Composition to U.S. Average
Material Category
Hawaii
County
United
Statesa
Difference
HI - US
Paper 28.9% 26.3% 2.6%
Glass 2.8% 6.6% -3.8%
Metal 10.0% 7.8% 2.2%
Plastic 10.7% 17.5% -6.8%
Organics 42.5% 37.3% 5.2%
Other 5.1% 4.5% 0.5%
aU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Municipal
Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the
United States: facts and Figures for 2006. Accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncpl/pubs/06data.pdf
Note: Excludes construction and demolition debris. Dra
f
t
SECTION 2 – COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC 2-7
EXHIBIT 2-9
Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Transfer Stations
21.3%
3.0%
10.8%9.3%
37.6%
14.4%
0.3%2.4%0.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed
Sa
m
p
l
e
M
e
a
n
25.9%
2.0%
6.5%8.9%
31.5%
24.0%
0.2%0.7%0.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed
EXHIBIT 2-10
Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Commercial
EXHIBIT 2-11
Composition Estimates by Waste Category: Self-Haul
7.2%
0.1%2.1%0.6%
22.7%
45.7%
0.1%
21.6%
0.0%0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed
Sa
m
p
l
e
M
e
a
nDra
f
t
SECTION 2 COUNTYWIDE SAMPLING RESULTS
2-8 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHIBIT 2-12 Top Ten Components: County Transfer Stations
Tons Disposed Percent of Total
Cumulative Percent
of Total
Food 10,944 13.5% 13.5%
Green Waste 9,839 12.1% 25.6%
R/C Organic 6,711 8.3% 33.8%
Clean and Treated Lumber 5,570 6.9% 40.7%
Cardboard 4,822 5.9% 46.6%
R/C Demolition 4,014 4.9% 51.6%
Miscellaneous Paper 3,834 4.7% 56.3%
R/C Paper 3,730 4.6% 60.9%
Ferrous Metal 3,574 4.4% 65.3%
R/C Metal 3,102 3.8% 69.1%
EXHIBIT 2-13
Top Ten Components: County Commercial
Tons Disposed Percent of Total
Cumulative Percent
of Total
Food 22,760 20.7% 20.7%
Clean and Treated Lumber 13,576 12.3% 33.0%
Cardboard 11,011 10.0% 43.0%
R/C Demo 7,422 6.7% 49.7%
R/C Paper 6,826 6.2% 55.9%
R/C Organic 5,586 5.1% 61.0%
Miscellaneous 4,764 4.3% 65.3%
Green Waste 3,886 3.5% 68.9%
Film 3,845 3.5% 72.4%
Concrete 3,696 3.4% 75.7%
EXHIBIT 2-14
Top Ten Components: County Self-Haul
Tons Disposed Percent of Total
Cumulative Percent
of Total
Clean and Treated Lumber 3,839 20.5% 20.5%
Industrial Sludge 2,826 15.1% 35.6%
Green Waste 2,129 11.4% 47.0%
R/C Organic 1,578 8.4% 55.5%
R/C Demolition 1,383 7.4% 62.9%
Concrete 923 4.9% 67.8%
Rocks and Soil 921 4.9% 72.7%
Asphalt Paving 897 4.8% 77.5%
R/C Paper 888 4.7% 82.3%
Treated Lumber 878 4.7% 87.0%
Notes: The abbreviation “R/C” stands for Remainder/Composite. The R/C components include waste that is made mostly
of one component but contains significant amounts of other components, or waste that is part of a broad waste category
but cannot be put into any of its component categories. Examples of R/C organic waste includes carpet and disposable
diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated milk cartons belong to R/C paper.
Green waste includes leaves and grass, prunings, and stumps.
Dra
f
t
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC 3-1
SECTION 3
West Hawai`i Sampling Results
This section presents summary composition results for the West Hawai`i transfer station,
commercial, and self-haul substreams. The information is presented using the same formats
used in Section 2. More comprehensive exhibits that detail the full composition results for
the 58 component categories are presented in Attachment A (Exhibits A-7, A-8, and A-9).
Exhibits 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 show the overall composition results for waste disposed of in West
Hawai`i via the three substreams. Organics, paper, and construction and demolition debris
account for 77% and 83% of the transfer station and commercial substreams, respectively.
More than 90% of the self-haul substream consists of three waste categories: special waste
(mainly industrial sludge), construction and demolition debris, and organics.
Exhibits 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 show the ten largest waste components in West Hawai`i for the
three main substreams. Cardboard is a significant component in all three substreams: 5.1%
for transfer stations, 9.8% for commercial, and 2.4% for self-haul. Other components that
appear in all three substreams include food, green waste, clean and treated lumber, and
R/C organic.
Green waste (14.4%) is the largest component of the West Hawai`i transfer station
substream, and food (21.3%) is the largest component of the West Hawai`i commercial
substream. Food, clean and treated lumber and R/C demolition are in the top 5 of both the
transfer station and commercial substreams. Some components that appear in the top 10 of
only one of the transfer station or commercial substreams include R/C metal, ferrous metal,
and textiles, which are in the top 10 in the transfer station substream, and R/C paper,
concrete, and film plastic which are in the top 10 in the commercial substream.
The self-haul substream composition differs from the transfer station and commercial
substreams. The top three components of the self-haul substream are industrial sludge,
clean and treated lumber, and rocks and soil.
Exhibit 3-7 shows FY 2008 tons, the number of samples taken, and composition results by
category for West Hawai`i transfer stations. As discussed in Section 1, the small number of
samples taken from individual stations means that there is considerable uncertainty
associated with these estimates. Dra
f
t
SECTION 3 WEST HAWAI`I SAMPLING RESULTS
3-2 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
20.1%
2.2%
11.1%9.4%
40.7%
16.3%
0.1%0.1%0.0%0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed
Sa
m
p
l
e
M
e
a
n
EXHIBIT 3-1
Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Hawai`i Transfer Station
EXHIBIT 3-2
Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Hawai`i Commercial
25.3%
1.6%
6.3%8.6%
33.4%
24.2%
0.3% 0.3%0.0%0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed
Sa
m
p
l
e
M
e
a
n
3.8%
0.1%2.2%0.7%
22.7%
33.7%
0.1%
36.8%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed
Sa
m
p
l
e
M
e
a
n
EXHIBIT 3-3
Composition Estimates by Waste Category: West Hawai`i Self-Haul Dra
f
t
SECTION 3 – WEST HAWAI`I SAMPLING RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC 3-3
EXHIBIT 3-4
Top Ten Components: West Hawai`i Transfer Stations
Tons Disposed Percent of Total
Cumulative Percent of
Total
Green Waste 6,007 14.4% 14.4%
Food 5,311 12.7% 27.2%
R/C Organic 3,721 8.9% 36.1%
Clean and Treated Lumber 3,334 8.0% 44.1%
R/C Demolition 2,859 6.9% 51.0%
Miscellaneous Paper 2,333 5.6% 56.6%
R/C Metal 2,230 5.4% 61.9%
Cardboard 2,125 5.1% 67.0%
Ferrous Metal 1,911 4.6% 71.6%
Textiles 1,903 4.6% 76.2%
EXHIBIT 3-5
Top Ten Components: West Hawai`i Commercial
Tons Disposed Percent of Total
Cumulative Percent
of Total
Food 17,280 21.3% 21.3%
Cardboard 7,945 9.8% 31.1%
Clean and Treated Lumber 7,586 9.4% 40.5%
R/C Demolition 6,835 8.4% 49.0%
R/C Paper 4,936 6.1% 55.1%
R/C Organic 4,468 5.5% 60.6%
Miscellaneous 3,885 4.8% 65.4%
Concrete 3,693 4.6% 69.9%
Green Waste 3,467 4.3% 74.2%
Film Plastic 2,774 3.4% 77.6%
EXHIBIT 3-6
Top Ten Components: West Hawai`i Self-Haul
Tons Disposed Percent of Total
Cumulative Percent
of Total
Industrial Sludge 1,585 26.8% 26.8%
Clean and Treated Lumber 921 14.5% 41.3%
Rocks and Soil 792 13.4% 54.7%
Green Waste 737 12.5% 67.2%
R/C Demolition 478 8.1% 75.3%
R/C Organic 384 6.5% 81.8%
R/C Special Waste 299 5.1% 86.9%
Food 212 3.6% 90.5%
Cardboard 141 2.4% 92.8%
Tires 116 2.0% 94.8%
Note: The abbreviation “R/C” stands for Remainder/Composite. The R/C components include waste that is made mostly
of one component but contains significant amounts of other components, or waste that is part of a broad waste category
but cannot be put into any of its component categories. Examples of R/C organic waste includes carpet and disposable
diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated milk cartons belong to R/C paper.
Green waste includes leaves and grass, prunings, and stumps.
Dra
f
t
SE
C
T
I
O
N
3
–
W
E
S
T
H
A
W
A
I
`
I
S
A
M
P
L
I
N
G
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
3-
4
AP
P
X
B
_
W
A
S
T
E
C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
_
1
2
1
7
0
9
.
D
O
C
EX
H
I
B
I
T
3
-
7
Co
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
:
W
e
s
t
H
a
w
a
i
`
i
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ho
n
o
k
a
`
a
K
a
`
u
K
a
i
l
u
a
K
e
a
u
h
o
u
K
o
h
a
l
a
P
a
`
a
u
i
l
o
P
u
a
k
o
W
a
i
e
a
W
a
i
m
e
a
La
u
p
a
-
ho
e
h
o
e
M
i
l
o
l
i
`
i
K
e
`
e
i
To
n
s
0
6
-
0
7
3
,
4
5
9
3
,
4
4
7
7
,
8
6
0
5
,
0
1
7
4
,
1
4
5
1
,
9
2
2
2
,
6
8
1
2
,
9
6
8
6
,
3
7
6
1
,
5
4
7
2
0
7
2
,
0
2
5
No
.
o
f
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
23
6
5
4
1
2
2
5
St
a
t
i
o
n
u
s
e
d
a
s
a
p
r
o
x
y
w
h
e
n
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
t
e
c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
Pa
`
a
u
i
l
o
W
a
i
e
a
K
o
h
a
l
a
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
Pa
p
e
r
2
1
.
9
%
2
4
.
1
%
2
3
.
6
%
2
1
.
9
%
1
7
.
2
%
2
1
.
1
%
6
.
3
%
1
4
.
4
%
2
0
.
5
%
Gla
s
s
0
.
7
%
3
.
3
%
2
.
2
%
4
.
9
%
0
.
5
%
1
.
7
%
0
.
1
%
2
.
1
%
1
.
7
%
Me
t
a
l
1
1
.
3
%
1
4
.
6
%
7
.
4
%
1
0
.
2
%
7
.
9
%
2
3
.
0
%
1
6
.
9
%
1
1
.
4
%
7
.
7
%
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
1
0
.
3
%
6
.
9
%
1
5
.
1
%
1
0
.
4
%
5
.
2
%
1
1
.
3
%
4
.
8
%
5
.
4
%
7
.
6
%
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
3
3
.
3
%
4
0
.
9
%
3
6
.
5
%
4
1
.
0
%
4
2
.
6
%
2
5
.
3
%
7
0
.
8
%
4
1
.
8
%
4
3
.
2
%
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
2
1
.
