HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0482.015 2024-2026K
C. Kimo Alameda, Ph.D. }� '* Daniel GDirectorector P.E.
Mayor . •
William V. Brilhante Jr. •:;• •.;��• Craig Kawaguchi
Managing Director Deputy.Director
County of Hawaii
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIl20NMENTAL MANAGEMENT
345 Kekuanao•a Street, Suite 41 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • cohdem@hawailcounty.gov
Ph: (808)961-8083•Fax: (808) 961-8086
DATE:
November 28, 2025
a
n
a
Q
TO:
Dr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Council Chair and
Members of the Hawai'i County Council
t
<
FROM:
Craig Kawaguchi, Deputy Dir ctor
:yr
Department of Environmenta anage nt
1' '
i
RE:
Departmental Comments on Bill 83, transmitted herewith
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill 83. Attached are the
Department's analyses, comments, and recommendations.
Although the bill attempts to address important issues for our County, as written,
it does not achieve any reduction in waste going to the landfill, not does it accord with
the County's Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (IWSMP), or Zero Waste
policies.
The complexity of implementation is significant, and will require resources in
excess of what the department currently has available. DEM is requesting a 24-month
delay in implementation if this bill is passed in its current version, funding for staff and
infrastructure, greater discretion for DEM's Director to amend requirements, and
recognition of the outreach, education, and analysis required to implement this
ordinance.
DEM staff will be present to answer questions and address concerns. Again, we
respectfully acknowledge the effort that has gone into designing this bill, and thank the
Council for their consideration.
Hmvai 7 County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
comn.- IS
Ref. TO.
Ref. Date DE - 3
The Department of Environmental Management Impact Analysis on Bill83
November 28 1, 2025
1. Summary
B11183 proposes prohibiting disposable plasticfoodware and serviceware, requiringthat all alternatives be
certified compostable (BPI or CMA) or non -plastic reusables. While the Bill supports human and
environmental health, its implementation will require significant enhancement to departmental capacity,
including new or increased enforcement systems, and substantial outreach and education efforts. As
written, the Bill does not align with eitherthe 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) nor
County Zero Waste policies. The County does not have cam posting facilities capable of processingthe
required materials therefore all compostable items will continue to be landfilled, negating any waste
reduction. While economic impacts are anticipated due to the higher cost of compliant products, there
may be benefits to reuse operations, specialized distributors, and potential benefits to future commercial
composting operations.
11. Bill83's Impact on Existing Systems
1. Landfill and Waste Diversion
• No commercial composting capacity exists on island. Our current organics operation handles
green waste and produces mulch so certified compostable items will be landfilled.
• Tonnage: Compostable products are usually heavierthan plastic equivalents. The expected impact
on overall landfill tonnage is a negligible increase relative to the full waste stream.
• Volume: Negligible change; containers are similar in form and unlikely to affect landfill lifespan.
2. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts
Compostable fiberfoodware will decompose anaerobically, producing methane. The landfill gas
system will capture methane (CHj and convert it to CO2 'via flaring but increases in landfill organics
will elevate GHG emissions.
• Bioplastics like PLAwill not meaningfully degrade in the Landfill.
3. Home Composting Considerations
• Fiber containers can break down in backyard piles under normal conditions.
PLA and biopLastic products are generally not compostable at home and may persist for years,
commercial compostingfacilities are required to properly process under ASTM standards.
Compostable bioplastics like PLA contain plasticizers and additives that some residents might not
want in their soil. When bioplastics degrade, they may release microplastics.
III. Enforcement & Program Development
1. Rule Promulgation and Program Development
• Bill 83 is significantly more complex than the County's prior ordinances (Polystyrene and Plastic
Bag Reduction Ordinances, Non-MineralSunscreen Ban)as it not only prohibits but mandates the
use of specific materials.
• HRS Section 201 M-04(a), deatingwith the impact of this ordinance on small businesses, will
require DEM to develop and publish new administrative rules for compliance, inspection, and
enforcement. This is a formal, public process that necessitates public input, review and hearings.
• DEM is required under HRS205Mto determine the effect of the ordinance on small businesses by
conducting a financial analysis of the impacts and lookingfor ways to mitigate any impact on
small businesses. This requires establishing an advisory body of industry representatives and
stakeholders to consider concerns and explore appropriate strategies.
• During implementation of the Plastic Bag and Polystyrene Reduction Ordinances, the Department
complied with both HRS Ch. 91-3 (rulemaking procedure) and CH. 201 M (Small Business
Regulatory Flexibility Act). Advisory groups were formed, a process that took months.
Recommendation: Due to the complexity of implementation, DEM recommends extendingthe
Implementation period of this Bill from 12 to 24 months to allow the required sequential processes of
rulemaking, staffing, and public education to be completed before the law goes into effect. This will
facilitate compliance for both the Department and constituents.
2. Staffing Needs
Current staffing levels cannot support the outreach, monitoring, exemption processing,
inspections, and public interaction required.
• DEM will require two Recycling Specialist -II (SR22) positions (East and West) to implement the
program. The process to create the positions, obtain County approval, advertise, hire, train, and
procure equipment for, is lengthy, but essentialfor programmatic success.
• Enforcement of material specific bans, enforcement of material requirements, compliance
inspections, evidence collection, fine issuance, and administrative appeals required by HRS
Chapter 91 constitute new responsibilities for DEM's Solid Waste Division.
Recommendation: Fund estimated year -one costs.
