HomeMy WebLinkAbout21-09-22 EMC minutes
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, September 22, 2021
9:01 a.m. to 11:44 a.m.
(Online meeting via Zoom videoconferencing)
Commissioners present:
Georjean Adams, Chair
Rick Gaffney, Vice Chair
Melissa Cardwell
Dee Fulton
Lee McIntosh
Jon Olson (via phone)
Elyse Robinson
County staff present:
Ramzi Mansour, Director
Sanne Berrig, Recycling Specialist
Peter Sur, Secretary
Sinclair SalasFerguson, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Jessica Valdez, Council Aide, Council District 3
Others present:
Rick Bennett, Sandra Demoruelle, Steve Holmes, Roy Kadota, Michelle Mitsumori, Jennifer
Navarra, Michelle Sorenson, Jerome Warren, others.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Adams opened with a roll call and called the meeting to order at 9:01a.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MEETING ON AUGUST 25, 2021
Motion and second: Commissioner Robinsonmoved to approve the minutes, and
Commissioner Olson seconded the motion.
Discussion: No discussion.
Vote: The minutes were approved as presented by voice vote. Ayes: 7 (Adams, Cardwell,
Fulton, Gaffney, McIntosh, Olson, Robinson); Nays 0; Absent 2 (Burns, Hoopii). Motion carried.
1
3. STATEMENT FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Adams began her statement by reading the Commission’s role in the County Charter: The
Environmental Management Commission shall advise the Department (of Environment
Management) of solid waste and wastewater programs, waste reduction strategies, recycling,
control, community involvement, and other issues, including any pilot project or program,
related to the functions of the Department. The Commission shall also provide its comments
and recommendations on these mattersto the Council. The Commission shall hear and
determine appealsfrom decisions of the Director, including orders and denials of variances. The
EMC is also given 45 days to comment on Council bills that relate to the functions and duties of
the Department.
And to keep us on track for following our Charter, rules, and procedures that apply to us, we
have a new Deputy Corporation Counsel assigned to Sinclair SalasFerguson. Counsel said hello
to the Commission and said he looks forward to working with them.
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
Jerome Warren (Agenda item 7-C) You have my written testimony. It was sent to Honolulu
because the attorney who took me to court wants to be a judge. I submitted to you a similar
letter last month, and it was blocked. OIP (Office of Information Practices) is looking into this.
You should havetheir correspondence. This year the Department of Environmental
Management is more feeble. The staff cannot produce monthly reports prior to Commission
meetings. This negligence inhibits the public’s ability to add corrective testimony. We cannot
correct what we do not know. This makes the environmentalists among you seem both feeble
and draconian. People do not follow feeble leaders. I do not like being oppressed by the Green
Thumb. Nobody knows what the updates for the Nlehu sewer project are, but I assume you
are going for the impossible plan while keeping homeowners in the dark. A legislative audit will
reveal how much money has gone to outside contractors for the Nlehu plans and reports.
The dollar figure for Nlehu will be astronomical, while the citizens’ morale will be negative.
Morale is part of an audit. Anyhow, you will find a negative value there, thanks to you guys,
yeah? Neither my nor the public’s trust in government can be regained. We are left with less
than nothing, and precious time keeps getting dithered away --
(Counsel instructed the testifier not to direct any personal comments toward the
commissioners, and to keep his public statements to the agenda item. The petitioner then
resumed his comments).
No sir! I followed what the County Council does, I know the law and you cannot interrupt me,
and you cannot correct me. Again, this is another OIP violation. I have free speech rights. So
thank you.
Sandra Demoruelle (Agenda item 7-C) I am very concerned about the notice of noncompliance
that was sent to Mayor Mitch Roth on August 18 from the EPA. The noncompliance is for the
2
Phala community large capacity cesspool closure project. Since you have not been privy to
this, I would like to read to you the important section. On July 23, 2021, the County – I am
quoting from the notice –submitted a design package that included wastewater treatment
design/build documents in a letter detailing the County’s desire to construct a wastewater
treatment plant that includes a mechanical secondary treatment process. Based on review of
the information presented in the County’s design package, EPA has determined that the County
has failed to fully comply with the requirements of paragraph (f) of the AOC because the
Health. The County’s failure to comply with all applicable requirements of paragraph (f) is a
violation of the AOC. Pursuant to subsection (e) of the AOC, EPA may, at its discretion, assess
stipulated penalties for an unexcused delay in complying with any provision of the AOC. EPA
may also elect to pursue judicial remedies to enforce the AOC. According to the AOC, in Section
(e), 43a, they start with $150 per day per violation for the first to the thirtieth day. That moves
to $300 per day for the violation to the sixtieth day. And now here we are at sixty-plus days at
$500-plus per day, so that now the County is on the hook for $15,000 per month, while
receiving only $2,242 at most from those who are currently on the Phala LCC. So, the
payments they are receiving from Phala are not going to cover this $15,000 a month that we
are on the hook for. The County agreed to pay these stipulated penalties if they did not do the
actions that were in the AOC. I am very concerned as a taxpayer and as a citizen in this County
that in fact we are on the hook for an unknown amount of penalties. Plus, we are on the hook
for further judicial action. So therefore, I am asking, please find out how much this is going to
cost us, because this is a running taxi meter, basically. And the County agreed they were going
to pay this if they didn’t do what they were supposed to do. Now they have been sent this
letter notifying them of the fact that they can demand payment at any moment. So, I would
hope that the Commissioners would be interested in how much this is going to cost us. So,
thank you very much.
Roy Kadotaand Michelle Mitsumori from Mr. K’s Recycle & Redemption Center deferred their
comments(see pages 4-7 and 8-9).
Rick Bennett also deferred his comments (see pages 18-20).
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Status report on 2021 EMC Priorities – Each lead commissioner to provide brief report on
assigned priorities (priorities are listed in the May 2021 meeting minutes).
Chair Adams said she has joined with Recycling Specialist Sanne Berrig to work on the LifeCycle
Assessment project, which is now under way. An update on the project will come in the
October or November meeting.
See also agenda item 7-b (Pages 18-21) for Vice Chair Gaffney’s priority project.
b. Continued discussion of solid waste division funding needs and options.
Chair Adams asked whether the Commission was ready to make specific recommendations
around extended producer responsibility. Are there priority programs we would like to
3
encourage the Department and the Council to push up to the State level? What do we want to
see in an EPR program?
1. Extended Producer Responsibility: Which priority programs should EMC
recommend to DEM, County Council, and/or the Legislature? For example:
a. Increase glass fee for non-HI-5 glass and fulfill allocations directly to the
County. (Burns)
Chair Adams asked Ms. Berrig to comment on the non-HI-5 glass collection and recycling,
whether the Advance Deposit Fee that is paid by those who ship glass to the County, is covering
the costs.
Ms. Berrig said it is not. It probably covers 50 to 60 percent, maybe a little bit more. Doubling
the fee would be warranted, she said. Twenty-seven years is a long time not to increase the fee.
Mr. Kadota said that his business also collects non-HI-5 glass at his site. So because of the bars
and the patrons that come in, they just want to drop it off and we tell them to go to the
transfer stations, but they get irate and they probably just throw away if we tell them that.
Because it takes a while to get to the transfer stations, and unless they are doing trash recycling
there, they tend to do it here, because we are a pretty big recycling facility for the HI-5. We
attract a lot of customers. And we are kind of environmentally conscious. We take in cardboard
and whatever they drop off. We tend to try to tell them to get to the County’s transfer stations
but they want to do it here, so we do the cardboard. But getting back to the glass, we are taking
about $1,600 a year in glass. It doesn’t sound that much but it is non-HI-5 glass so it does pile
up. What we are trying to say is we are trying to get some of that money that the County is
giving out to whomever has the transfer stations contract, but we are always saying, can it be
extended to other facilities, or my recycling center, because we do collect and it’s hard for the
customers to always go to the transfer stations. So that is with the glass. And we are also
thinking that maybe we should be putting the glass – I know it’s not part of the subject – into
the landfill, as fill, or roads, which we are trying to do, or try to do some colored glass for
decoration.