8
%
1
0
.
1
%
1
5
.
1
%
1
1
.
5
%
2
6
.
5
%
1
7
.
6
%
1
.
1
%
2
4
.
8
%
1
8
.
3
%
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
0
.
7
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
1
%
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
9
%
Mix
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
u
e
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
10
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
No
t
S
a
m
p
l
e
d
Dra
f
t
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC 4-1
SECTION 4
East Hawai`i Sampling Results
This section presents summary composition results for the East Hawai`i transfer station,
commercial, and self-haul substreams. More comprehensive exhibits that detail the full
composition results for the 58 component categories are presented in Attachment A
(Exhibits A-10, A-11, and A-12). As noted in Section 1, the composition percentages for the
East Hawai`i substreams were taken from the results of the 2001 study. The tons for waste
components were calculated by multiplying FY 2008 tons for each substream by the 2001
study’s composition percentages.
Exhibits 4-1, 4-1, and 4-3 show the overall composition results of waste disposed of in East
Hawai`i via the three main substreams. Organics, paper, and construction and demolition
debris account for 69%, 77% and 83% of the transfer station, commercial, and self-haul
substreams, respectively. Other waste types that comprise large percentages of individual
substreams include metal and plastic in the transfer station substream (10.5% and 9.2%,
respectively), plastic in the commercial substream (10.0%), and special waste (14.6%) in the
self-haul substream.
Exhibits 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 show the ten largest waste components in East Hawai`i for the
three main substreams. Three of the top five components are the same for the transfer
station and commercial substreams (food, cardboard, and R/C paper). Cardboard
comprises 6.8% of the transfer stations substream and 10.5% of the commercial substream.
Several waste components appear in the top 10 of only one substream, including green
waste, bulky items, and R/C plastic, which are in the top 10 in the transfer station
substream, and film plastic, durable plastic, and newspaper which are in the top 10 in the
commercial substream.
The self-haul substream composition differs from the transfer station and commercial
substreams. The top three self-haul substream components are clean and treated lumber,
green waste, and industrial sludge. The only top 10 self-haul components that are also in the
top 10 in one or both of the other substreams include green waste, R/C organic, R/C paper,
and clean and treated lumber.
Dra
f
t
SECTION 4 EAST HAWAI`I SAMPLING RESULTS
4-2 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHIBIT 4-1
Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawai`i Transfer Stations
22.6%
3.8%
10.5%9.2%
34.3%
12.4%
0.5%
4.9%1.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed
Sa
m
p
l
e
M
e
a
n
EXHIBIT 4-2
Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawai`i Commercial
27.6%
3.0%
7.2%10.0%
26.2%23.5%
0.1%1.6%0.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed
Sa
m
p
l
e
M
e
a
n
EXHIBIT 4-3
Composition Estimates by Waste Category: East Hawai`i Self-Haul
8.8%
0.1%2.0%0.5%
22.7%
51.2%
0.1%
14.6%
0.0%0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics C&D HHW Special Mixed
Sa
m
p
l
e
M
e
a
nDra
f
t
SECTION 4 – EAST HAWAI`I SAMPLING RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC 4-3
EXHIBIT 4-4
Top Ten Components: East Hawai`i Transfer Stations
Tons Disposed Percent of Total
Cumulative
Percent of Total
Food 5,633 14.2% 14.2%
Green Waste 3,832 9.7% 23.9%
R/C Organic 2,990 7.6% 31.5%
Cardboard 2,696 6.8% 38.3%
R/C Paper 2,303 5.8% 44.1%
Clean and Treated Lumber 2,235 5.6% 49.8%
Ferrous Metal 1,663 4.2% 54.0%
Bulky Items 1,642 4.1% 58.1%
Miscellaneous Paper 1,501 3.8% 61.9%
R/C Plastic 1,291 3.3% 65.2%
EXHIBIT 4-5
Top Ten Components: East Hawai`i Commercial
Tons Disposed Percent of Total
Cumulative
Percent of Total
Clean and Treated Lumber 5,990 20.6% 20.6%
Food 5,479 18.8% 39.4%
Cardboard 3,066 10.5% 49.9%
R/C Paper 1,889 6.5% 56.4%
Ferrous Metal 1,207 4.1% 60.5%
R/C Organic 1,118 3.8% 64.4%
Film Plastic 1,072 3.7% 68.1%
Miscellaneous Paper 879 3.0% 71.1%
Durable Plastic 815 2.8% 73.9%
Newspaper 734 2.5% 76.4%
EXHIBIT 4-6
Top Ten Components: East Hawai`i Self-Haul
Tons Disposed Percent of Total
Cumulative
Percent of Total
Clean and Treated Lumber 1,194 18.8% 18.8%
Green Waste 1,392 10.9% 29.7%
Industrial Sludge 1,241 9.7% 39.4%
R/C Organic 1,194 9.3% 48.7%
R/C Demolition 905 7.1% 55.8%
R/C Paper 850 6.6% 62.4%
Concrete 816 6.4% 68.8%
Asphalt Paving 793 6.2% 75.0%
Tires 514 4.0% 79.0%
Gypsum Board 509 4.0% 83.0%
Note: The abbreviation “R/C” stands for Remainder/Composite. The R/C components include waste that is
made mostly of one component but contains significant amounts of other components, or waste that is
part of a broad waste category but cannot be put into any of its component categories. Examples of R/C
organic waste includes carpet and disposable diapers, while materials such as paper towels and coated
milk cartons belong to R/C paper.
Green waste includes leaves and grass, prunings, and stumps.
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
ATTACHMENT A
Detailed Sampling Results Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED SAMPLING RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC A-1
EXHBIT A-1
Composition Estimates: Total County
Tons
Disposed
Percent of
Total
Tons
Disposed
Percent of
Total
Paper 47,130 22.4% Construction and Demolition 46,702 22.2%
Cardboard 16,182 7.7% Concrete 5,128 2.4%
Bags 723 0.3% Asphalt Paving 2,212 1.1%
Newspaper 4,193 2.0% Asphalt Roofing 381 0.2%
White Ledger 1,540 0.7% Clean and Treated Lumber 22,984 10.9%
Colored Ledger 280 0.1% Gypsum Board 1,471 0.7%
Computer 92 0.0% Rocks and Soil 1,707 0.8%
Office 1,510 0.7% R/C Demo 12,819 6.1%
Magazines 2,424 1.2%Household Hazardous 527 0.3%
Directories 109 0.1% Paint 171 0.1%
Miscellaneous 8,634 4.1% Vehicle Fluids 20 0.0%
R/C Paper 11,443 5.4% Oil 54 0.0%
Glass 4,592 2.2%Batteries 117 0.1%
Clear Containers 1,476 0.7% R/C Hazardous 165 0.1%
Green Containers 1,296 0.6%Special 6,762 3.2%
Brown Containers 1,024 0.5% Ash 93 0.0%
Other Containers 307 0.1% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0%
Flat Glass 160 0.1% Industrial Sludge 2,826 1.3%
R/C Glass 329 0.2% Treated Medical 139 0.1%
Metal 16,388 7.8%Bulky Items 2,177 1.0%
Aluminum Cans 565 0.3% Tires 1,124 0.5%
Tin Cans 1,525 0.7% R/C Special 404 0.2%
Ferrous 7,441 3.5%Mixed 997 0.5%
Nonferrous 504 0.2% Mixed Residue 997 0.5%
White Goods 742 0.4%
R/C Metal 5,611 2.7%
Plastic 17,482 8.3%
#1 Containers 1,067 0.5%
#2 Containers 882 0.4%
Other Containers 818 0.4%
Film 6,170 2.9%
Durable 4,002 1.9%
R/C Plastic 4,543 2.2%
Organics 69,448 33.1%
Food 34,230 16.3%
Textiles 5,485 2.6%
Leaves and Grass 6,160 2.9%
Prunings 7,057 3.4%
Stumps 2,637 1.3%
Crop Residue 3 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0%
R/C Organic 13,875 6.6%
Total Tons 210,030
Sample Count 100 Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT A EAST HAWAI`I SAMPLING RESULTS
A-2 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHBIT A-2
Composition Estimates: Total West Hawai`i
Tons
Disposed
Percent of
Total
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total
Paper 29,031 22.6% Construction and Demolition 28,405 22.1%
Cardboard 10,211 7.9% Concrete 3,800 3.0%
Bags 360 0.3% Asphalt Paving 616 0.5%
Newspaper 2,313 1.8% Asphalt Roofing 165 0.1%
White Ledger 726 0.6% Clean and Treated Lumber 11,363 8.8%
Colored Ledger 190 0.1% Gypsum Board 829 0.6%
Computer 62 0.0% Rocks and Soil 1,460 1.1%
Office 1,090 0.8% R/C Demo 10,172 7.9%
Magazines 1,410 1.1%Household Hazardous 267 0.2%
Directories 36 0.0% Paint 117 0.1%
Miscellaneous 6,233 4.8% Vehicle Fluids 2 0.0%
R/C Paper 6,400 5.0% Oil 54 0.0%
Glass 2,234 1.7%Batteries 29 0.0%
Clear Containers 590 0.5% R/C Hazardous 65 0.1%
Green Containers 615 0.5%Special 2,504 1.9%
Brown Containers 401 0.3% Ash 93 0.1%
Other Containers 294 0.2% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0%
Flat Glass 98 0.1% Industrial Sludge 1,585 1.2%
R/C Glass 236 0.2% Treated Medical 20 0.0%
Metal 9,861 7.7%Bulky Items 392 0.3%
Aluminum Cans 224 0.2% Tires 116 0.1%
Tin Cans 800 0.6% R/C Special 299 0.2%
Ferrous 4,417 3.4%Mixed 1 0.0%
Nonferrous 250 0.2% Mixed Residue 1 0.0%
White Goods 1 0.0%
R/C Metal 4,169 3.2%
Plastic 10,895 8.5%
#1 Containers 580 0.5%
#2 Containers 483 0.4%
Other Containers 566 0.4%
Film 4,013 3.1%
Durable 2,632 2.0%
R/C Plastic 2,621 2.0%
Organics 45,346 35.3%
Food 22,804 17.7%
Textiles 3,755 2.9%
Leaves and Grass 4,833 3.8%
Prunings 4,085 3.2%
Stumps 1,293 1.0%
Crop Residue 3 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0%
R/C Organic 8,573 6.7%
Total Tons 128,543
Sample Count 100 Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED SAMPLING RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC A-3
EXHBIT A-3
Composition Estimates: Total East Hawai`i
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total
Paper 18,099 22.2% Construction and Demolition 18,298 22.5%
Cardboard 5,970 7.3% Concrete 1,328 1.6%
Bags 362 0.4% Asphalt Paving 1,597 2.0%
Newspaper 1,880 2.3% Asphalt Roofing 216 0.3%
White Ledger 814 1.0% Clean and Treated Lumber 11,621 14.3%
Colored Ledger 90 0.1% Gypsum Board 642 0.8%
Computer 31 0.0% Rocks and Soil 247 0.3%
Office 420 0.5% R/C Demo 2,647 3.2%
Magazines 1,014 1.2%Household Hazardous 260 0.3%
Directories 74 0.1% Paint 53 0.1%
Miscellaneous 2,401 2.9% Vehicle Fluids 18 0.0%
R/C Paper 5,043 6.2% Oil 0 0.0%
Glass 2,359 2.9%Batteries 89 0.1%
Clear Containers 886 1.1% R/C Hazardous 100 0.1%
Green Containers 682 0.8%Special 4,259 5.2%
Brown Containers 623 0.8% Ash 0 0.0%
Other Containers 13 0.0% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0%
Flat Glass 62 0.1% Industrial Sludge 1,241 1.5%
R/C Glass 92 0.1% Treated Medical 119 0.1%
Metal 6,526 8.0%Bulky Items 1,785 2.2%
Aluminum Cans 341 0.4% Tires 1,008 1.2%
Tin Cans 725 0.9% R/C Special 105 0.1%
Ferrous 3,025 3.7%Mixed 996 1.2%
Nonferrous 254 0.3% Mixed Residue 996 1.2%
White Goods 741 0.9%
R/C Metal 1,442 1.8%
Plastic 6,588 8.1%
#1 Containers 487 0.6%
#2 Containers 399 0.5%
Other Containers 252 0.3%
Film 2,157 2.6%
Durable 1,370 1.7%
R/C Plastic 1,923 2.4%
Organics 24,102 29.6%
Food 11,426 14.0%
Textiles 1,730 2.1%
Leaves and Grass 1,327 1.6%
Prunings 2,972 3.6%
Stumps 1,344 1.6%
Crop Residue 0 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0%
R/C Organic 5,302 6.5%
Total Tons 81,487
Sample Count (2001 study) 100
