12-09-2007, 02:39 PM
Below is a very brief synopsis of the results of 2 years of research I have conducted. I have a full 8-page summary document, plus numerous links and references should anyone care to learn more. Contact me at gardengreen@hawaiiantel.net.
The issue has been, and continues to be, incorrectly defined as inadequate waste disposal capacity — “The South Hilo landfill is full, so we have a problem”. The solution to this ill-defined problem was subsequently wrongly defined as discovery of some means to increase capacity to dispose of an ever-increasing amount of waste.
Contrast the above to defining the problem as there being too much waste and therefore requiring a solution that reduces waste and the need for disposal capacity.
The County’s Request for Proposal (RFP) process to identify a ‘technology’ is flawed. The basis for the RFP, 2002 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) was described by an internal County audit in 2006 as “outdated.” The states of knowledge, market conditions, and the local situation have changed in five years.
Information provided to the RFP was skewed to favor incineration. For example, there was no information about multiple incineration environmental violations and closures due to exposure of the environment to toxic substances, or that no incinerators had been built in several years. There was information that compost facilities had been closed due to odor problems and that no compost facilities had been built in several years.
The RFP established no requirement that vendors demonstrate good character through full information regarding criminal convictions and/or adverse civil judgments. The proposed incinerator builder/designer/operator has a history of felony convictions, adverse civil judgments, and violations of environmental regulations, as well as legal disputes with its customers (local governments).
Research over the past ten years has verified that recycling and re-use is most advantageous for the local economy and the community as whole, with superior economic performance in all of these local-economy indicators: sales, output, income, value added, and job creation.
Local businesses, local employment, and the local community as a whole benefit most from recycling and re-use, yet burning and burying resources remains at the forefront of Hawai`i County policy.
In other situations, neither regulation nor technology has prevented exposure of communities to pollutants known to be life-threatening. It may or may not be true that the facilities operated within regulatory limits on more days than not. It is true that regulations were enforced, if belatedly, with financial penalties and with an order to cease operations. Nevertheless, that enforcement did not protect the communities and there was exposure to life-threatening harm.
Beyond the possible emissions risk, there is a substantial financial risk for a small community like ours.
This financial risk arises out of two critical points:
1. The facility proposed for Hawaii County would have a capacity of about 200 tons per day. This is much smaller than is typical for the newer incinerators, especially for those built to create electricity revenue only (some small facilities in cold climates also sell steam heat). A smaller facility will cost more per ton than a larger facility. A volume of materials less than what is required to operate the facility at its optimum level will also increase cost per ton.
2. An incinerator in Hilo is estimated to require a capital investment of $100 million or more. Such a large financial commitment, and a need to burn as much material as it takes to lower per ton costs, will inhibit or preclude County investment in other alternatives. An incinerator in Hawaii County would result in a great lack of flexibility in cost saving adaptations to changes in waste stream mix and/or changes in resource markets.
Most importantly, given the serious financial risks, and reduced-but-not-eliminated environmental risks, I am confident that WTE mass burn incineration is not the best our community can do. There are viable and proven cleaner, safer, less costly, and less risky alternatives.
To contact Council Members:
http://www.hawaii-county.com/council/districts.htm
To contact the Mayor:
cohmayor@co.hawaii.hi.us
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
The issue has been, and continues to be, incorrectly defined as inadequate waste disposal capacity — “The South Hilo landfill is full, so we have a problem”. The solution to this ill-defined problem was subsequently wrongly defined as discovery of some means to increase capacity to dispose of an ever-increasing amount of waste.
Contrast the above to defining the problem as there being too much waste and therefore requiring a solution that reduces waste and the need for disposal capacity.
The County’s Request for Proposal (RFP) process to identify a ‘technology’ is flawed. The basis for the RFP, 2002 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) was described by an internal County audit in 2006 as “outdated.” The states of knowledge, market conditions, and the local situation have changed in five years.
Information provided to the RFP was skewed to favor incineration. For example, there was no information about multiple incineration environmental violations and closures due to exposure of the environment to toxic substances, or that no incinerators had been built in several years. There was information that compost facilities had been closed due to odor problems and that no compost facilities had been built in several years.
The RFP established no requirement that vendors demonstrate good character through full information regarding criminal convictions and/or adverse civil judgments. The proposed incinerator builder/designer/operator has a history of felony convictions, adverse civil judgments, and violations of environmental regulations, as well as legal disputes with its customers (local governments).
Research over the past ten years has verified that recycling and re-use is most advantageous for the local economy and the community as whole, with superior economic performance in all of these local-economy indicators: sales, output, income, value added, and job creation.
Local businesses, local employment, and the local community as a whole benefit most from recycling and re-use, yet burning and burying resources remains at the forefront of Hawai`i County policy.
In other situations, neither regulation nor technology has prevented exposure of communities to pollutants known to be life-threatening. It may or may not be true that the facilities operated within regulatory limits on more days than not. It is true that regulations were enforced, if belatedly, with financial penalties and with an order to cease operations. Nevertheless, that enforcement did not protect the communities and there was exposure to life-threatening harm.
Beyond the possible emissions risk, there is a substantial financial risk for a small community like ours.
This financial risk arises out of two critical points:
1. The facility proposed for Hawaii County would have a capacity of about 200 tons per day. This is much smaller than is typical for the newer incinerators, especially for those built to create electricity revenue only (some small facilities in cold climates also sell steam heat). A smaller facility will cost more per ton than a larger facility. A volume of materials less than what is required to operate the facility at its optimum level will also increase cost per ton.
2. An incinerator in Hilo is estimated to require a capital investment of $100 million or more. Such a large financial commitment, and a need to burn as much material as it takes to lower per ton costs, will inhibit or preclude County investment in other alternatives. An incinerator in Hawaii County would result in a great lack of flexibility in cost saving adaptations to changes in waste stream mix and/or changes in resource markets.
Most importantly, given the serious financial risks, and reduced-but-not-eliminated environmental risks, I am confident that WTE mass burn incineration is not the best our community can do. There are viable and proven cleaner, safer, less costly, and less risky alternatives.
To contact Council Members:
http://www.hawaii-county.com/council/districts.htm
To contact the Mayor:
cohmayor@co.hawaii.hi.us
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park