Ms. Mitsumori said Mr. K’s Recycling would like a collection site to be able to either dispose of
the non-HI-5 glass with the official non-HI-5collector rather than be treated as a commercial
site. Because it’s not our glass. It’s glass that the community brings to us. As Mr. Kadota said,
having to dispose of the non-HI-5 glassourselves is on a back-of-the-envelope calculation about
a $1,600 cost, which is a lot because the recycling is about volume and the profit margin is very
small. So in addition to what Ms. Berrig said about the cost, that number does not represent all
of the glass. And we are not even asking for glass. People just bring it and we tell them not to
bring it, and they still do. So, if we were to collect intentionally, we could get even more.
Recycling is best when it is a habit, so if people just habitually come to our site to drop off
everything at once, that could help to collect more glass. So our request is, one, to increase the
amount as Ms. Berrig said. There’s more glass out there. Two, to allow Mr. K’s to be treated as
a collection so residents can drop off their glass, with the official collector, or if we as a private
collection site could be able to submit for more non-HI-5 glass reimbursement.
4
Chair Adams said that for herself that sounds reasonable, and it’s something that we could
work offline with the Department in working onways to minimize Mr. K’s cost. It is a
community service that you are providing, and she would be interested in other comments
from Commissioners.
Commissioner Fulton suggested soliciting volunteers from among the Commission to get a
small group together to work with Mr. K’s. What they are asking is very reasonable. She would
like to see a few Commissioners work on that.
Vice Chair Gaffney wondered if we could move this forward more quickly.
Motion and second.Vice Chair Gaffney made a motion, to which Commissioner Fulton
seconded,“that we ask the County consider reimbursing Mr. K’s for the collection of non-HI-5
glass.”
Discussion:
Commissioner Fulton said it’s always easy to go to the County and say, we want you to pay for
something, but it goes hand in hand with a mechanism for funding.
Chair Adams said it occurred to her that perhaps one route is the residential tipping fee credit,
when haulers are taking residential waste, which was a previous controversy a few meetings
ago. She asked if they can be treated in that way, because what we are dealing with is
residential waste essentially. And she would be willing tobe in the conversation to see what
kinds of accommodations could be made. She asked for a possible revision of the motion, by
not putting the solution into the motion that the County pay Mr. K’s, but that the County works
out a way to reduce the cost that Mr. K’s is facing by winding up with all this glass that could be
recycled.
Commissioner Fulton said this circles back to agenda item 5-b(1), for extended producer
responsibility.
Chair Adams said that is the Advance Deposit Fee model, which is to pay more money, and it
would have to be more than twice as much to cover additional costs. Maybe this meeting is not
the best place to figure out what the best solution is.
Withdrawal of motion.Vice Chair Gaffney agreed, and withdrew the motion. He said the
discussion should continue. There may be other parties besides Mr. K’s that should be
considered in this motion. Let’s be sure that we are being broad and not just focusing on a
single business, although we do appreciate the work that he does, the Vice Chair said.
Commissioner Cardwell mentioned, for example, Atlas Recycling Centers. They may be a good
organization to reach out to because they do a lot of recycling as well, and she imagines they
5
are encountering a similar situation as Mr. K’s. She likes Commissioner Fulton’s idea of a few
commissioners working on it. She is a little unclear about how the non-HI-5 program works.
Mr. Kadota agreed that a motion should be about more than an individual business. What
happens to the non-HI-5 glass? The majority is done by Business Services Hawaii, so it stays on
island. But what do they really do with it?
Ms. Berrig said the grant money is tied into not just the collection of glass, but it has to be
recycled. Before we pay out on invoices for the hauling of the glass, we are provided proof that
it is being reused. Primarily it has been used for landscaping, or construction backfill like
ditches. Payment invoices are accompanied by photos or information about who is getting the
glass from them, and that information is provided to the Department of Health before we get
any money from them. Every quarter we do grant reports. So if you collect it, then there has to
be proof. In order to get money, they would have to show proof that it is being recycled.
to crush all that
glass. They used to do that and provide it for free. Any resident could pick it up and use it for
landscaping or whatnot. That ended a number of years ago. She also had a quick question for
Ms. Berrig. With HI-5, the consumer pays that additional nickel when they purchase that item.
But with non-HI-5, that doesn’t happen. So where does the money come from for the non-HI-5
glass? Is that a grant and where does that grant money come from?
Ms. Berrig said the wholesaler pays when it brings in, say, a pallet of tomato sauce. The
wholesaler pays 1.5 pennies per container, and that goes to the Department of Health, and
DOH tells us how much we qualify for, and every quarter we apply for it back.
Chair Adams said that it is an EPR program of sorts. The shipper has to pay a fee that goes to
paying for recycling.
Ms. Berrig clarified that BSH is
Commissioner Robinson asked Mr. Kadota what else is the community trying to dispose of at
Mr. K’s Recycling other than glass and e-waste.
Mr. Kadota said we do also cardboard – they drop off cardboard becauseeverybody brings it in
and they want to recycle it. We tell them that the County has a recycling bin at the transfer
stations, but they still do it here. We like to help them out because for them to go the dump is a
hassle, and we take a little bit of it, and we ourselves recycle our own. There’s a County bin for
commercial glass, but he’s a recycler, so he recycles his own. And the thing with the glass is he
recycles his own non-HI-5 glass. With one container of 45,000 pounds, we get $200 from our
recyclers, and it takes us about $5,000 to get it to the West Coast. This is with HI-5 glass.
To answer Commissioner Robinson’s question, Mr. Kadota said we do take in non-HI-5 PET
(polyethylene terephthalate) bottles, as well as HDPE (high-density polyethylene), whatever
6
they drop off. They just drop it,so we take it. We as a recycler recycle it with our other Hi-5. We
have people in Los Angeles that we can ship our non-Hi-5 plastic to.
Ms. Mitsumori said we also do scrap metal, such as aluminum, glass, copper, lead, tire rims,
catalytic converters, and batteries. We also do newspapers.
Mr. Kadota said he shreds the newspaper and sell it to our growers. That’s our new avenue.
We also shred photovoltaic panels, Ms. Mitsumori said, and we just started a pilot project to
look at single-use alkaline batteries. Because we get a lot of those through the things we
collect, and there hasn’t been any way for customers to dispose of it except through the
landfill. Mr. Kadota has a big heart for it, and it’s just trying to make the business of it work, and
managing all the moving parts, including the recycling market in general.
Mr. Kadota said that if the Commission could help with the diversion fund, that would be great.
But now that the United States is getting onboard with the non-HI-5 plastic, which is HDPE,
natural and colored – HDPE natural is at 80 cents per pound, so the cost of recycling is there
now. So that’s why he is trying to tell the County that it is viable now, or is getting to be viable,
so we need to move in that direction where we start the diverting these recyclable items again,
because the price is there. He gets 26 cents for the colored HDPE and 80 cents for the clear
plastic, which are milk cartons, which are non-HI-5.
Chair Adams said it would be a discussion for a future agenda how we could expand again and
do more recycling than we used to do, and how to deal with the fact that the markets are
changing faster than County rules can change. So how do we cope with that? But we will put
that off for a future agenda.
Commissioner McIntosh that for the non-HI-5 glass the simplest solution would be to allow
them to drop it off just as everyone else does. Even if you increase the amount that the County
or the State gets, it’s not going to solve Mr. K’s problem because they don’t get funds from that.
Chair Adams said it’s certainly another option, and it’s one that was recommended in the
Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan to allow small businesses to use the transfer stations.
We will follow up with the discussion offline, and she would be happy to do that.
b. Create a fee for oil recycling at the ‘quart’ scale to enable generation of
funds so the County can better deal with oil waste coming from non-
commercial sources. (Burns)
Chair Adams didn’t have too much information about this, but it ispart of an extended
producer responsibility program to require a fee for oil recycling at the quart scale. Right now
it’s at the 55-gallon drum scale, or so. There is already a system in place for larger scale oil
recycling for manufacturersand sellers, but not at the consumer quart level. She asked Ms.
Berrig for any input.
7
Ms. Berrig said there apparently used to be some sort of fee that we did get years ago, and she
has been trying to look into what that was, and whether it has sunset. All the counties would
get a fraction to help fund this do-it-yourself oil recycling program. So yes, we are definitely
interested in that. We try to have people do it at the drop off locations around the island
because the other option is they bring it to our household hazardous waste collection events,
which makes it more expensive to recycle the oil. Once she finds the original legislation from
way back, she will send it to Chair Adams.