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT A EAST HAWAI`I SAMPLING RESULTS
A-4 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHBIT A-4
Composition Estimates: Total County Transfer Stations
Tons
Disposed
Percent of
Total
Tons
Disposed
Percent of
Total
Paper 17,309 21.3% Construction and Demolition 11,699 14.4%
Cardboard 4,822 5.9% Concrete 509 0.6%
Bags 232 0.3% Asphalt Paving 803 1.0%
Newspaper 2,109 2.6% Asphalt Roofing 102 0.1%
White Ledger 503 0.6% Clean and Treated Lumber 5,570 6.9%
Colored Ledger 69 0.1% Gypsum Board 249 0.3%
Computer 24 0.0% Rocks and Soil 452 0.6%
Office 826 1.0% R/C Demo 4,014 4.9%
Magazines 1,136 1.4%Household Hazardous 258 0.3%
Directories 26 0.0% Paint 46 0.1%
Miscellaneous 3,834 4.7% Vehicle Fluids 16 0.0%
R/C Paper 3,730 4.6% Oil 19 0.0%
Glass 2,407 3.0%Batteries 84 0.1%
Clear Containers 830 1.0% R/C Hazardous 94 0.1%
Green Containers 666 0.8%Special 1,981 2.4%
Brown Containers 563 0.7% Ash 0 0.0%
Other Containers 155 0.2% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0%
Flat Glass 43 0.1% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0%
R/C Glass 150 0.2% Treated Medical 0 0.0%
Metal 8,802 10.8%Bulky Items 1,699 2.1%
Aluminum Cans 277 0.3% Tires 221 0.3%
Tin Cans 790 1.0% R/C Special 60 0.1%
Ferrous 3,574 4.4%Mixed 732 0.9%
Nonferrous 320 0.4% Mixed Residue 732 0.9%
White Goods 739 0.9%
R/C Metal 3,102 3.8%
Plastic 7,530 9.3%
#1 Containers 481 0.6%
#2 Containers 472 0.6%
Other Containers 368 0.5%
Film 2,301 2.8%
Durable 1,752 2.2%
R/C Plastic 2,156 2.7%
Organics 30,511 37.6%
Food 10,944 13.5%
Textiles 3,017 3.7%
Leaves and Grass 5,133 6.3%
Prunings 4,243 5.2%
Stumps 462 0.6%
Crop Residue 0 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0%
R/C Organic 6,711 8.3%
Total Tons 81,230
Sample Count 70
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED SAMPLING RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC A-5
EXHBIT A-5
Composition Estimates: Total County Commercial
Tons
Disposed
Percent of
Total
Tons
Disposed
Percent of
Total
Paper 28,471 25.9% Construction and Demolition 26,466 24.0%
Cardboard 11,011 10.0% Concrete 3,696 3.4%
Bags 484 0.4% Asphalt Paving 512 0.5%
Newspaper 2,019 1.8% Asphalt Roofing 279 0.3%
White Ledger 1,034 0.9% Clean and Treated Lumber 13,576 12.3%
Colored Ledger 210 0.2% Gypsum Board 646 0.6%
Computer 69 0.1% Rocks and Soil 335 0.3%
Office 684 0.6% R/C Demo 7,422 6.7%
Magazines 1,286 1.2%Household Hazardous 253 0.2%
Directories 84 0.1% Paint 117 0.1%
Miscellaneous 4,764 4.3% Vehicle Fluids 0 0.0%
R/C Paper 6,826 6.2% Oil 33 0.0%
Glass 2,173 2.0%Batteries 32 0.0%
Clear Containers 642 0.6% R/C Hazardous 71 0.1%
Green Containers 630 0.6%Special 738 0.7%
Brown Containers 459 0.4% Ash 0 0.0%
Other Containers 152 0.1% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0%
Flat Glass 117 0.1% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0%
R/C Glass 173 0.2% Treated Medical 91 0.1%
Metal 7,202 6.5%Bulky Items 330 0.3%
Aluminum Cans 283 0.3% Tires 273 0.2%
Tin Cans 735 0.7% R/C Special 45 0.0%
Ferrous 3,654 3.3%Mixed 262 0.2%
Nonferrous 181 0.2% Mixed Residue 262 0.2%
White Goods 0 0.0%
R/C Metal 2,348 2.1%
Plastic 9,844 8.9%
#1 Containers 583 0.5%
#2 Containers 407 0.4%
Other Containers 447 0.4%
Film 3,845 3.5%
Durable 2,242 2.0%
R/C Plastic 2,319 2.1%
Organics 34,691 31.5%
Food 22,760 20.7%
Textiles 2,460 2.2%
Leaves and Grass 985 0.9%
Prunings 2,790 2.5%
Stumps 112 0.1%
Crop Residue 0 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0%
R/C Organic 5,586 5.1%
Total Tons 110,101
Sample Count 66
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT A EAST HAWAI`I SAMPLING RESULTS
A-6 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHBIT A-6
Composition Estimates: Total County Self-Haul
Tons
Disposed
Percent of
Total
Tons
Disposed
Percent of
Total
Paper 1,350 7.2% Construction and Demolition 8,537 45.7%
Cardboard 349 1.9% Concrete 923 4.9%
Bags 6 0.0% Asphalt Paving 897 4.8%
Newspaper 65 0.3% Asphalt Roofing 0 0.0%
White Ledger 2 0.0% Clean and Treated Lumber 3,839 20.5%
Colored Ledger 0 0.0% Gypsum Board 575 3.1%
Computer 0 0.0% Rocks and Soil 921 4.9%
Office 1 0.0% R/C Demo 1,383 7.4%
Magazines 2 0.0%Household Hazardous 15 0.1%
Directories 0 0.0% Paint 7 0.0%
Miscellaneous 36 0.2% Vehicle Fluids 4 0.0%
R/C Paper 888 4.7% Oil 2 0.0%
Glass 13 0.1%Batteries 1 0.0%
Clear Containers 5 0.0% R/C Hazardous 0 0.0%
Green Containers 1 0.0%Special 4,043 21.6%
Brown Containers 2 0.0% Ash 93 0.5%
Other Containers 0 0.0% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0%
Flat Glass 0 0.0% Industrial Sludge 2,826 15.1%
R/C Glass 5 0.0% Treated Medical 48 0.3%
Metal 384 2.1%Bulky Items 148 0.8%
Aluminum Cans 5 0.0% Tires 630 3.4%
Tin Cans 0 0.0% R/C Special 299 1.6%
Ferrous 213 1.1%Mixed 3 0.0%
Nonferrous 2 0.0% Mixed Residue 3 0.0%
White Goods 3 0.0%
R/C Metal 161 0.9%
Plastic 108 0.6%
#1 Containers 2 0.0%
#2 Containers 3 0.0%
Other Containers 2 0.0%
Film 23 0.1%
Durable 8 0.0%
R/C Plastic 69 0.4%
Organics 4,245 22.7%
Food 526 2.8%
Textiles 9 0.0%
Leaves and Grass 42 0.2%
Prunings 24 0.1%
Stumps 2,063 11.0%
Crop Residue 3 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0%
R/C Organic 1,578 8.4%
Total Tons 18,699
Sample Count 24 Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED SAMPLING RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC A-7
EXHBIT A-7
Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Transfer Stations
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Paper 8,359 20.1% Construction and Demolition 6,794 16.3%
Cardboard 2,125 5.1% 4.1% 6.1% Concrete 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bags 47 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Asphalt Paving 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Newspaper 1,001 2.4% 1.5% 3.3% Asphalt Roofing 102 0.2% 0.0% 0.7%
White Ledger 195 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% Clean and Treated Lumber 3,334 8.0% 5.0% 11.0%
Colored Ledger 31 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Gypsum Board 165 0.4% 0.0% 0.9%
Computer 21 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Rocks and Soil 333 0.8% 0.3% 1.3%
Office 532 1.3% 0.6% 2.0% R/C Demo 2,859 6.9% 3.5% 10.2%
Magazines 632 1.5% 0.9% 2.1%Household Hazardous 48 0.1%
Directories 15 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Paint 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Miscellaneous 2,333 5.6% 4.2% 7.0% Vehicle Fluids 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Paper 1,427 3.4% 2.7% 4.1% Oil 19 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Glass 918 2.2%Batteries 15 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Clear Containers 309 0.7% 0.2% 1.2% R/C Hazardous 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Green Containers 235 0.6% 0.3% 0.9%Special 58 0.1%
Brown Containers 130 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% Ash 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Containers 142 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Flat Glass 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Glass 87 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% Treated Medical 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Metal 4,630 11.1%Bulky Items 58 0.1% 0.0% 0.4%
Aluminum Cans 75 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Tires 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tin Cans 268 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% R/C Special 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous 1,911 4.6% 3.1% 6.0%Mixed 0 0.0%
Nonferrous 147 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% Mixed Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
White Goods 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Metal 2,230 5.4% 3.1% 7.6%
Plastic 3,907 9.4%
#1 Containers 173 0.4% 0.3% 0.5%
#2 Containers 222 0.5% 0.4% 0.7%
Other Containers 217 0.5% 0.4% 0.6%
Film 1,229 3.0% 2.5% 3.4%
Durable 1,202 2.9% 1.6% 4.2%
R/C Plastic 865 2.1% 1.6% 2.5%
Organics 16,941 40.7%
Food 5,311 12.7% 10.5% 15.0%
Textiles 1,903 4.6% 2.5% 6.6%
Leaves and Grass 4,016 9.6% 5.3% 14.0%
Prunings 1,529 3.7% 1.0% 6.3%
Stumps 462 1.1% 0.0% 2.3%
Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Organic 3,721 8.9% 7.2% 10.7%
Total Tons 41,655
Sample Count 30
Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT A EAST HAWAI`I SAMPLING RESULTS
A-8 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHBIT A-8
Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Commercial
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Paper 20,448 25.3% Construction and Demolition 19,622 24.2%
Cardboard 7,945 9.8% 6.6% 13.0% Concrete 3,693 4.6% 1.4% 7.7%
Bags 311 0.4% 0.1% 0.7% Asphalt Paving 512 0.6% 0.0% 1.6%
Newspaper 1,286 1.6% 0.6% 2.6% Asphalt Roofing 63 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
White Ledger 530 0.7% 0.2% 1.1% Clean and Treated Lumber 7,586 9.4% 4.8% 14.0%
Colored Ledger 158 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% Gypsum Board 598 0.7% 0.0% 1.6%
Computer 40 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Rocks and Soil 335 0.4% 0.0% 1.0%
Office 558 0.7% 0.3% 1.1% R/C Demo 6,835 8.4% 3.2% 13.7%
Magazines 777 1.0% 0.3% 1.6%Household Hazardous 214 0.3%
Directories 21 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Paint 117 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
Miscellaneous 3,885 4.8% 3.4% 6.2% Vehicle Fluids 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Paper 4,936 6.1% 4.1% 8.1% Oil 33 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Glass 1,311 1.6%Batteries 13 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Clear Containers 279 0.3% 0.1% 0.6% R/C Hazardous 51 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Green Containers 379 0.5% 0.2% 0.7%Special 274 0.3%
Brown Containers 270 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% Ash 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Containers 152 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Flat Glass 84 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Glass 147 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% Treated Medical 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Metal 5,103 6.3%Bulky Items 274 0.3% 0.0% 0.9%
Aluminum Cans 147 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Tires 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tin Cans 533 0.7% 0.2% 1.1% R/C Special 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous 2,447 3.0% 0.7% 5.3%Mixed 0 0.0%
Nonferrous 102 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Mixed Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
White Goods 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Metal 1,874 2.3% 0.6% 4.1%
Plastic 6,944 8.6%