• Staff: $180,000 ($90,000 each for full expenditure)
Vehicles:-$86,000 ($43,000 each)
Equipment (phones, computers, etc.): $5,000
• Total:-$271,000
3. Developing and Deploying Public Education and Outreach
• The Department is mandated to establish and maintain an education and public information
program. The Bill requires the director to work with the sustainability administrator on this.
• Outreach is an island -wide effort requiring targeting diverse groups (food providers, County facility
users, event hosts, general public)with messaging, printed materials, and business assistance.
• Without robust outreach effort compliance is expected to be low and we expect a high volume of
community reporting, fines, and appeals which could overwhelm the enforcement program.
• A minimum of $70,000-$80,000 is required in year one to develop the messaging and materials.
Recommendation: Provide dedicated funding for year -one ($70,000-$80,000) and do not split
outreach responsibilities between two departments (DEM and OSCER).
IV. Economic and Business Impacts
1. Costs to Food Providers
• Serviceware: anticipated increase of 0-2 cents per item.
• Foodware: anticipated increase of 15-40 cents percontainer,varieswidely bytype.
• Variety of product offerings is improving, but certain specialtycontainershave limited compostable
options. Local distributors will need to restructure supply chains.
• BPI and CMA certifications are private entities that certifyASTM D6400 or D6868 compliance. Other
standards exist, such as the European Union's EN 13432 and EN 14995.
Recommendation: Include language to allow the Director to update standards. This would allow
additionalor updated compostability or microplastic-related testing standards as they become available.
This also ensures environmental responsibility while expanding access to more certified product options
for businesses of all sizes.
4. Reuse Service Providers (RSPs)
• Reuse systems (like the County's Ho'i system slated for a 2026 launch in Hilo) would likely benefit
from a market with fewer disposable options, and Bill83 may accelerate adoption.
• Reuse generally outperforms compostable and recyclable foodware and serviceware on
environmental metrics like GHG emissions.
• Per item (d) in the definition of"Reusable" plastic containers will not be allowed in reuse
operations. Nearly all successful reuse operations in the U.S. and Europe utilize plastic containers.
Recommendation: Allow"reusable"to include plastic. While the Hilo Reusable Foodware Program (Ho'i)
willbe using stainless steel items,we recognizethere are use cases in which plastic may be the preferred,
or onlyviable option. For example, alcoholic beverages must be served in translucent containers. If the
goal isto support reuse and waste diversion, the Bills definition works against this.
S. Commercial Composting Facilities
• No facilities currently exist, however, a waste stream with less plastic contamination may make it
easier to process organic material, increasing the viability of commercial composting.
• Significant challenges exist if including PLA and other bioplastic waste in composting operations
due to processing challenges and the generation of microplastics.
• ASTM standards do not guarantee that compostable materials won't create microplastics in real
world conditions.
V. Relationship with Prior Ordinances and Planning
• Past ordinances banned materials but did not mandate specific alternatives, making this Bill more
complex to implement.
• The 2011 Polystyrene ban anticipated future composting capacity to accomplish the diversion
goals in the Bill but this hasn't occurred.
• The 2022 Non -Mineral Sunscreen ban is like Bill83 in that it expanded enforcement under Chapter
20 beyond solid waste management.
3
• The ISWMP (2019) recommended that DEM thoroughly investigate mandates prior to
implementation includingassessment of markets (should be well -established), operationalviability
(solicit input from recycling and transfer station attendants, haulers, landfill operators), and
implementation! n other jurisdictions with an emphasis on other Hawai'i counties.
o Bill83 does not directly address any of the ISWMP's 84 recommendations.
The County's Zero Waste Plan advised DEM to ban landfilling organics due to methane generation
and advised against the construction of centralized commercial composting facilities.
Recommendation
Reconsider Enforcement Structure
A long-term enforcement framework is needed to address what is likely to be additional bans on materials
that increasinglyfall outside of the Department's expertise, resources to enforce, and historical functions.
Forexample,the primary sources ofmicroplasticsarefromtextiles and vehicle tire wear (notyet regulated)
White foodware and serviceware are minor sources. The Department's function is described as:
County Charter (Chapter 10, Section 6-10.2):
The department of environmental management is established to protect, preserve, and enhance
our environment by oromoting the wise management of our waste.
County Code (Chapter 20, Section 20-01-01. (b)):
The purpose of this chapter is to protect the environment through the management and operation
of all solid waste programs and facilities of the County.
Additionally, aligning the fines across all the relevant ordinances (Plastic Bag Reduction, Polystyrene) will
improve clarity and predictability.
Vill. Conclusion
Bill83 sets meaningful environmental and public health goals, but the County is not yet prepared to
implement it on the current timeline. DEM needs time to hire and train enforcement staff, complete
rulemaking, build administrative systems, securefunding, and conduct extensive public outreach. With no
commercial compostingfacility available, compostable products would continue going to the landfill —
offering no diversion benefit and creating a high risk of low compliance and administrative strain.
Many restaurants and stores are already shiftingto compostable foodware on their own, showingstrong
community support forwaste reduction.These voluntary efforts should be reinforced with clear guidance,
education, and a realistic implementation schedule. The County is also launchingthe Ho'i reusable
foodware program, which needsadequate time to develop. We should be aware that mandating materials
may work against convincing businesses to adopt reuse models.
A 24-month extension, adequate funding, and strong outreach, will ensure that both businesses and the
County have the tools, systems, and infrastructure neededfor Bill83 to achieve its intended environmental
outcomes.
Ul