Chair Adams said she would follow up with more information and include it on our potential
list.
c. E-Waste: look at ways to increase effectiveness of this program, e.g.: 1)
Increase fee for selling e-waste; 2) Request adequate e-waste funds and
fulfill allocations to the County; 3) expand current EPR law to require
more active participation/funding in collection and management by
electronic manufacturers (Burns/Adams).
E-waste is a huge topic area, Chair Adams said, with much logistics involved. There is an existing
law for TVs and electronics, and there is an advance deposit fund that is paid to the State, and
then it gets rolled down to the counties, but that fee is another one that was set years ago at
$5,000, whether it’s Apple or Sony or some small brand. So it has no relationship to the actual
volumes being shipped to the State. It’s an old rule, it needs to be looked again. There is some
for Neighbor Islands forget it, there isn’t really any involvement
from the manufacturers in a take-back program. And so, some of the ideas for looking at how
to improve e-waste EPR would be to increase that fee, maybe tie it better to the actual volume
of the products that we get here, to make sure that we get the money. This was again one of
those things where the Governor said, we’ll blame it on COVID – and looked everywhere there
was any money sitting around, and basically reduced the amount of funds from $225,000 to the
County to $85,000 this year, which in no way covers the cost of collection and recycling where
possible of e-waste. So, it would be a legislative change to a state law, and so nothing is simple,
of course. But there is an individual at DEM, Chris Chin-Chance, who has all sorts of great ideas
but he was out of the office, so she didn’t want to slot him in to a presentation. Chair Adams
wanted to start thinking and finding out if anyone is aware of other groups. Legislators are
probably looking at changing the current laws. So, it is another place to leverage the cost of EPR
to help defray costs. This is again a place that Mr. Kadota wanted to comment because they are
a key location for collection of e-waste. She asked if Mr. Kadota had something to add.
Mr. Kadota said that for one thing we would like the state to tell the OEMs (Original Equipment
Manufacturers) that maybe they need to set up a different tier. Not everybody needs to pay
$5,000. Currently the low end pays $5,000 but Sony pays $5,000 also. That’s a joke. They should
be paying $500,000 maybe. What we are asking the State is not much. They are going to give us
$260,000 which they took back and only gave $80,000. And they lowered the time we have to
pick up the e-waste on the Big Island. It was cut in half. What we trying to say to the State is
they need to have legislation where they have the OEMs be a little bit more responsible in
8
terms of the cost of recycling. They do help us but the funding maybe should be a little more.
And we have to hurry because it’s all legislation. It goes through your County, then it goes up.
So we got to kind of hurry on this like everything else. I understand it takes time.
Ms. Mitsumori added that it’s a dynamic ecosystem with the producers, as well as the State,
ourselves (Mr. K’s), retailers, so it’s a multiparty thing, and different parties have different
perspectives on this law. So, the producers put an amount into the fund, which goes to the
State and to the County, and then we receive that allocation, and the County right now is
reimbursing only for the residential (e-waste), and some of the producers together receive the
recycling at the back end. And then they recycle it through an association of what they call
OEMs. The OEMs are willing to cover the cost of shipping and recycling, so then we pass it on to
them. Because they are connected to the OEMs, they are saying, we basically are reimbursing
in-Hawaii handling to make sure that the $5,000 we are putting into that fund, therefore we do
not want to cover any other costs. So, if the County doesn’t use that funding to cover, for
example, non-residential e-waste handling on-island, they don’t want to pick up the recycling
for that, because they are saying we already paid for it, why should we pay for it twice? And so,
what the County doesn’t cover, Mr. K’s has to find additional funding for, which is essentially
asking the commercial sector to pay for it, so it’s coming from the island. So basically, these
different restrictions create a different dynamic around how the producers are seeing what
they are paying into the fund at the front end, and what they are willing to cover at the back
end. They are kind of saying, we are willing to cover at the back end, only what you used the
money we put in at the beginning, at the front end, to cover for your island costs. So that’s how
they are seeing that fund. So, one thing is, we would like to take a look at that law with all the
parties involved, and say, how do we understand this law, and how can we come up with an
updated interpretation? Because as we said at the beginning, this law is quite old, and
everything has changed so much. Second, we are anticipating more e-waste because we are all
dependent on devices now, so how can we plan for the future with more e-waste? Third would
be lack of parts, supply chain issues, recycling, reusing is even more important. For Mr. K’s we
do try to refurbish things that are more reusable and selling it as a very low cost back on the
island. Because a lot of it is still good. It’s just, you know, five years old. It’s not the latest. So
the more we can refurbish and keep on island is even better, but that has itself has a cost
because of security and data erasure, and other things. So definitely we would like to increase
what they pay at the front end. We would like the State to allocate it a little more fairly to the
County. We would like to look at the entire law with different parties, which she understands
would be very complex. We would like to look at the whole system, whatever works out, and to
really plan that e-waste is going to expand, along with data security issues, which adds to cost.
Chair Adams suggested that we get commissioners to volunteer to look at how we take some
next steps evaluating what the opportunities are, whom we all need to get involved in a
discussion, and what role EMC should play. If any of you are aware of existing groups who are
working on e-waste, let us know and maybe we can gin up something for next meeting. She
knew that Chris Chin-Chance has a lot of good ideas, what he would like to see from the DEM
side, and there are many parties who care about it. Contact me, she said, and we’ll see what we
can arrange for a further discussion.
9
Commissioner McIntosh said that it sounds to him that rather than justthrowing moneyatthe
problem and raising these rates, most of the state’s EPR projects needs to be looked at and
revamped. Just looking at the agenda, it was mostly about raising rates, and he would not
support most of those until we can actually look at the problems associated with them and
evaluate the programs themselves.
d. PaintCare (May and July EMC meetings) – continue exploring feasibility
with counties
Chair Adams recommended deferring comment on PaintCare. It’s moving along, she said.
e. Study packaging EPR options (August EMC meeting)
Chair Adams said we heard last meeting about EPR, and we are supportive of the idea of
moving forward with a study, because nothing is simple when we are dealing with an island.
f.Other candidates:
Chair Adams said that if commissioners have other ideas to set up for next month’s agenda, let
her know.
2. Transfer Station continued discussion on actions to reduce costs/increase
revenue. (Burns/Adams)
a. Increase in the greenwaste fee, which primarily affects commercial
operations, to ensure the County has financial capability to manage
greenwaste and keep that biomass from unnecessarily ending up in
landfills. (Burns)
b. Support diversionprograms to set up dedicated greenwaste days (e.g.,
Honoka‘a) to avoid greenwaste going to the landfills. (Burns)
c. Develop pros/cons of ISWMP Chapter 8.4 recommendation to
reduce hours or closure days at Transfer Stations (also see item 7.c.)
(See agenda item 6-a below.)
3. Other Solid Waste funding recommendations
a. Expand/encourage life cycle assessments into all waste management
programs to better estimate long-term costs to reduce overall waste
stream throughout the island.(Burns)
Chair Adams said Commissioner Burns was recommending that we look at all of our waste and
how we manage it from a life cycle standpoint. As the Chair said, DEM is starting the contract
on a set of recyclables, and the results we get out of that study will inform future efforts, and if
we can expand it.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion/recommendations in response to the presentation regarding solid waste
to the Council’s RAWEEM Committee on September 21, 2021 (Comm. 378).
Chair Adams asked the Director to summarize the presentation.
10
Director Mansour said that for the people who have seen the presentation, it is a lengthy
meeting. He hopes that everyone would get a chance to see the video, despite the technical
difficulties.The meeting was intended to address some of ourchallenges, solutions, and
priorities that the Department is working on. One of the triggers for the request for the
presentation was because we have modified some of the transfer station days. Instead of seven
days they were reduced to four days because of what is going on with the Delta variant
Countywide. A lot of people don’t understand that our Department is intertwined with so many
other departments, just to provide the service. We are not a stand-alone department. Our
equipment needs to be maintained by Public Works, which maintains the entire County fleet.
So if one thing goes down, you have the domino effect that takes place, and delays happen.
So the meeting was about our priorities. As you all know, the public health and safety and our
employee safety are our No. 1 priorities that we have.Our second priority is environmental
protection, and meeting regulatory compliance, policies and procedures, state, federal, and
local laws. Our third priority is fiscal responsibility, and trying to deliveraffordable services.