#1 Containers 406 0.5% 0.4% 0.6%
#2 Containers 261 0.3% 0.2% 0.4%
Other Containers 348 0.4% 0.3% 0.6%
Film 2,774 3.4% 2.3% 4.6%
Durable 1,427 1.8% 0.5% 3.0%
R/C Plastic 1,728 2.1% 1.2% 3.0%
Organics 27,064 33.4%
Food 17,280 21.3% 15.1% 27.5%
Textiles 1,849 2.3% 1.3% 3.3%
Leaves and Grass 809 1.0% 0.0% 2.1%
Prunings 2,546 3.1% 0.0% 6.6%
Stumps 112 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Organic 4,468 5.5% 2.6% 8.5%
Total Tons 80,981
Sample Count 30
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED SAMPLING RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC A-9
EXHBIT A-9
Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Self-Haul
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total
Paper 224 3.8% Construction and Demolition 1,989 33.7%
Cardboard 141 2.4% Concrete 106 1.8%
Bags 3 0.0% Asphalt Paving 103 1.8%
Newspaper 26 0.4% Asphalt Roofing 0 0.0%
White Ledger 1 0.0% Clean and Treated Lumber 443 7.5%
Colored Ledger 0 0.0% Gypsum Board 66 1.1%
Computer 0 0.0% Rocks and Soil 792 13.4%
Office 0 0.0% R/C Demo 478 8.1%
Magazines 1 0.0%Household Hazardous 5 0.1%
Directories 0 0.0% Paint 0 0.0%
Miscellaneous 14 0.2% Vehicle Fluids 2 0.0%
R/C Paper 37 0.6% Oil 2 0.0%
Glass 5 0.1%Batteries 1 0.0%
Clear Containers 2 0.0% R/C Hazardous 0 0.0%
Green Containers 0 0.0%Special 2,172 36.8%
Brown Containers 1 0.0% Ash 93 1.6%
Other Containers 0 0.0% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0%
Flat Glass 0 0.0% Industrial Sludge 1,585 26.8%
R/C Glass 2 0.0% Treated Medical 20 0.3%
Metal 128 2.2%Bulky Items 60 1.0%
Aluminum Cans 2 0.0% Tires 116 2.0%
Tin Cans 0 0.0% R/C Special 299 5.1%
Ferrous 59 1.0%Mixed 1 0.0%
Nonferrous 1 0.0% Mixed Residue 1 0.0%
White Goods 1 0.0%
R/C Metal 65 1.1%
Plastic 44 0.7%
#1 Containers 1 0.0%
#2 Containers 1 0.0%
Other Containers 1 0.0%
Film 9 0.2%
Durable 3 0.1%
R/C Plastic 28 0.5%
Organics 1,341 22.7%
Food 212 3.6%
Textiles 3 0.1%
Leaves and Grass 9 0.1%
Prunings 10 0.2%
Stumps 719 12.2%
Crop Residue 3 0.1%
Manure 0 0.0%
R/C Organic 384 6.5%
Total Tons 5,907
Sample Count 0
Notes:
Waste composition percent for mixed loads from 2001 study at South Hilo Landfill.
Pure loads at the West Hawaii Landfill added to the mixed load composition.
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT A EAST HAWAI`I SAMPLING RESULTS
A-10 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHBIT A-10
Composition Estimates: East Hawai`i Transfer Stations
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Paper 8,950 22.6% Construction and Demolition 4,905 12.4%
Cardboard 2,696 6.8% 5.5% 8.2% Concrete 509 1.3% 0.3% 2.3%
Bags 185 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% Asphalt Paving 803 2.0% 0.0% 5.2%
Newspaper 1,108 2.8% 0.2% 3.6% Asphalt Roofing 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
White Ledger 308 0.8% 0.5% 1.0% Clean and Treated Lumber 2,235 5.6% 3.7% 7.5%
Colored Ledger 37 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Gypsum Board 85 0.2% 0.0% 0.4%
Computer 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Rocks and Soil 119 0.3% 0.0% 0.7%
Office 294 0.7% 0.1% 1.3% R/C Demo 1,154 2.9% 0.3% 5.6%
Magazines 503 1.3% 0.8% 1.7%Household Hazardous 210 0.5%
Directories 11 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Paint 46 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
Miscellaneous 1,501 3.8% 3.0% 4.6% Vehicle Fluids 16 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
R/C Paper 2,303 5.8% 4.5% 7.1% Oil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Glass 1,489 3.8%Batteries 69 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
Clear Containers 520 1.3% 0.9% 1.7% R/C Hazardous 80 0.2% 0.0% 0.4%
Green Containers 431 1.1% 0.8% 1.4%Special 1,923 4.9%
Brown Containers 433 1.1% 0.7% 1.5% Ash 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Containers 13 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Flat Glass 29 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Glass 63 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Treated Medical 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Metal 4,172 10.5%Bulky Items 1,642 4.1% 1.5% 6.8%
Aluminum Cans 202 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% Tires 221 0.6% 0.0% 1.1%
Tin Cans 523 1.3% 1.0% 1.7% R/C Special 60 0.2% 0.0% 0.4%
Ferrous 1,663 4.2% 2.2% 6.2%Mixed 732 1.8%
Nonferrous 173 0.4% 0.3% 0.6% Mixed Residue 732 1.8% 0.9% 2.8%
White Goods 739 1.9% 0.0% 4.7%
R/C Metal 872 2.2% 0.8% 3.6%
Plastic 3,623 9.2%
#1 Containers 308 0.8% 0.5% 1.0%
#2 Containers 250 0.6% 0.5% 0.8%
Other Containers 151 0.4% 0.3% 0.5%
Film 1,072 2.7% 2.2% 3.2%
Durable 550 1.4% 0.9% 1.9%
R/C Plastic 1,291 3.3% 2.4% 4.2%
Organics 13,570 34.3%
Food 5,633 14.2% 11.2% 17.3%
Textiles 1,114 2.8% 1.9% 3.8%
Leaves and Grass 1,118 2.8% 1.2% 4.4%
Prunings 2,714 6.9% 3.4% 10.3%
Stumps 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Organic 2,990 7.6% 4.3% 10.8%
Total Tons 39,575
Sample Count (2001 study) 40
Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED SAMPLING RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC A-11
EXHBIT A-11
Composition Estimates: East Hawai'i Commercial
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Paper 8,023 27.6%Construction and Demolition 6,844 23.5%
Cardboard 3,066 10.5% 7.4% 13.7% Concrete 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bags 174 0.6% 0.4% 0.8% Asphalt Paving 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Newspaper 734 2.5% 1.5% 3.5% Asphalt Roofing 216 0.7% 0.0% 2.0%
White Ledger 504 1.7% 0.9% 2.6% Clean and Treated Lumber 5,990 20.6% 12.5% 28.7%
Colored Ledger 52 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Gypsum Board 48 0.2% 0.0% 0.4%
Computer 28 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Rocks and Soil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Office 125 0.4% 0.3% 0.6% R/C Demo 587 2.0% 0.0% 4.6%
Magazines 509 1.7% 0.8% 2.7%Household Hazardous 39 0.1%
Directories 63 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% Paint 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Miscellaneous 879 3.0% 2.4% 3.7% Vehicle Fluids 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Paper 1,889 6.5% 4.5% 8.5% Oil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Glass 861 3.0%Batteries 19 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Clear Containers 363 1.2% 0.8% 1.7% R/C Hazardous 20 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Green Containers 250 0.9% 0.4% 1.3%Special 464 1.6%
Brown Containers 189 0.6% 0.3% 1.0% Ash 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Containers 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Flat Glass 33 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Glass 26 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Treated Medical 91 0.3% 0.0% 0.7%
Metal 2,098 7.2%Bulky Items 56 0.2% 0.0% 0.5%
Aluminum Cans 136 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% Tires 273 0.9% 0.0% 2.1%
Tin Cans 202 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% R/C Special 45 0.2% 0.0% 0.3%
Ferrous 1,207 4.1% 0.3% 8.0%Mixed 262 0.9%
Nonferrous 79 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% Mixed Residue 262 0.9% 0.5% 1.3%
White Goods 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Metal 474 1.6% 0.4% 2.9%
Plastic 2,900 10.0%
#1 Containers 177 0.6% 0.3% 0.9%
#2 Containers 146 0.5% 0.3% 0.7%
Other Containers 99 0.3% 0.2% 0.4%
Film 1,072 3.7% 2.8% 4.5%
Durable 815 2.8% 0.3% 5.2%
R/C Plastic 591 2.0% 1.0% 3.0%
Organics 7,627 26.2%
Food 5,479 18.8% 13.7% 24.0%
Textiles 611 2.1% 0.4% 3.8%
Leaves and Grass 176 0.6% 0.2% 1.1%
Prunings 243 0.8% 0.3% 1.4%
Stumps 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Organic 1,118 3.8% 1.5% 6.1%
Total Tons 29,119
Sample Count (2001 study) 36
Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT A EAST HAWAI`I SAMPLING RESULTS
A-12 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHBIT A-12
Composition Estimates: East Hawai`i Self-Haul
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total
Paper 1,126 8.8% Construction and Demolition 6,549 51.2%
Cardboard 208 1.6% Concrete 816 6.4%
Bags 4 0.0% Asphalt Paving 793 6.2%
Newspaper 39 0.3% Asphalt Roofing 0 0.0%
White Ledger 1 0.0% Clean and Treated Lumber 2,619 20.5%
Colored Ledger 0 0.0% Treated Lumber 776 6.1%
Computer 0 0.0% Gypsum Board 509 4.0%
Office 1 0.0% Rocks and Soil 129 1.0%
Magazines 1 0.0% R/C Demo 905 7.1%
Directories 0 0.0%Household Hazardous 11 0.1%
Miscellaneous 21 0.2% Paint 7 0.1%
R/C Paper 850 6.6% Vehicle Fluids 3 0.0%
Glass 8 0.1%Oil 0 0.0%
Clear Containers 3 0.0% Batteries 1 0.0%
Green Containers 1 0.0% R/C Hazardous 0 0.0%
Brown Containers 1 0.0%Special 1,871 14.6%
Other Containers 0 0.0% Ash 0 0.0%
Flat Glass 0 0.0% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0%
R/C Glass 4 0.0% Industrial Sludge 1,241 9.7%
Metal 256 2.0%Treated Medical 28 0.2%
Aluminum Cans 3 0.0% Bulky Items 88 0.7%
Tin Cans 0 0.0% Tires 514 4.0%
Ferrous 154 1.2% R/C Special 0 0.0%
Nonferrous 1 0.0%Mixed 2 0.0%
White Goods 2 0.0% Mixed Residue 2 0.0%
R/C Metal 96 0.7%
Plastic 65 0.5%
#1 Containers 1 0.0%
#2 Containers 2 0.0%
Other Containers 1 0.0%
Film 14 0.1%
Durable 5 0.0%
R/C Plastic 41 0.3%
Organics 2,905 22.7%
Food 314 2.5%
Textiles 5 0.0%
Leaves and Grass 33 0.3%
Prunings 15 0.1%
Stumps 1,344 10.5%
Crop Residue 0 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0%
R/C Organic 1,194 9.3%
Total Tons 12,792
Sample Count (2001 study) 24 Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT B
Detailed West Hawai`i Commercial
Substream Results
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
ATTACHMENT B DETAILED WEST HAWAI`I COMMERCIAL SUBSTREAM RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC B-1
EXHIBIT B-1
Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Commercial Packer Trucks
bb
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Paper 12,382 31.5%Construction and Demolition 2,904 7.4%
Cardboard 3,260 8.3% 6.8% 9.8% Concrete 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bags 146 0.4% 0.2% 0.6% Asphalt Paving 512 1.3% 0.0% 3.4%
Newspaper 765 1.9% 1.3% 2.5% Asphalt Roofing 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
White Ledger 466 1.2% 0.3% 2.0% Clean and Treated Lumber 713 1.8% 1.3% 2.3%
Colored Ledger 153 0.4% 0.0% 0.8% Gypsum Board 112 0.3% 0.0% 0.7%
Computer 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Rocks and Soil 94 0.2% 0.0% 0.6%
Office 540 1.4% 0.6% 2.2% R/C Demo 1,473 3.7% 1.2% 6.3%
Magazines 605 1.5% 0.5% 2.6%Household Hazardous 97 0.2%