These are the major cores of our existence as an environmental department, and we need to
deliver. And the only way to deliver is to be able to identify the challenges so we can knock
them down and figure out a way to deliver the services that you all want.
And the first challenge is COVID-19. It’s moving in too many different directions. Last year’s
virus is not this year’s virus. Today’s COVID-19 regulations are being mandated by the State.
You have to have vaccinations. You cannot go to State or County buildings, you cannot come to
work unless you provide testing results, et cetera. We didn’t have that last year. So things are
changing, and having that impacts our services. The other challenge is the funding as you have
hit on it multiple times. The funding will continue to be a challenge. We presented the cost per
transfer station. We have 22 transfer stations. The cost goes up and down based on the
location, and the service that is being provided at each transfer station. It’s a very detailed Excel
sheet, but our accounting people have been working on it since I started that information in
January and February. They were able to get me a spreadsheet that accumulates all the
expenses in identifying the cost per ton at each transfer station. We have the highest cost at
$476 . Others varied from $177 per ton to $60 per ton. Our
attention needs to be paid at the transfer stations with the high cost. More than $100 per ton is
considered very high.
He had asked the Commission when he first started to look at the enterprise fund versus the
assessment fees versus user fees, to look at business models because the current business
model is costly. As he stated to the Committee, if they opted to continue using the existing
business model, it’s going to be expensive and it’s going to be reflected in our budget going
forward in the next year, because we need to address the actual costs of doing business. We
cannot sugarcoat it. And in addition to that, a lot of people kept calling me and said we have
not laid off people. We used to get this service, why are not getting it now? His answer is that
for so many years in the past, somehow the inflation was not included in our budgets as we
moved forward. So we cannot continue moving forward as a department without accounting
for inflation. Cost of living goes up, but if we don’t include that in our budget, it becomes a
11
delta that we need to offset somehow, somewhere. So that’s why prior staff were told to cut
services, because they don’t have the funds, so the only way they could do it is to say, let’s cut
down recycling, let’s do this and that. So as we move forward withthe budget coming up, we
need you (EMC) being involved in telling us, advising us what to do when it comes to recycling,
diverting, so we could have the right amount of dollar figure included in the budget, so people
understand the cost of business. That way at least, we could reflect what the people want, so
they have the costs. In the meantime, we do need to figure out based on the actual costs that
my accounting section had created. It was based on transporting, and the current business,
which is double, triple handling the waste, transporting it to the WHSL, et cetera. So that we
need to figure out, if that model continues, we need to reflect the actual cost to deliver that.
Things are going up in cost. So I look forward to continue working with you on the Commission,
on finding ways of setting up different models. This was the assignment I sent to my former
SWD Chief, but unfortunately it was not complete, so we need to pick up on those options.
There were five options identified, so we need to tackle these options and get an idea as we
take it back to the Committee. Maybe at least they have some ideas about different business
models. We’ll put it out for them and have them come to conclusions about what they would
like to do. Because we are sending confusing messages out there. We want zero waste but
everybody went ballistic when we cut down the transfer station hours due to COVID-19 related
issues. What is it, do we need to control waste and reduce it or do we need to open transfer
stations to seven days a week, 24 hours a day, just because waste is getting more and more?
We cannot have it both, so we have to find a happy medium that could be a win-win.
We need to create an incentive. Currently at the transfer stations, everybody can come in. You
could come in with 10 pounds of waste, someone else could bring 100 pounds. No scales, no
restrictions, no limitations. So it’s an open-ended facility. There’s no control, no accountability.
We need to figure it out. He looks forward to Commissioners’ advice for each of their districts.
It takes political will to move forward, and if we don’t have any will, it’s never going to go. He is
glad that we have a representative from each district within our Commission. You need to send
a message to each Council Member about what we have been talking about. Reduce, reuse,
recycle. Create incentive, hold people accountable for the waste they generate. And everybody
has this misconception about, we pay taxes. That’s true, you pay taxes, but if you really want to
pay into what you produce, currently we charge $114 per ton. EPA estimates each household
generates 4.5 tons of waste per household per year. That is more than $500 per year. How is
that paying the taxes to the service that everybody wants? We cannot deliver the Rolls-Royce
of the service when we are collecting the price of a motorcycle. So that is where the public
education comes in. We need start educating the public about the cost of our business and how
much we are getting from our so-called taxes. We need to set a fee. He heard about proposals
for Pay As You Throw (PAYT), that’s a good program. At least we need to recoup some of the
costs to pay for the services that the constituents would like to see. And our legal obligation,
that was the last item that was in the presentation about what is tying our hand is the current
legal contracts we got. We cannot exit them. We got married to these contracts and we just
need to navigate through them, and swallow some sour pills, and move forward with a
different strategy.
12
Chair Adams recalled that at one point in his presentation Director Mansour pitched for a
consultant who could develop the option of different business models that could be used to
pay for the true cost of managing our waste. She asked whether Commissioners have a view of
whether they wanted to support that?
Director Mansour said the Commission had sent a letter during the Council’s budget discussions
requesting funding to include a third-party consultant to come in and do some analyses.
Chair Adams said that was specifically for wastewater, but the same thing could be done for
Solid Waste. It’s looking at, what are the real costs and how do we cover them? It’s looking at
what are the real costs and how do we cover them? And there are different models that can be
used, whether it’s PAYT or an enterprise fund that charges fees that cover the cost of doing
business, and the “free” disposal that we provide now for our residents. There are different
ways of laying out the costs and some of the challenges. She agrees with some of the
comments made at the meeting, and specifically Ms. Robinson had said we need data. We need
to know the cost of doing these different things, to know the cost of collecting and disposal of
rubbish around the island with the system we have today, the cost of doing recycling, and then
the “hidden” cost that hopefully the life cycle assessment approach will tease out.
Commissioner Cardwell asked what is the cost of running a transfer station, and what is the
total cost of running all of our transfer stations? One of the things we are running up against,
which Mr. Kadota spoke to earlier, is that a lot of people are bringing things to Mr. K’s. It’s in a
convenient spot and people can just drop their stuff there rather than going to multiple places
to dispose of their waste. And in most places, people have trash or recyclingpickup once a
week. That’s how it works in most places, and part of what we are up against is people are used
to bringing their trash to the transfer stations whenever they want. They are expecting for itto
be open seven days a week, 24/7. Well, there’s a cost to that. So in thinking of all of this and
connecting the dots, what she is wondering is, if we were to cut back on transfer station hours,
would that cost savings allow us to have something like trash pickup, so we could do both? We
could allow for the transfer stations to be open a limited amount of time so that people who
want to take their trash could still do that, but it wouldn’t be seven days a week, and also have
a more conventional trash pickup system, which is in most places, and that might cut back on
roadside garbage and all the litter we see on the highways. She’s thinking out loud, but she
would like the data too. What is the cost of running these transfer stations, and is there a way
to limit the transfer station hours so we could use that money in a better, more efficient way?
Director Mansour said the data were shared with the Committee so we already have the cost
for each transfer station with 90 percent certainty. We just need to reorganize it and put it in
more legible charts for everybody to see.
1
Chair Adams added that the presentation is in the online “References” folder.
1
“Solid Waste Division: Priorities, Challenges, Solutions.”
http://records.hawaiicounty.gov/weblink/1/doc/112625/Page1.aspx
13
Director Mansour said that Commissioner Cardwell brought up a good point about public
convenience. People use the Mr. K’s facility because of the convenience. But convenience has a
price attached to it. That’s the bottom line. We do not have a transfer station located at each
corner. We aren’t like Starbucks. At least Starbucks charges you for each coffee. And here,
because we collect only every $40, for every $1,000 we are charged, we have the feeling of
entitlement that we need a station at each corner. We need to be realistic. Sometimes he’s
bluntly speaking because he wants to be transparent. He has to speak to what he sees. We
have a challenge, and we need to have as he stated yesterday, a paradigm change. We need to
start thinking about, not only from a business point of view but also from a human behavior
point of view. We need to change that behavior. If people are going to do illegal dumping, we
need to hold them accountable. And the way we used to hold them account in my experience is
we go through their garbage, we find their phone number, we find their address. We send them
a citation of $1,000. We need to hold them accountable. We cannot just destroy the island
because people decided to behave that way. You cannot just take your waste and throw it out
in a public area.
Commissioner McIntosh asked about the transfer stations that are open seven days a week.
They had a lower per-ton cost than those were open three days a week. Those that were open
longer often accept more trash, so they accepted more tons to offset the cost. So his question
is, if the other transfer stations were open seven days a week, how would that affect the cost
per ton? Would it significantly go down and be on par with the others, or would it stay the
same? How would the current schedule of Waihinu being open three days a week change if it
were open seven days a week?
Director Mansour said the tonnage question is a good question. If you don’t have the human
behavior change, a paradigm change about reduce, reuse, recycle, divert, you are going to have
the same tonnage. People have the tendency to generate the amount of waste that they do. If
there’s no public information, no motivation to divert and reduce, you are going to have the
same tonnage. And the Commissioner is correct about the reason other facilities are cheaper
per ton. It’s more centralized. The more centralized facility you have, the more users you have.
The decentralized locations are open every other day because we have a certain size of trailer.
To be financially efficient we have to compact the trailer to the max. Otherwise we cannot haul
it half full. You have to look at all these factors together. (In many cases) you have so much
smaller distances between transfer stations, under 10 miles apart. So the question becomes, do
you need that transfer station if it’s only 10 miles apart from the Hilo Reload Facility? That’s
where the convenience comes in. So maybe eliminate some of the transfer stations and come
up with a distance of a 40-mile radius that people could drive, or 30 miles. But people want just
to walk with their garbage bags, it’s not going to happen unless you have a collection system.
Commissioner Olson asked if there is a breakdown on the differential between what the
Department receives from property taxes as opposed to other fees.
14
Director Mansour said this was part of the budget. We get about 60 percent subsidy from the
general fund to offset pretty much the residential use, and the operations and maintenance.
The tipping fees come from the commercial user, and is almost half of our entire budget. Our
entire budget is $38 million, but half of it comes from subsidies from the general fund. If you
run the numbers, currently we assume every house generates 1.5 tons. So that amount based
on the current rate of $114 per ton, we are looking at $171. We are not collecting $171 from
each property. We are collecting 6 percent of the general fund, which comes to $60 to $80 per
house per year.
Commissioner Olson noted that in Puna we are only at 40 percent of buildout.
Director Mansour said things have got to change and we need to stop the bleeding somehow.
To him, upcoming subdivisions need to start putting a waste drop off area, such as for
apartment complexes. Right now if you live in an apartment, you have trash service. Why can’t
we start asking developers to do the same thing into these new subdivisions?
Some of the lots are 3 acres are more, Commissioner Olson said. They are supposed to be
agricultural, but that certainly is not the majority. But the thing is that we are going to need to
find a way of funding this rather than at simply the property tax level.
Director Mansour agreed. He looked forward to having the Commissioners educate their own
council members about what we are talking about. Here, it seems like a disconnect, he said.
Commissioner Olson said that one of the things that he has been looking into is the idea that
we get the disposal fee at the point of purchase. In other words, you get the money before it
actually ends up in the trash.
Director Mansour said based on a quick calculation it costs the County 5 cents a pound to
dispose of trash. If we come up with legislation where at the point of purchase you could
charge consumers 10 to 15 cents a pound, that should cover our services. If people want to
start producing 100 pounds of waste, but are willing to pay for the pound of product that they
purchase, somehow, somebody will say you have to pay for the amount of waste you generate.
Either you pay for it as you throw or you pay for it at the counter. When you buy 10 pounds of
apple, add a dime to it for disposal of waste.
Chair Adams said that one of the things that she had asked the new Deputy Corporation
Counsel to start digging into was the concept of a point of sale fee for disposal. He’s not done
but that is something that DEM is also interested in exploring. Can the County do such a thing?
Does it have to be a state fee?
Counsel SalasFerguson said County gets its revenue from real property tax. The power to tax is
reserved to the State. The counties can enact a regulatory fee or a user fee for the types of
services that they provide. Just listening to the discussion, he believes tentatively the County
would have the power to charge for disposal of waste because that’s a service that the person
15
is being provided, and the County could charge a fee for that if the money is being used for the
processing and disposal of waste. Tentatively, without looking into it further, taxing a product
that is being purchased is the power of the State.
Director Mansour asked if we could put a user fee on the real property tax bill.
Counsel SalasFerguson, describing a typical budget process,said the Administration would
request a certain amount of money to properly dispose of waste, and you put that forward to
the budget. That’s the regular process. The Department says, we need this amount of money,
and does the real property tax revenue cover that? If it doesn’t, they will have to raise the tax a
little bit. That’s the process that funds your department, he said.
Director Mansour said he was wondering from a legal point of view. Because in different states
they allow assessment fees to be tacked to the property tax bill, not as a tax , but as a user fee.
In California you go through a Proposition 218 process, and for collection purposes, it’s easier
to collect a property tax rather than to send a bill to all the homes. But from a legal point of
view in Hawaii, he didn’t know. He had asked Deputy Corporation Counsel Diana Mellon-Lacey
to see if we could assess a fee on the property tax bill for solid waste or wastewater services.
Counsel SalasFerguson said that is an interesting question. Counsel Mellon-Lacey would need to
look into that deeper for him. But for real property tax, we just adjust it higher or lower
depending on the needs of the County. So that would be the time, during the budget process,
when the department says, I need this amount of money to properly dispose of my waste, and
then the Council either approves the money or it doesn’t.
Director Mansour said our goal is to not make it a tax, because that’s misleading. It’s a service.
A service is not a tax. And he was trying to make a distinction on this by attaching a service fee
from a same property tax bill.
Commissioner Cardwell said the issue with it being treated as a tax is that it becomes an
invisible cost, and people are not associating the amount of trash they are producing with
having to pay for it. But with the PAYT program, people pay for the amount of trash they are
producing, which then could potentially incent them to produce less trash. That’s the incentive
behind the PAYT program. There is a direct correlation between the amount of trash a person is
producing and what that person is having to pay for it. That is a smarter way of doing it, as
opposed to having this hidden cost attached to property tax. We are losing the potential
incentive possibility.
Commissioner Robinson said the Director’s idea was really creative, but she was concerned
there would be pushback on the difference between someone who owns a single home with
two people in it, versus 10. And obviously the household with more people will have more
waste. So there will be an unequal perspective on having a user fee based on the real property
tax value. But the Director also mentioned something about putting this on the developers of
new subdivisions. Can you talk a little bit more about that, she asked.
16
Director Mansour said that for us to stop the bleeding on continuing with the same status quo
and people taking their waste to transfer stations – these transfer stations are not designed for
expansion –so we are looking at redesigning more than 20 transfer stations to accommodate
for growth. So the idea is to stop the bleeding, require the developer to designate a 20 foot by
20 foot area where they put dumpsters, similar to what you see in an apartment complex. And
these dumpsters will be picked up by commercial haulers and will be taken to landfill. So that
way you, as a new homeowner, don’t have to deal with your waste. All you have to do is carry
your waste from your house to your designated area that is going to be designed for your use
within that development. This is the European model. He lived in Europe, this is what you do.
As you drive out of your development, they have multiple dumpsters – one green, one brown,
one blue for recycling. So as you drive out of your housing complex, you drop your bag into one
of these dumpsters. And you have a commercial hauler come to pick it up.
Commissioner McIntosh’s second question was about the East Hawaii solid waste procedure.
Trash from transfer stations is collected into a central facility, dumped, pushed into another
container, and taken to WHSL. Is there a reason why they just can’t take it straight to WHSL and
bypass the Reload Facility in Hilo?
Director Mansour said it is being done that way on the north, west, and south side of the island.
Due to the length of the route, the previous administration had bought five “long haul” trailers
that could take up to 85,000 pounds. That way you can maximize for efficiency and compact
more waste to have fewer trips. You do not want 100 trucks on the road. The smaller the
amount, the more trips, the more gasoline costs. That was the reason.
Commissioner Robinson asked with the mini transfer stations in these new developments, who
would be responsible for maintaining that?
Director Mansour said that would be the responsibility of the homeowner association. Each
homeowner pays a monthly amount that goes toward disposal of waste to the landfill. Once it
comes to the landfill, we won’t charge the hauler because of the residential credit. It’s easier
for a developer to create a HOA from the start. If the developer from Day 1 establishes it, it’s a
slam dunk.