Directories 21 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Paint 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Miscellaneous 3,148 8.0% 6.1% 9.9% Vehicle Fluids 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Paper 3,274 8.3% 6.3% 10.4% Oil 33 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Glass 712 1.8%Batteries 13 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Clear Containers 144 0.4% 0.2% 0.5% R/C Hazardous 51 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
Green Containers 274 0.7% 0.4% 1.0%Special 274 0.7%
Brown Containers 170 0.4% 0.2% 0.7% Ash 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Containers 111 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Flat Glass 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Glass 12 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Treated Medical 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Metal 2,400 6.1%Bulky Items 274 0.7% 0.0% 1.8%
Aluminum Cans 114 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% Tires 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tin Cans 253 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% R/C Special 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous 907 2.3% 0.3% 4.3%Mixed 00.0%
Nonferrous 97 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% Mixed Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
White Goods 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Metal 1,029 2.6% 1.3% 4.0%
Plastic 3,941 10.0%
#1 Containers 312 0.8% 0.6% 1.0%
#2 Containers 204 0.5% 0.4% 0.7%
Other Containers 254 0.6% 0.5% 0.8%
Film 1,803 4.6% 3.8% 5.4%
Durable 372 0.9% 0.6% 1.3%
R/C Plastic 996 2.5% 2.0% 3.1%
Organics 16,599 42.2%
Food 10,880 27.7% 22.6% 32.7%
Textiles 1,677 4.3% 2.5% 6.0%
Leaves and Grass 699 1.8% 0.0% 3.7%
Prunings 807 2.1% 0.6% 3.5%
Stumps 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Organic 2,537 6.5% 4.3% 8.6%
Total Tons 39,309
Sample Count 30
Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT B EAST HAWAI`I SAMPLING RESULTS
B-2 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHIBIT B-2
Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Commercial Drop Boxes
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Paper 7,737 21.1%Construction and Demolition 13,562 37.0%
Cardboard 4,443 12.1% 7.3% 16.9% Concrete 3,652 10.0% 3.2% 16.7%
Bags 135 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% Asphalt Paving 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Newspaper 514 1.4% 0.0% 2.9% Asphalt Roofing 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
White Ledger 57 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% Clean and Treated Lumber 5,818 15.9% 8.3% 23.4%
Colored Ledger 6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Gypsum Board 371 1.0% 0.0% 2.1%
Computer 36 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Rocks and Soil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Office 16 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% R/C Demo 3,718 10.1% 3.5% 16.7%
Magazines 167 0.5% 0.1% 0.8%Household Hazardous 117 0.3%
Directories 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Paint 117 0.3% 0.0% 0.7%
Miscellaneous 715 2.0% 1.0% 2.9% Vehicle Fluids 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Paper 1,648 4.5% 2.2% 6.8% Oil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Glass 587 1.6%Batteries 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Clear Containers 134 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% R/C Hazardous 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Green Containers 98 0.3% 0.1% 0.5%Special 0 0.0%
Brown Containers 100 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% Ash 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Containers 40 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Flat Glass 84 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Glass 131 0.4% 0.0% 0.8% Treated Medical 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Metal 2,422 6.6%Bulky Items 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Aluminum Cans 32 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Tires 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tin Cans 142 0.4% 0.2% 0.6% R/C Special 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous 1,495 4.1% 1.3% 6.9%Mixed 0 0.0%
Nonferrous 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mixed Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
White Goods 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Metal 749 2.0% 0.0% 4.3%
Plastic 2,857 7.8%
#1 Containers 92 0.3% 0.1% 0.4%
#2 Containers 56 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%
Other Containers 94 0.3% 0.1% 0.4%
Film 886 2.4% 0.9% 3.9%
Durable 1,048 2.9% 0.5% 5.2%
R/C Plastic 681 1.9% 0.6% 3.1%
Organics 9,389 25.6%
Food 6,380 17.4% 9.2% 25.6%
Textiles 164 0.4% 0.2% 0.7%
Leaves and Grass 29 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%
Prunings 962 2.6% 0.0% 6.5%
Stumps 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Organic 1,854 5.1% 1.2% 8.9%
Total Tons 36,671
Sample Count 30
Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT B DETAILED WEST HAWAI`I COMMERCIAL SUBSTREAM RESULTS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC B-3
EXHIBIT B-3
Composition Estimates: West Hawai`i Commercial Other
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Tons
Disposed
Percent
of Total Low High
Paper 330 6.6% Construction and Demolition 3,156 63.1%
Cardboard 242 4.8% 0.6% 9.1% Concrete 42 0.8% 0.0% 1.8%
Bags 29 0.6% 0.0% 1.3% Asphalt Paving 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Newspaper 7 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% Asphalt Roofing 59 1.2% 0.0% 3.0%
White Ledger 7 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% Clean and Treated Lumber 1,055 21.1% 9.2% 33.0%
Colored Ledger 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Gypsum Board 115 2.3% 0.4% 4.2%
Computer 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Rocks and Soil 241 4.8% 0.0% 11.7%
Office 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% R/C Demo 1,644 32.9% 16.3% 49.5%
Magazines 6 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%Household Hazardous 0 0.0%
Directories 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Paint 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Miscellaneous 22 0.4% 0.0% 1.0% Vehicle Fluids 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Paper 15 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% Oil 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Glass 13 0.3%Batteries 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Clear Containers 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% R/C Hazardous 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Green Containers 7 0.1% 0.0% 0.4%Special 0 0.0%
Brown Containers 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ash 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Containers 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Sewage Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Flat Glass 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Industrial Sludge 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Glass 4 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Treated Medical 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Metal 281 5.6%Bulky Items 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Aluminum Cans 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Tires 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tin Cans 138 2.8% 0.0% 6.9% R/C Special 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ferrous 45 0.9%0.2%1.6%Mixed 0 0.0%
Nonferrous 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mixed Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
White Goods 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R/C Metal 96 1.9% 0.4% 3.4%
Plastic 145 2.9%
#1 Containers 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
#2 Containers 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Containers 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Film 85 1.7% 0.2% 3.2%
Durable 7 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%
R/C Plastic 51 1.0%0.0%2.2%
Organics 1,076 21.5%
Food 20 0.4% 0.0% 1.1%
Textiles 8 0.2%0.0%0.4%
Leaves and Grass 81 1.6% 0.0% 3.3%
Prunings 777 15.5% 0.0% 31.7%
Stumps 112 2.2% 0.0% 5.3%
Crop Residue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Manure 0 0.0%0.0%0.0%
R/C Organic 77 1.5%0.0%3.9%
Total Tons 5,000
Sample Count 10
Low and High are calculated at a 90% confidence interval Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
ATTACHMENT C
Waste Component Definitions Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC C-1
ATTACHMENT C
Waste Component Definitions
The list and definitions of the Standard Material Categories were drawn from the California
Integrated Waste Management Board’s Uniform Waste Disposal Characterization Method.
The component category “treated lumber” was added during the design of this study.
Definitions of the component materials used in this report follow.
Paper
(1) Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard usually has three layers. The center wavy layer is
sandwiched between the two outer layers. It does not have any wax coating on the inside or
outside. Examples: This component includes entire cardboard containers, such as shipping
and moving boxes, computer packaging cartons, and sheets and pieces of boxes and cartons.
This component does not include chipboard.
(2) Paper Bags means bags and sheets made from kraft paper. Examples: This component
includes paper grocery bags, fast food bags, department store bags, and heavyweight sheets
of kraft packing paper.
(3) Newspaper means paper used in newspapers. Examples: This component includes
newspaper and glossy inserts, and all items made from newsprint, such as free advertising
guides, election guides, and tax instruction booklets.
(4) White Ledger means uncolored bond, rag, or stationary grade paper. It may have
colored ink on it. When the paper is torn, the fibers are white. Examples: This component
includes white photocopy, white laser print, and letter paper.
(5) Colored Ledger means colored bond, rag, or stationery grade paper. When the paper is
torn, the fibers are colored throughout. Examples: This component includes colored
photocopy and letter paper. This component does not include fluorescent dyed paper or
deep-tone dyed paper such as goldenrod colored paper.
(6) Computer Paper means paper used for computer printouts. This component usually has
a strip of form feed holes along two edges. If there are no holes, then the edges show tear
marks. This component can be white or striped. Examples: This component includes
computer paper and printouts from continuous feed printers. This component does not
include "white ledger" used in laser or impact printers, nor computer paper containing
groundwood.