To wrap up the discussion, Chair Adams suggested that she try to come up with some
description of next steps around the solid waste funding, and some recommendations. For
example, we need some more breakdown the true cost of managing our solid waste, and we
need to look at business options, or how do you fund the thing? Whether it’s an enterprise fund
or based on fees, or whether it’s more of the same, or some creative EPRs. Just try to lay out
options and try to distribute that, and then we can talk about it at the next meeting.
7. REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE
a. Message to Director from the Chair regarding EMC Meeting Participation
(Adams)
17
2
Chair Adams sent the message, and the Director is here. He wants to be at our meetings, and
wishes we would hand him more answers. And so she is fairly confident we will have
Department representation. The written report is still frustrating and she will continue to press
for coming up with at least a short update in a monthly written report for our meetings, and
perhaps resign ourselves to wait quarterly until we can get the big, long, 20-page summary of
activities. We have adequately communicated our concerns.
b. A Recommendation for a Major Policy Revision for the Operation of the
Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant (Gaffney)
Chair Adams asked Vice Chair Gaffney and Rick Bennett, Ph.D., (former EMC Chair) to present
their recommendations.
Vice Chair Gaffney said this subject is the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant, which has
been an ongoing subject of our discussion going back as many years as most of the
Commissioners have been involved on the Commission. Basically, we responded to the request
for some very specific recommendations to the Department, and our purpose is basically to see
the KWWTP turned into a specific water resource recovery facility, which is specifically a water
recycling plant, as opposed to what it is now. Part of the reason for doing that is because that is
what the original intent of the EPA was when the plant was built in the 1990s, and that aspect
3
oftheplanthas not been fully realized. That is the purpose of our letter. Dr. Bennett didthe
heavy liftingcreating this letter, and although Dr. Bennett is retired as EMC Chair he is still
active in getting things done with the Commission.
Dr. Bennett greeted the Commissioners. During his days on the Commission, we talked
extensively about water reuse, and we’re still talking about it. If you have his paper in front of
you, he lays out some history. As the Vice Chair said, it started in the 1990s, and the intent was
to reclaim the water and use it on a golf course that did not exist. And when that golf course
was not built, any notion of water reuse died with that dream. And to this day, water reuse for
agronomic purposes is happening in the private sector, but it is not happening the public sector.
The Ellison Onizuka Kona International Airport at Keahole, you can say is public, and they do a
nice job of reuse. The golf courses do a nice job of reuse. Down in Keauhou, the golf course uses
treated water very successfully. It’s not like we have to reinvent the wheel here. Agricultural
irrigation is a science, about which there is a tremendous amount of information and expertise,
and it is his hope we make that expertise available. So in the interim years, what did we do with
the water? The water went to basically a settling basin, six-tenths of a mile from the harbor,
and that settling basin went into a de facto injection well as the water found a hole it could flow
into constantly, and it has been doing so for 25 years. The science is very, very clear. That water
joins the groundwater on its inexorable path to the sea, and fortunately or unfortunately,
depending on your perspective, it emerges in Honokhau Small Boat Harbor, where a lot of
science has identified the constituents in that wastewater, expressly nitrogen and phosphorous,
2
“EMC meeting participation” http://records.hawaiicounty.gov/weblink/1/doc/112485/Page1.aspx
3
“A Recommendation for a Major Policy Revision for the Operation of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment
Plant.” http://records.hawaiicounty.gov/weblink/1/doc/112484/Page1.aspx
18
and the isotopic signatures of that nitrogen indicate it has a human or animal waste source.
Recently our research showed a significant concentration of the artificial sweetener Splenda,
known as sucralose, which is flowing into the harbor. We’ve measured it in the harbor, we have
measured it at the wastewater treatment plant, and it is the source. So as we move into this era
of water shortages, you would read the news, and community after community after
community is saying, hey, we cannot afford to throw wastewater away. He was sitting in South
Kona where we have gotten more rain than we have gotten in a decade, but the rest of the
island is very dry. And the long-range forecast is that dry trend is going to continue. So it is in
our interest to address our water resources holistically. Every gallon of reclaimed, reused water
that can be reused for irrigation purposes displaces a gallon of water that has to be pumped
from the deep water wells up mauka. It is a limited resource, it’s expensive to pump 1,500 feet,
and so making our drinking water resource go farther is accomplished by reusing or reclaiming
wastewater. Currently the wastewater treatment plant operates under the authority of the
Department of Health, specifically Hawaii Administrative Rules 11-62, Chapter 25. And those
are called water disposal plants. And in the statute, a water disposal plant must have a 100
percent backup system. When the Department commissioned Brown and Caldwell to do a plant
update for Kealakehe WWTP, it was done in the context of a water disposal plant. And so there
was an option for reuse, but they also had to have the ability to dispose of 100 percent of that
water, should reuse not work. And the way it was being approached, he was being assured it
wasn’t going to work. Because fully realizing reuse was not part of the plan. There was some
language that spoke to it, lip service if you will. And so the $160 million price tag for the
upgrade was basically to fulfill the letter of the law, and make it a disposal plant that might do
some reuse. But once you have spent the money on the wetlands treatment and the soil
aquifer treatment ponds, which was yet another ground disposal system, it precludes any
investment in agricultural irrigation. The decision to go that direction was made when he was
on the Commission, and it was not a decision he was a party to. So administratively, the
decision to have it be a disposal plant was made, and the draft EIS was done accordingly. If you
read further in HAR, Chapter 27 specifically defines a water recycling system or a water reuse
system. One hundred percent of the water is recycled through agronomic irrigation, and he was
going to go back to that. There is no provision for any disposal if you are going to be a reuse
plant. A feature that has to exist for any irrigation system, whether it is fresh water or
reclaimed water, is storge capacity. You have to have storage capacity to buffer the very wet
years and the very dry years. Storage capacity can be built on site and relatively inexpensively,
and there are other facilities in the region where water can be stored.
Chair Adams asked to move the discussion along to get to a point where the Commission could
make a motion.
Dr. Bennett continued: In the HAR there is explicit language about an irrigation plan … (the
video connection was briefly interrupted here) … So there is no provision in the reuse chapter
for a land disposal of water, where you simply take some land, erect some big sprinklers, and
you just dump water on the land. That would not be permitted under this chapter. It wouldn’t
be permitted under any chapter because of the impact on groundwater. So several things need
to happen to fulfill this potential. We need a water reuse policy county-wide, and the plant
19
needs to be redesigned and reauthorized to be a recycling or a reuse plant. We have a salt
problem in our reclaimed water.Salt water intrusion is happening in the system. And the water
has got too much chloride in it to be used in a wide variety of agronomic purposes. There are
some salt-tolerant grasses, but that requires over-irrigation to manage the salts. And so the
recommendation is that resources be directed to plug the leaks. We need to get our reclaimed
water chloride concentration down to what it is for our drinking water. And it is significant in
the drinking water, so any additional salt intrusion closes that option. And then lastly, when the
water becomes available, it has to become available in the context of irrigating an agronomic
crop. There are best management practices that need to be part of the plan. Just building
sprinkler fields, and dumping water on them, such as what happens at Old Airport Park, just
isn’t going to work. And then lastly, the legal liability that the continued use of the sump
creates for the County is significant. Under the recent Supreme Court decision that discharge is
not allowed because the County has no permit to discharge. And getting for our impaired
oceans would be fundamentally impossible. And so this recommendation is part of an overall
set of ideas that we need to do a much better job of managing our water resources if we are
going to have a sustainable future. And there’s 1.8 million gallons of reclaimed water that can
be made available very soon if we commit to a reuse policy.
Motion and second: Vice Chair Gaffney made the following three-part motion, to which
Commissioner Olson seconded:
1)
specifically designate the Kealakehe WWTP as a Water Resource Recovery Facility and
designate the plant as exclusively for the recycling of wastewater.
2) DEM should have the funding to resolve saltwater infiltration into the sewer system and
also needs an enforcement ordinance which enables DEM to inspect and require repair
by owners of private laterals found to be leaking.
3) Distribution and reuse of water should use agronomic principles for best management.
Discussion:
Commissioner Cardwell asked for an explanation of “agronomic principles.”
Vice Chair Gaffney said theuse of the wastewatershould be done based on the kinds of
practices that our golf course managers and major agricultural users of wastewater follow, of
California in
particular. So those principles are widely known in university systems and it is simply a matter
of the County reaching out and asking for details to be necessary to be sure that this water is
used to its maximum benefit to whatever it is being used for. As he had discussed before, one
option is to pipe some of this water to the agricultural park at Kealakehe, and the people in the
ag park will have to know how to use it, and that breaks down into sprinkler size, misting type,
flow rates, that sort of thing. Bottom line is the science is solid because a lot of people are
already using recycled water for other activities. There are people on the island who are very
much aware of it because it is a big deal for all the resorts that have those recycling systems
20
and the golf courses that use that recycled water. So it’s not rocket science, but we feel it’s
important to state it as part of the process so that water we are creating does not get wasted.
Commissioner Robinson asked whether the legislation has to happen before the project gets
started, before the funding is there. Your first motion is tohave a policy change in the County,
but does that need to happen before the changes take place,or can they be independent of
each other? As for the second part of the motion, the funding for the Department, we should
consider seeking federal grants for this project from EPA for sustainable water infrastructure, so
that there isn’t an immediate stop because that’s a huge cost to their $38 million budget. So if
there was funding, does the legislation need to change first, or can it run independent of
getting this done?
Vice Chair Gaffney proposed them happening simultaneously because it is a chicken-and-egg
situation. One cannot happen without the other. Certainly there is going to be an expense
involved, but one of the amazing things about where we are right now in history is there is
about to be massive amounts of federal money available. So it goes without saying and
certainly our Council people and the Mayor are already looking at that source. So we have a
huge opportunity to accomplish this important environmental thing at a point where there is
federal money available to do just this. The bottom line also is that what we are creating is a
system that pays for itself. We sell this water, we don’t give it away. And there is demand for
this water because if somebody is watering agolf courseor a large playground area that is part
of the housing area, if they can get water for half what it costs them for fresh water, they are
going to take the recycled water because it is less expensive. So we are creating system that
pays for itself. And there are examples in Hawaii of systems paying for themselves on Oahu.
And Maui is in the process of solving the problem that they went to the Supreme Court for by
creating a system of recycled water and a distribution system for that. He doesn’t see a reason
not to request that the Council move forward with something like this without talking about
where the money is going to come from. That’s not really our kuleana, that’s the Council’s
kuleana.
Commissioner McIntosh was wondering about the second part of the motion that talked about
identifying the leaks for the salt that is coming in. He thought the County was working toward
remedying that situation, and that it was just going to take time to do that.
Vice Chair Gaffney said the County is working to remedy the situation in the sewer pipes that
they own, but there has long been a suspicion that the laterals that feed from private property
– that would be hotels and larger developments that collect all of their water and move that
into the system – that some of those laterals may also be producing infiltration. And the County
does not have the right to inspect those laterals. For the most part they are privately owned
and on private property. And they do not have the right to charge those private property
owners, or to force those private property owners to make the repairs so that infiltration is
effectively stopped. That is why the second point is included in the motion. It’s to add to DEM’s
tools to stop this infiltration. And this kind of law is already on the books in Maui County and
21
the City and County of Honolulu, because it is an essential tool to stopping the infiltration of
salt water, which is a problem in any recycling system.
Commissioner McIntosh asked whether it would be better to divide the motion, or did he think
an all-encompassing motion is better? How would it affect the Council if they were to read a
large request, would that discourage them from moving on it or if they see three separate
items, if they might pick one and move on that?
Chair Adams said it’s kind of a package deal, and it’s advice, which they can pick and choose
anyway, and it’s more efficient to put them together.
Vice Chair Gaffney agreed with Chair Adams, and said that when the Council members write the
legislation that we hope comes out of this recommendation, there will be Corporation Counsel
looking over their shoulder and making sure what they are writing is legal. The ordinance is
already available to our Corporation Counsel, and Corporation Counsel has already been asked
to look at the appropriate ordinance to allow laterals to be inspected, and to require property
owners to fix leaking laterals. This goes through a big process before the Council considers it
andhe considers itbetter as a full package.
Chair Adams spoke in support of the three-part motion. We should be looking at not calling our
operations waste management, it should be resource management. Looking at our water and
the resources we can extract from wastewater is our goal, it’s the zero waste goal. So this is an
appropriate approach. It’s going to be a lot of detail to work out and a lot of compromises, but
the Vice Chair’s motion captures what we want to see, agronomic principles, basically use life
cycle thinking, and do it the best way possible. So it meets the spirit of what we have been
talking about.
The salt water intrusion problem has been an issue since the plant opened, Commissioner
Olson said. He was there on opening day and he was told by the people who are running the
plant that this problem exists, and it has been there since day one.
Vote: The motion was approved by a roll call vote: Ayes 7 (Adams, Cardwell, Fulton, Gaffney,
McIntosh, Olson, Robinson); Noes 0; Absent 2 (Burns, Hoopii). Chair Adams said a letter would
be sent to the Department and to the Councilto make those recommendations.
c. Director’s Informational Report. (Note: this month’s report and the responses to
requests for update are being delivered verbally).
i. Legislative update –No updates except Comm. 378.
See agenda item 6a, pages 10-17.
ii. Requests for updates: The commissioners have requested informational
updates on the following:
22
1.
Director Mansour said that this is subject to litigation, so he would defer to counsel because we
still are negotiating with EPA. Therefore he does not want to jeopardize any litigation issues as
we move forward.
Chair Adams asked what are the process steps that follow the notice of violation.
Counsel SalasFerguson said because he does not advise the Department, only the Commission,
he has no involvement in the notice of violation or anything else. But he could speak generally
on litigation. It’s not full-blown litigation because it’s not in court, but his understanding is that
the Department signed an agreement, and there’s a re-look or a re-negotiation of agreement
that is probably going to happen after the notice of violation. It’s going to be the Department
negotiating with the Environmental Protection Agency on the steps moving forward, and all of
these communications are protected by attorney-client privilege. The Director can consult with
his attorney and decide what they would want to publicly disclose and all those strategies and
what they are going to do and their discussions with the federal government would be covered
by attorney-client privilege and would not be open for public disclosure.
Chair Adams said from her experience with notices of violation there may or may not be
penalties or changes in the agreement. It’s a negotiation.
Commissioner McIntosh understood the attorney-client privilege but it’s frustrating because we
don’t know what is happening or what is going on. When are we going to know what you are
going to build or what you have chosen? Are we going to know after it’s built? It just seems like
everything is being pushed down the road and we’re not really being told anything. Sometimes
something is dropped out or the feds will say something, but we don’t know what is happening,
and are wondering when it will happen. What is happening, when can you tell us something?
Director Mansour said definitely something is happening, and you are going to know before we
proceed with design or the construction. You will definitely know, not after it’s constructed.
Commissioner Cardwell asked what is the timeline for litigation, and how much longer will the
litigation process go on.
Director Mansour clarified that it’s not actually in court to litigate, it’s the potential of litigation.
Right now it’s negotiation or you call it settlement or a stipulation in the agreement as what we
agree on. Maybe it’s going to be some kind of settlement agreement. He doesn’t know the
actual process, but once that is determined, hewould imagine everything goes back to normal
and you will know.
Commissioner Cardwell asked if he knew the timeline for that, whether it was a matter of
months or years.
23
Director Mansour said it is supposed to be ASAP because we are already behind the 8-ball. Our
goal is to try as fast as we can to get concurrence so we can move forward. The final
construction is April 2023, so that’s in 18 months. So that will be another potential Notice of
Violation. So we are trying to figure out how the domino effect plays out in the whole aspect of
negotiating the stipulated agreement.
Chair Adams’ own impression and experience is that it’s months, not years, and hopefully just a
few months,if not only one month. It depends on how close the parties are. But the potential
for penalties is clicking every day. So there is an incentive to get it resolved. She is certain the
Department is working as hard as they can to deal with the wonderfulnessofRegion 9of the
EPA. Are we ok with that? She knows it’s a frustrating answer but that’s where we are at. The
EMC would encourage you, as soon as you know something you can release, to get it to us so
we can further communicateit to our constituents.
2. Transfer Station Efficiency:
a. What has SWD done to identify problems and solutions for
transfer station efficiency?
b. What is the average per ton cost for each transfer station’s
waste, greenwaste and recyclables? (Robinson/Adams)
c. How is SWD addressing transfer station staff shortages to
avoid ongoing issues like the reduced days in effect August
31 to September 10? (Robinson)
Chair Adams said we have dealt with transfer station efficiency in our previous discussion. She
would try to work with the Director and Deputy to come up with options for us that are a little
more concrete, that we can discuss at our next meeting.