(7) Other Office Paper means other kinds of paper used in offices. Examples: This
component includes manila folders, manila envelopes, index cards, white envelopes, white
window envelopes, notebook paper, and carbonless forms. This component does not
include "white ledger," "colored ledger," or "computer paper".
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT C WASTE COMPONENT DEFINITIONS
C-2 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
(8) Magazines and Catalogs means items made of glossy coated paper. This paper is usually
slick, smooth to the touch, and reflects light. Examples: This component includes glossy
magazines, catalogs, brochures and pamphlets.
(9) Phone Books and Directories means thin paper between coated covers. These items are
bound along the spine with glue. Examples: This component includes whole or damaged
telephone books, "yellow pages," real estate listings, and some non-glossy mail order
catalogs.
(10) Other Miscellaneous Paper means items made mostly of paper that do not fit into any
of the above components. Paper may be combined with minor amounts of other materials
such as wax or glues. This component includes items made of chipboard, groundwood
paper, and deep-toned or fluorescent dyed paper. Examples: This component includes
cereal and cracker boxes, unused paper plates and cups, goldenrod colored paper, and
hardcover and softcover books.
(11) Remainder/Composite Paper means items made mostly of paper but combined with
large amounts of other materials such as wax, plastic, glues, foil, food, and moisture.
Examples: This component includes waxed corrugated cardboard, aseptic packages, wax
coated milk cartons, waxed paper, tissue, paper towels, blueprints, sepia, onionskin, fast
food wrappers, carbon paper, self-adhesive notes, and photographs.
Glass
(12) Clear Glass Bottles and Containers means clear glass beverage and food containers
with or without a CRV label. Examples: This component includes whole or broken clear
soda and beer bottles, fruit juice bottles, peanut butter jars, and mayonnaise jars.
(13) Green Glass Bottles and Containers means green-colored glass containers with or
without a CRV label. Examples: This component includes whole or broken green soda and
beer bottles, and whole or broken green wine bottles.
(14) Brown Glass Bottles and Containers means brown-colored glass containers with or
without a CRV label. Examples: This component includes whole or broken brown soda and
beer bottles, and whole or broken brown wine bottles.
(15) Other Colored Glass Bottles and Containers means colored glass containers and
bottles other than green or brown with or without a CRV label. Examples: This component
includes whole or broken blue or other colored bottles and containers.
(16) Flat Glass means clear or tinted glass that is flat. Examples: This component includes
glass windowpanes, doors, and tabletops, flat automotive window glass (side windows),
safety glass, and architectural glass. This component does not include windshields,
laminated glass, or any curved glass.
(17) Remainder/Composite Glass means glass that cannot be put in any other component
category. It includes items made mostly of glass but combined with other materials.
Examples: This component includes Pyrex, Corningware, crystal and other glass tableware,
mirrors, and auto windshields.
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT C WASTE COMPONENT DEFINITIONS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC C-3
Metal
(18) Tin/Steel Cans means rigid containers made mainly of steel. These items will stick to a
magnet and may be tin-coated. This component is used to store food, beverages, paint, and
a variety of other household and consumer products. Examples: This component includes
canned food and beverage containers, empty metal paint cans, empty spray paint and other
aerosol containers, and bimetal containers with steel sides and aluminum ends.
(19) Major Appliances means discarded major appliances of any color. These items are
often enamel-coated. Examples: This component includes washing machines, clothes dryers,
hot water heaters, stoves, and refrigerators. This component does not include electronics,
such as televisions and stereos.
(20) Other Ferrous means any iron or steel that is magnetic or any stainless steel item. This
component does not include "tin/steel cans". Examples: This component includes structural
steel beams, metal clothes hangers, metal pipes, stainless steel cookware, security bars, and
scrap ferrous items.
(21) Aluminum Cans means any food or beverage container made mainly of aluminum.
Examples: This component includes aluminum soda or beer cans, and some pet food cans.
This component does not include bimetal containers with steel sides and aluminum ends.
(22) Other Non-Ferrous means any metal item, other than aluminum cans, that is not
stainless steel and that is not magnetic. These items may be made of aluminum, copper,
brass, bronze, lead, zinc, or other metals. Examples: This component includes aluminum
window frames, aluminum siding, copper wire, shell casings, brass pipe, and aluminum
foil.
(23) Remainder/Composite Metal means metal that cannot be put in any other component
category. This component includes items made mostly of metal but combined with other
materials and items made of both ferrous metals and non-ferrous metal combined.
Examples: This component includes brown goods (electronics and other small appliances),
computers, televisions, radios, and electronic parts.
Plastic
(24) HDPE Containers means natural and colored HDPE containers. This plastic is usually
either cloudy white, allowing light to pass through it (natural) or a solid color, preventing
light from passing through it (colored). When marked for identification, it bears the number
"2" in the triangular recycling symbol. Examples: This component includes milk jugs, water
jugs, detergent bottles, some haircare bottles, empty motor oil, empty antifreeze, and other
empty vehicle and equipment fluid containers.
(25) PETE Containers means clear or colored PETE containers. When marked for
identification, it bears the number "1" in the center of the triangular recycling symbol and
may also bear the letters "PETE" or "PET". The color is usually transparent green or clear. A
PETE container usually has a small dot left from the manufacturing process, not a seam. It
does not turn white when bent. Examples: This component includes soft drink and water
bottles, some liquor bottles, cooking oil containers, and aspirin bottles.
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT C WASTE COMPONENT DEFINITIONS
C-4 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
(26) Miscellaneous Plastic Containers means plastic containers made of types of plastic
other than HDPE or PETE. Items may be made of PVC, PP, or PS. When marked for
identification, these items may bear the number "3," "4," "5," "6," or "7" in the triangular
recycling symbol. Examples: This component includes food containers such as bottles for
salad dressings and vegetable oils, flexible and brittle yogurt cups and lids, syrup bottles,
margarine tubs, microwave food trays, and clamshell-shaped fast food containers. This
component also includes some shampoo containers and vitamin bottles.
(27) Film Plastic means flexible plastic sheeting. It is made from a variety of plastic resins
including HDPE and LDPE. It can be easily contoured around an object by hand pressure.
Examples: This component includes plastic garbage bags, food bags, dry cleaning bags,
grocery store bags, packaging wrap, and food wrap. This component does not include rigid
bubble packaging.
(28) Durable Plastic Items means plastic objects other than containers and film plastic. This
component also includes plastic objects other than containers or film that bear the numbers
"1" through "7" in the triangular recycling symbol. These items are usually made to last for
more than one use. Examples: This component includes plastic outdoor furniture, plastic
toys and sporting goods, and plastic housewares, such as mop buckets, dishes, cups, and
cutlery. This component also includes building materials such as house siding, window
sashes and frames, housings for electronics such as computers, televisions and stereos, and
plastic pipes and fittings.
(29) Remainder and Composite Plastic means plastic that cannot be put in any other
component category. This component includes items made mostly of plastic but combined
with other materials. Examples: This component includes auto parts made of plastic
attached to metal, plastic bubble packaging, drinking straws, foam drinking cups, produce
trays, egg cartons, foam packing blocks, packing peanuts, and cookie and muffin trays.
Other Organic
(30) Food means food material resulting from the processing, storage, preparation, cooking,
handling or consumption of food. This component includes material from industrial,
commercial or residential sources. Examples: This component includes discarded meat
scraps, dairy products, eggshells, fruit or vegetable peels, and other food items from homes,
stores, and restaurants. This component includes grape pomace and other processed
residues or material from canneries, wineries, or other industrial sources.
(31) Leaves and Grass means plant material, except woody material, from any public or
private landscapes. Examples: This component includes leaves, grass clippings, and plants.
This component does not include woody material or material from agricultural sources.
(32) Prunings and Trimmings means woody plant material up to 4 inches in diameter from
any public or private landscape. Examples: This component includes prunings, shrubs, and
small branches with branch diameters that do not exceed 4 inches. This component does not
include stumps, tree trunks, or branches exceeding 4 inches in diameter. This component
does not include material from agricultural sources.
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT C WASTE COMPONENT DEFINITIONS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC C-5
(33) Branches and Stumps means woody plant material, branches and stumps that exceed 4
inches in diameter from any public or private landscape.
(34) Agricultural Crop Residues means plant material from agricultural sources. Examples:
This component includes orchard and vineyard prunings, vegetable by-products from
farming, residual fruits, vegetables, and other crop remains after usable crop is harvested.
This component does not include processed residues from canneries, wineries, or other
industrial sources.
(35) Manures means manure and soiled bedding materials from domestic, farm, or ranch
animals. Examples: This component includes manure and soiled bedding from animal
production operations, racetracks, riding stables, animal hospitals, and other sources.
(36) Textiles means items made of thread, yarn, fabric, or cloth. Examples: This component
includes clothes, fabric trimmings, draperies, and all natural and synthetic cloth fibers. This
component does not include cloth-covered furniture, mattresses, leather shoes, leather bags,
or leather belts.
(37) Remainder/Composite Organic means organic material that cannot be put in any other
component category. This component includes items made mostly of organic materials but
combined with other materials. Examples: This component includes leather items, carpets,
disposable diapers, cork, hemp rope, garden hoses, rubber items, hair, and carpet padding.
Construction and Demolition
(38) Concrete means a hard material made from sand, gravel, aggregate, cement mix and
water. Examples: This component includes pieces of building foundations, concrete paving,
and cinder blocks.
(39) Asphalt Paving means a black or brown, tar-like material mixed with aggregate used as
a paving material.
(40) Asphalt Roofing means composite shingles and other roofing material made with
asphalt. Examples: This component includes asphalt shingles and attached roofing tar and
tarpaper.
(41) Clean Lumber means processed wood for building, manufacturing, landscaping,
packaging, and processed wood from demolition. Examples: This component includes
untreated dimensional lumber, lumber cutoffs, engineered wood such as plywood and
particleboard, wood scraps, pallets, wood fencing, wood shake roofing, and wood siding.
Note that County of Hawai`i building codes require the use of treated lumber for home
construction, thus there is relatively little clean lumber in the waste stream.
(42) Treated Lumber means new and used lumber that has been treated with any chemical
preservative. Examples: This component includes railroad ties, marine timbers and pilings,
some landscape timbers, and telephone poles.
(43) Gypsum Board means interior wall covering made of a sheet of gypsum sandwiched
between paper layers. Examples: This component includes used or unused, broken or whole
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT C WASTE COMPONENT DEFINITIONS
C-6 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
sheets of sheetrock, drywall, gypsum board, plasterboard, gypboard, gyproc, and
wallboard.
(44) Rock, Soil and Fines means rock pieces of any size and soil, dirt, and other matter.
Examples: This component includes rock, stones, and sand, clay, soil and other fines. This
component also includes non-hazardous contaminated soil.
(45) Remainder/Composite Construction and Demolition means construction and
demolition material that cannot be put in any other component category. This component
may include items from different components combined, which would be very hard to
separate. Examples: This component includes brick, ceramics, tiles, toilets, sinks, and
fiberglass insulation. This component may also include demolition debris that is a mixture
of items such as plate glass, wood, tiles, gypsum board, and aluminum scrap.