3. Chloride readings for the wells along Ali‘i Drive and north to
include Project 16, as well as the chlorides at the intake at
Kealakehe WWTP (Fulton)
Commissioner Fulton said she hadn’t seen any chloride data since 2020, so she would like to be
updated on chloride data, and would like to be included in the Director’s written report. This
does tie in with the need to repair laterals.
Chair Adams asked if the Director is prepared to provide those kinds of running reports on
Director Mansour said he had been exchanging emails, and the Division Chief has been on
vacation. We are short staffed, so the sooner we fill these positions, you will continue to ask for
this information. In the past it has been provided and he does not have any problem providing
the data, but it is subject to staffing and testing. Continue working with the Division Chief and
Deputy Chief, he said.
Commissioner Fulton said in the past she was able to obtain that information from Alika
DeMello, who was plant supervisor at the time, and it didn’t seem to be a hardship at all for
24
him to produce that data. If he is still in that role, the Director could authorize him, and he I
could stop by, and Mr. DeMello was able to produce the data easily.
Director Mansour said Mr. DeMello had been reassigned to the sewer collection system and
probably as a part of his collection he could continue doing that. David Thomas is the one that
oversees the plant. Mr. DeMello is out on family medical leave at the moment. We do have
staff challenges, so when he gets back, she could email him. His recommendation is to continue
working with Deputy Chief Eric Takamura because he is the supervisor for all the staff. He will
try to help the Commissioner out with that. He knows who is out, who is in, who is on leave,
who is not.
4. Describe the scope and length of the contract DEM has with
Hawaiian Earth Recycling for greenwaste. (Cardwell)
Commissioner Cardwell said it was brought to her attention that the contract for greenwaste
with HER is kind of a lengthy contract, and she wanted to know how long it is.
Director Mansour saidthe contract is until 2036.
Commissioner Cardwell said the concern was that this contract was not brought to the public’s
attention or to the attention of the Commission.
Director Mansour said this was one of the problems that he had mentioned to the Council’s
RAWEEM Committee the previous day regarding the legal obligations. The current contracts
that we inherited are legal contractual obligations. The Waste Management Hawaii and
Hawaiian Earth Recyclingcontracts were done way in the past, and it’s hard to go back from a
legal point of view to reshape that basket. But we are working, trying to do whatever we can
legally to see if we can renegotiate these contracts. He doesn’t know what process they went
through back when they signed these contracts. The contracts were signed right after the
Konno v. County of Hawai‘i decision. Just to give an idea, when WMH submitted a proposal to
operate the WHSL and handle our garbage, it was about $50 per ton. It kind of gives you an
idea. That is to handle the garbage, to process it, to bury it. Currently, they are still charging us
the same amount without doing the operations, the processing. And now, if you look at the
cost of the transfer stations per ton, almost at $200 to $400, when the private entity tells us
they would do it for fity-something dollars. It kind of puts in perspective how the cost over the
years has evolved. He cannot answer a question based on what happened with the prior
administration, what as going through their minds. We need to look at moving forward.
Commissioner Cardwell asked when the (HER) contract was signed. The Director said it was
extended in the prior administration for another 10 years, that is how it got extended to 2036.
In other words, Commissioner Robinson said, they are not fulfilling their end of the contract?
Director Mansour said the contract was signed for compost, but they have not been delivering
compost.
25
Vice Chair Gaffney said that effectively, going one step further from Commissioner Robinson’s
question, they are in default, which legally could mean that the contract could be rescinded and
restarted.
Director Mansour said unfortunately that is not the case because the prior administration said
that we don’t have the organic material to do compost, so they gave a waiver at least until we
get the organic material in place. To do composting you need organicmaterial. The Countydid
not provide that organic material to create compost, but we are negotiating with them. They
committed to do the compost. We are having monthly meetings, so we are looking forward to
them coming around and start producing compost.
Chair Adams said this was on the previous idea of having a municipal/industrial composting
facility in the W.H. Shipman Business Park.
Director Mansour said the Shipman site no longer exists as an option, we crossed that out. The
idea is WHSL will probably have a place to docomposting on the west side. It’s perfect weather
for outdoor composting. We don’t have the details, it could be on the west side, it could be on
the east side, the Hilo area, possibly where the current reload facility is. So that’s continuing.
We are trying to understand the prior commitment and details so we can shape it moving
forward, to what they need to deliver from a contractual standpoint.
Vice Chair Gaffney wanted the other commissioners to know there are two major aquaculture
businesses on the island, and both of them have high nutrient fish processing waste. And we
need to get this into the waste stream. It will allow us to produce a very high-quality compost
material. Please keep that in mind as we are moving forward. Both organizations have indicated
a willingness to provide this waste product. They currently have to pay to throw it away. We
want to move it into the waste stream and benefit from the fact that we have literally tons of
fish processing waste available.
Director Mansour said that is correct, that was brought to their attention because that is where
we are going to get the organics to create the compost, in addition to the biosolids that come
from the wastewater treatment plants, private and public.
Director Mansour encouraged the Commission to watch the video of the presentation and
continue their advisory role on the possible funding mechanisms and the options we need to
look at. Continue talking to your Council member about reduce, reuse, recycle. Having transfer
stations open seven days a week is not an incentive to reduce, reuse, recycle. It’s actually an
incentive to throw more. Come up with ideas with how we could potentially divert and come to
a smaller amount of tonnage going to the landfill and the transfer station.
Chair Adams said the RAWEEMC presentation and discussion were definitely interesting, and
there were a lot of opinions on the Council’s part as well. There is an opportunity for us to pitch
in our ideas, she said.
26
5. What are the plans for staffing the Recycling Program in the Solid
Waste Division? (Cardwell)
Director Mansour said he just sent an email to Human Resources to start the recruitment
process for George Hayducsko, who had recently retired as the Recycling Coordinator. And
whoever qualifies, on the west side, east side, please keep an eye on it. Tell someone that you
know or yourself, if you qualify, apply for it. We need to get the most qualified people. It’s a
challenging time. Yesterday in the meeting, some of the Council members suggested we could
maybe change requirements to ease the restrictions in hiring for the role. To him, he objected
to that because we cannot just get anybody. We need somebody experienced in the solid waste
business. It would help you and would help me from a Department point of view to set all these
goals and objectives that everybody has been talking about. If you know anybody out there, put
the word out, he said.
8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
a. Follow up on action items determined today.
Chair Adams said we will be talking about solid waste funding options to come.
She also had a suggestion to talk about recycling photovoltaic panels and electric car batteries,
and getting ready for that before it piles up here.
b. Other (Commissioners may suggest items they would like placed on the next
agenda.)
If there are other items Commissioners would like to see on the agenda, let Chair Adams know,
she said.
Chair Adams asked the public that if you have some items, probably the best way to do it would
be to go to your district Commissioner or send it to the Chair, and she will see how she can
work it into the agenda. In the meantime she will continue looking at the Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan.
If there are specific items to discuss for a future agenda, that would be appreciated, she said.
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next meeting is scheduled for October 27, 2021, online or at a location to be
announced. Please contact the Department of Environmental Management or monitor the
website for updates.
The October 27, 2021, meeting will be online via Zoom.
Chair Adams said we have a request from a Council member to avoid scheduling EMC meetings
on days that conflict with Council meetings. So we might talk about how we want to schedule
next year’s calendar, and she will work with the Secretary on that.
27
Vice Chair Gaffney asked if the meetings are typically held on the fourth Wednesday or the last
Wednesday.
Chair Adams said it’s typically on the fourth Wednesday, but we can change it. Part of it is
having a steady day you put on your calendar. So if somebody has a suggestion, think about it.
The idea is not to overlap with the Council or Committee meeting day. They shift their dates
around sometimes.
Vice Chair Gaffney said we have had good engagement from the Council members, so it’s
important to try to avoid those conflicts as much as possible.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Motion, second, and vote: Vice Chair Gaffneymade a motion to adjourn, to which
Commissioner Olson seconded, and the motion was adopted. Ayes: 7 (Adams, Cardwell, Fulton,
Gaffney, McIntosh, Olson, Robinson); Nays 0; Absent 2 (Burns, Hoopii). Meeting adjourned at
11:44 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter Sur, Secretary
28