Household Hazardous Waste
(46) Paint means containers with paint in them. Examples: This component includes latex
paint, oil-based paint, and tubes of pigment or fine art paint. This component does not
include dried paint, empty paint cans, or empty aerosol containers.
47) Vehicle and Equipment Fluids means containers with fluids used in vehicles or
engines, except used oil. Examples: This component includes used antifreeze and brake
fluid. This component does not include empty vehicle and equipment fluid containers.
(48) Used Oil means the same as defined in Health and Safety Code section 25250.1(a).
Examples: This component includes spent lubricating oil such as crankcase and
transmission oil, gear oil, and hydraulic oil.
(49) Batteries means any type of battery including both dry cell and lead acid. Examples:
This component includes car, flashlight, small appliance, watch and hearing aid batteries.
(50) Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous means household hazardous material
that cannot be put in the "Paint", "Automotive Fluids", "Used Oil", or "Batteries" component
categories. This component also includes household hazardous material that is mixed.
Examples: This component includes household hazardous waste which if improperly put in
the solid waste stream may present handling problems or other hazards.
Special Waste
(51) Ash means a residue from the combustion of any solid or liquid material. Examples:
This component includes ash from fireplaces, incinerators, biomass facilities, waste-to-
energy facilities, and barbecues. This component also includes ash and burned debris from
structure fires.
(52) Sewage Solids means residual solids and semi-solids from the treatment of domestic
wastewater or sewage. Examples: This component includes biosolids, sludge, grit,
screenings, and septage. This component does not include sewage or waste water
discharged from the sewage treatment process.
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT C WASTE COMPONENT DEFINITIONS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC C-7
(53) Industrial Sludge means sludge from factories, manufacturing facilities, and refineries.
Examples: This component includes paper pulp sludge, and water treatment filter cake
sludge.
(54) Treated Medical Waste has the same meaning as treated medical waste in Section
25023.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(55) Bulky Items means large, hard-to-handle items that are not defined separately,
including furniture, mattresses, and other large items. Examples: This component includes
all sizes and types of furniture, mattresses, box springs, and base components.
(56) Tires means vehicle tires. Examples: This component includes tires from trucks,
automobiles, motorcycles, heavy equipments, and bicycles.
(57) Remainder/Composite Special Waste means special waste that cannot be put in any
other component category. Examples: This component includes asbestos-containing
materials, such as certain types of pipe insulation and floor tiles, auto fluff, auto-bodies,
trucks, trailers, truck cabs, and artificial fireplace logs.
Mixed Residue
(58) Mixed Residue means material that cannot be put in any other component categories.
This component includes mixed residue that cannot be further sorted. Examples: This
component includes residual material from a materials recovery facility or other sorting
process that cannot be put in any of the previous remainder/composite component
categories.
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
ATTACHMENT D
Sampling Methodology and Calculations Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC D-1
ATTACHMENT D
Sampling Methodology and Calculations
Sampling Methodology
Objective
This study was intended to produce statistically valid data on the types and quantities of
waste disposed at the West Hawai`i Landfill during FY 2008. The results of this study were
combined with the results of the 2001 study conducted at the South Hilo Landfill resulting
in a waste composition profile for the entire County.
Substream Definition
The waste hauled to the West Hawai`i Landfill can be divided into the following three
categories (called substreams):
1. Transfer Station – is composed of waste hauled from nine transfer stations on the west
side of the island. It is transported to the West Hawai`i Landfill in transfer station compactor
boxes. Transfer station loads are made up primarily of residential waste.
2. Commercial – is composed of waste hauled by commercial hauling companies.
Commercial haulers use a variety of vehicles to transport this waste to the West Hawai`i
Landfill, including: packer trucks (garbage trucks), roll-offs (primarily open boxes), and
other vehicles (e.g. flatbeds, pickups, etc.). This waste is collected from both residences and
businesses. Commercial samples were allocated to each of these three vehicle types.
3. Self-Haul – is composed of waste that residents, contractors, businesses, and public
entities haul directly to the West Hawai`i Landfill. These loads are transported either in
small vehicles (e.g. autos, pick-ups, etc.) or large vehicles (e.g. dump trucks, flatbeds, etc).
As with waste in the commercial substream, self-haul waste comes from both residences
and businesses.
Sample Allocation
The total number of samples allocated to each substream and sampled on each day of the
study is provided in Exhibit D-1. Note that no samples were allocated to the self-haul
substream. There is relatively little mixed self-haul material delivered to the West Hawai`i
Landfill (1,200 of 128,000 tons in FY 2008, or less than 1 percent). Therefore, it was decided
that overall sampling accuracy would be improved by using self-haul sampling results from
the 2001 study to represent the composition of mixed self-haul loads in West Hawai`i, and
assigning samples that would have been obtained from the self-haul stream to the other two
substreams. The composition profile of mixed self-haul loads from the 2001 study was used
to estimate the mixed self-haul composition for the West Hawai`i Landfill.
The project budget allowed for a total of 100 total loads to be sampled. The allocation of
samples between the substreams was determined according to each substream’s
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT D SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS
D-2 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHIBIT D-1
Samples per Day by Substream
Number of Samples
Transfer
Station
Commercial
Packer
Commercial
Rolloff
Commercial
Other
Total
May 15, 2008 6 5 6 3 20
May 16, 2008 6 8 5 1 20
May 19, 2008 6 7 6 1 20
May 20, 2008 6 4 9 1 20
May 21, 2008 6 6 4 4 20
Total 30 30 30 10 100
contribution to the total waste stream. Adjustments were made so that a sufficient number
of samples were taken from each substream to ensure a representative composition. Thus,
the commercial substream was slightly over sampled, and the transfer station substream
was slightly under sampled.
Vehicle Selection
Sampling intervals for each substream and vehicle type were determined by dividing the
day’s expected number of arriving loads by the number of samples needed on that day. For
example, if 20 commercial packer trucks were expected to arrive at the West Hawai`i
Landfill on a sampling day, and a total of 5 samples were needed, every 4th commercial
packer truck would be selected for sampling. Prior to each sampling day, the Field
Supervisor was given a sheet outlining specific sampling intervals per substream and
vehicle type. Attachment E contains an example of the vehicle selection sheet used in this
study.
Field Procedures
On each sampling day, the Field Supervisor identified sample loads as they arrived at the
West Hawai`i Landfill. The Supervisor assigned each selected load a unique sample
identification number. Then, the Supervisor surveyed the driver of each vehicle to obtain
“header information” which was recorded on that sample’s waste sort sheet. The following
information was collected for each sample load:
1. Load type
a. Commercially hauled loads only - the hauler name
b. Transfer station loads only - name of transfer station the load came from Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT D SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC D-3
2. Generator type
a. Commercially hauled loads only
i. Loads that were 80% or more residential waste were recorded as “residential”
ii. Loads that were 80% or more commercial waste were recorded as “commercial”
iii. Otherwise, the generator type was recorded as “mixed”
b. Transfer station loads only - always marked as “mixed”
3. Vehicle type
a. Commercially hauled loads only - recorded as “packer,” “roll-off,” or “other vehicle”
(e.g. flatbeds, dump trucks, pickups).
b. Transfer station loads only - were always recorded as “transfer station box.”
As the load was emptied at the West Hawai`i Landfill, the Field Supervisor observed the
load for evidence of hard-to-process or potentially explosive items. Details regarding these
items were noted on the sample’s waste sort sheet. Hard-to-process items included anything
that would be difficult or impossible to manually sort, automatically process, or transfer by
conveyor belt due to weight or size, such as: appliances, mattresses, cabinets, carpet, asphalt
or concrete, and large pieces of scrap metal or lumber.
Next, the selected load was visually divided into an imaginary 16-cell grid. The supervisor
then identified the randomly selected cell and approximately 200 to 300 pounds of waste
was removed from that cell with a loader and placed on a tarpaulin. Samples were then
tagged with a sample identifier labeled with their unique sample number and the date.
Once the total weight of a sample was recorded, the material was sorted by hand into the 58
prescribed components, placed in plastic laundry baskets, weighed, and recorded. (See
Attachment C for a list and definitions of the components.)
Each sample was sorted by hand to the greatest reasonable level of detail, until no more
than a small amount of homogeneous fines (less than 1 square inch) remained. The goal was
to sort each sample completely into component categories. However, if fines did remain
after sorting, they were weighed and the Supervisor classified them as “mixed residue.”
As the final step in collecting field data, the Supervisor reviewed, completed and organized
the forms from each day’s sampling activity. The Supervisor also prepared data summary
sheets and sampling checklists at the end of each day. Completed data forms were then
transmitted to the Project Manager at CH2M HILL for review and quality control prior to
data entry.
Waste Composition Calculations
The composition estimates represent the ratio of the components’ weight to the total waste
for each noted substream. They are derived by summing each component’s weight across all
of the selected records and dividing by the sum of the total weight of waste, as shown in the
following equation:
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT D SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS
D-4 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
=
i
i
i
ij
j w
c
r
where:
c = weight of particular component
w = sum of all component weights
for i 1 to n
where n = number of selected samples
for j 1 to m
where m = number of components
The low and high, or confidence interval, for this estimate is derived from a nonparametric
statistical technique called the Bootstrap (Efron, B. 1982. The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and other
Resampling Plans. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics). Standard methods of
calculating sample statistics are generally not applicable to waste composition results
because each substream consists of multiple waste components that must sum to one for
each substream. The distribution of these components is a multinomial with unknown
properties. As such, sample statistics other than the sample mean proportions cannot be
calculated using standard parametric techniques without making unappealing assumptions
that would invalidate the results.
The Bootstrap method is a simulation technique that allows the calculation of the variance
and other statistics of a parameter with unknown distributional properties. In this study, the
Bootstrap method was used to calculate the square root of the Bootstrap variance estimates
of each sample mean (henceforth referred to as the standard error). The mean and standard
error were then used to calculate confidence intervals about sample mean estimates.
The upper and lower confidence limits provide the boundaries of an interval within which
we are 90 percent confident that the true mean proportion of a waste type will lie. They
represent the high and low estimates shown in this study.
Upper and lower confidence limits were calculated as follows:
CIu =gSM + (1.645*SEg)
CIl =gSM - (1.645*SEg)
where: CIu = upper confidence limit
CIl = lower confidence limit
gSM = sample mean proportion for waste component g
1.645 = standard normal deviate (two-tailed) at a 0.05 level
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT D SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC D-5
SEg = standard error for waste component g
The overall waste composition estimates were calculated by performing a weighted average
across the relevant sampling groups. For the transfer station substream, the estimates were
calculated by performing a weighted average based on the tonnage disposed by each
transfer station. For the commercial substream, the estimates were calculated by performing
a weighted average based on the tonnage hauled by each vehicle type. For the self-haul
substream, the estimates were calculated by multiplying total self-haul mixed loads by the
waste component percentages from mixed loads from the 2001 sampling study. To that was
added the tonnages disposed by 18 pure loads. Component percentages were then
calculated based on the tons of mixed material and pure loads for each component.
The weighting percentages that were used to perform the composition calculations are listed
in Exhibit D-2. This information was obtained from scale records at the West Hawai`i
Landfill for FY 2008. The composition estimates for both the overall waste stream and each
substream were applied to the relevant tonnages to estimate the amount of waste disposed
for each component category.
The weighted average for an overall composition estimate is performed as follows:
Oj = ()+++)*()*(*332211jjjrprprp
where:
Oj = overall composition estimate for component j
p = the production of tonnage contributed by the noted sample group
r = ratio of component weight to total waste weight in the noted sample group
for j = 1 to m
where m = number of components
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT D SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS
D-6 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
EXHIBIT D-2 Weighting Percentages
Transfer Stations Tons Disposed Percent of Total
Kailua 7,860 6.1%
Keauhou 5,017 3.9%
Keei / Napoopoo 2,025 1.6%
Waiea 2,968 2.3%
Milolii 207 0.2%
Waiohinu / Ka'u 3,447 2.7%
Waimea 6,376 5.0%
Puako 2,681 2.1%
Kohala 4,145 3.2%
Honoka'a 3,459 2.7%
Pa'auilo 1,922 1.5%
Laupahoehoe 1,547 1.2%
Commercial
Packers 39,309 30.6%
Rolloff 36,671 28.5%
Other Commercial 5,000 3.9%
Self-Haul
Ash 93 0.1%
Crop residue 3 0.0%
Industrial Sludge 1,585 1.2%
Oil 2 0.0%
R/C Demo 765 0.6%
R/C Organic 294 0.2%
R/C Paper 2 0.0%
R/C Special 299 0.2%
Rocks and Soil 786 0.6%
Stumps 719 0.6%
Tires 116 0.1%
Treated Medical 20 0.0%
Mixed waste Loads 1,224 1.0%
Total 128,543 100.0%
Waste was not sampled from the Laupahoehoe, Miloli`i, and Ke`ei transfer stations.
When calculating composite results for the transfer station substream, the tons from
those stations were assumed to have the composition profile of the following stations:
Pa`auilo, Waiea, and Kohala, respectively.
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT E
Field Sampling Forms Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC E-1
ATTACHMENT E
Field Sampling Forms
Two sampling forms were used in the field during the sampling event:
• Vehicle Selection Sheet
• Waste Sort Sheet
Examples of those forms follow.
Dra
f
t
ATTACHMENT E VEHICLE SELECTION FORM
E-2 APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
Vehicle Selection Form
Site: Pu`uanahulu Landfill
Date: Thursday, May 15, 2008
Cross off one number for each type of vehicle entering the landfill.
Continue for each block, beginning at #1, on the next line until the required number of vehicles is
sampled.
TRANSFER STATION BOXES: NEED 6 TOTAL – SAMPLE EVERY 2nd VEHICLE
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
COMMERCIAL PACKERS: NEED 5 TOTAL – SAMPLE EVERY 3rd VEHICLE
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
COMMERCIAL ROLL-OFFS: NEED 6 TOTAL – SAMPLE EVERY 5th VEHICLE
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
NEED 3 TOTAL – SAMPLE FIRST VEHICLE AFTER TIME INDICATED
After 9:00 am
After 11:00 am
After 2:00 pm Dra
f
t
APPX B_WASTE COMPOSITION REPORT_121709.DOC E-3
Pu`uanahulu Landfill Sampling Form
Sample ID: Load Type: (Commercial Loads Only)
Date:
TS Com Hauler:
Route:
Generator: (TS Boxes Only)
Res Com Mix R/C Const GW Site/Origin:
Vehicle Type:
Packer Roll
Off
Other
Com
TS
Box
Evidence of Explosive/Hard –to-Process Items in Load:
Yes ` No
Explosives:
(e.g., propane tanks)
Hard-to-Process Items:
PA
P
E
R
Cardboard
Bags
Newspaper
White Ledger
Colored Ledger
Computer
Office
Magazines
Directories
Miscellaneous
R/C Paper
OR
G
A
N
I
C
Food
Textiles
Leaves and Grass
Prunings
Stumps
Crop Residue
Manure
R/C Organic
GL
A
S
S
Clear Containers
Green Containers
Brown Containers
Other Containers
Flat Glass
R/C Glass
PL
A
S
T
I
C
#1 Containers
#2 Containers
Other Containers
Film
Durable
R/C Plastic
C
&
D
Concrete
Asphalt Paving
Asphalt Roofing
Clean Lumber
Treated Lumber
Gypsum Board
Rocks and Soil
R/C Demo ME
T
A
L
Aluminum Cans
Tin Cans
Ferrous
Nonferrous
White Goods
R/C Metal
SP
E
C
I
A
L
Ash
Sewage Sludge
Industrial Sludge
Treated Medical
Bulky Items
Tires
R/C Special
Mixed Residue
HH
W
Paint
Vehicle Fluids
Oil
Batteries
R/C Hazardous Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
Appendix E
Chronology for Waste Reduction Technology
for Hawaiʻi County
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
Chronology for Waste Reduction Technology for Hawai`i County
Date Event/Document
1995
3/19/1995 Notice to Proposers for RFP S-3227 (RFP #1)
1996
12/16/1996 Letters notifying RFP S-3227 proposers of non-selection
12/16/1996 Letter to Norton Environmental notifying them of selection
2000
8/6/2000 Notice to Proposers for Solid Waste RFP (RFP #2)
11/30/2000 Administration Recommendation to Council
2001
1/1/2001 Department of Environmental Management established
1/2/2001 Administration Recommendation Withdrawal to Council
5/15/2001 Contracted with Harding ESE, Inc. to update the County's Integrated Resources and Solid Waste
Management Plan (IRSWMP)
5/23/2001 Environmental Management Commission first meeting; meetings held monthly until May 2004, bi-
monthly thereafter.
7/3/2001 First Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) meeting; meetings were held monthly through
February 27, 2002
2002
1/23/2002 East Hawai`i Regional Transfer Station drawings submitted to Council
4/30/2002 Regional Transfer Station update provided to Council Parks and Environmental Management
Committee
5/20/2002 Draft of IRSWMP submitted to Council
8/19/2002 Public Meeting held in Kona regarding IRSWMP
8/20/2002 Public Meeting held in Waimea regarding IRSWMP
8/20/2002 Public Meeting held in Hilo regarding IRSWMP
10/15/2002 Two-day waste technology Vendor presentations to Council at Parks and Environmental
Management Committee
11/6/2002 Final Draft of the Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan submitted to Council
11/20/2002 Council Resolution 238-02 to adopt Update to IRSWMP
11/29/2002 State released $1M CIP For East Hawai‘i Regional Sort Station and waste diversion planning
12/30/2002 Tipping Fee Increase request submitted to Council
2003
1/8/2003 Two-day Comprehensive Planning & Visioning meeting for Solid Waste Division (1/8/2003-
1/10/2003)
1/22/2003 Council Resolution 28-03. Setting landfill diversion goals with low-tech & high tech
3/3/2003 Two-day planning meeting Discussion: identifying major issues and articulating possible solution;
decision made to procure Sort station independent of waste reduction technology.
3/19/2003 2003 GO Bonds authorizes $4M for Sort Station construction
4/15/2003 Executed Contract for design and EIS for Sort Station
4/23/2003 EIS Preparation Notice
6/30/2003 Design Forum for Recycling Services at EHRSS
9/22/2003 Sort Station Draft EIS published
10/9/2003 EMC and public tour of Oahu Solid Waste facilities, including Hpower
6/4/2003-
12/17/2003
Public meetings held regarding Sort Station EIS
Date Event/Document
2004
1/22/2004 Two-day Solid Waste Vision meeting (1/22/2004-23/2004)
2/23/2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the East Hawai`i Regional Sort Station published
by OEQC
5/2/2004 Notice of Request for Information for Solid Waste Reduction Technology
5/5/2004 Council Resolution 180-04 adopted
6/30/2004 RFI responses received
8/4/2004 Council approves Resolution that supports solid waste landfill diversion through waste reduction
technology (WRT) with procurement criteria that matches Hawai‘i County policies, needs and
waste stream, and delineates next actions.
8/4/2004 Award of CDBG Grant to upgrade certain transfer stations
10/13/2004 EMC and public tour of Oahu Solid Waste facilities, including Hpower
10/28/2004 First RFP evaluation committee meeting
10/29/2004 Notice to Offerors published for RFP 2146 (RFP #3)
12/7/2004 RFP for Waste Reduction Technology Hilo Landfill Site Tour & pre-proposal conference
12/10/2004 RFP 2146, Addendum No. 1
12/30/2004 RFP 2146, Addendum No. 2
2005
1/21/2005 Response deadline for RFP 2146; Received Pacific Waste Proposal
1/26/2005 RFP evaluation committee meeting
2/4/2005 RFP evaluation committee meeting
2/16/2005 Additional questions and comments sent to proposers
3/10/2005 Pacific Waste response received to 2/16/05 questions
4/1/2005 RFP evaluation committee meeting
4/12/2005 RFP evaluation committee meeting
4/20/2005 County Council Executive Session
4/22/2005 Evaluation committee request to Purchasing Agent to cancel RFP and notify responders
4/28/2005 RFP 2146 solicitation cancelled by Purchasing Agent
4/29/2005 Letter from DEM to Council Chair requesting Executive Session
4/29/2005 Letter from Council Chair Higa to Council members transmitting 4/28/05, 4/7/05 and 4/26/05
communications from County and Barlow relating to RFP No. 2146.
5/3/2005 Letter from DEM to Isbell submitting requested C&C of Honolulu's RFP dated 2/14/03.
5/5/2005 Letter from Council member Jacobson to Stacy Higa, Council Chair, regarding open discussion of
RFP process for Waste Reduction Technology, and Resolution 218-04.
5/9/2005 Council member Jacobson submitted a press release regarding the Waste Reduction Technology
RFP
5/11/2005 Article regarding Solid Waste Reduction, West Hawai‘i Today
5/16/2005 Letter from Mayor to Council relating to RFP cancellation and legal restrictions in the Procurement
Code
12/28/2005 Issuance of Stage 1 Proposals - RFP#2210 (RFP #4)
2006
3/20/2006 Received responses & transmitted to Evaluation Committee
5/1/2006 Issuance of Short List to receive Stage 2 RFP
5/8/2006 EISPN published in State OEQC Bulletin
6/7/2006 End of EISPN Public Comment Period
10/6/2006 Issuance of Stage 2 Proposals - RFP#2210
Date Event/Document
2007
4/16/2007 Received responses & transmitted to Evaluation Committee
2008
2/25/2008 Received and reviewed Wheelabrator's BAFO
3/4/2008 Awarded Contract to Wheelabrator Technologies
4/21/2008 Finance Committee forwarded Resolution 551-08 (authorizing payment for a multi-year contract
for a WTE Facility) to Council with negative recommendation
3/25/2008-
4/15/2008
Public hearings held around the island
5/7/2008 Council votes 5-3 not to approve Resolution 551-08
2014- 2020
Year 2014 County issues third RFP issued for WTE facility proposals, withdrawn
Year 2017 Two organics management sites constructed in lieu of advanced technologies
Year 2018 County issues RFP for construction of a compost and green waste processing facility, a compost
facility is slated for operation in 2020
Draf
t
Appendix F
Ordinance 185 – Solid Waste Fees
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
Dr
a
f
t
Appendix G
Draft Plan Comments and Responses
Placeholder: Comments and Responses will be included in
final draft following the public comment period.
Dra
f
t
Dr
a
f
t