HomeMy WebLinkAboutSRWG_Report_Draft_v3_-_CopySource Reduction
Working Group
Final Report
May 2024
City and County of Honolulu
Department of Environmental Services
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
Client name: City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services
Project name: Consultant Services for Source Reduction Working Group
Project no: CCHSRWG1
Document no: 240109150803_7c669895 Project manager: John Padre
Version: 3 Prepared by: Emily Stone and Lyndsey Lopez
Document History and Status
Version Date Description Author Checked Reviewed Approved
1 1/19/24 Client Review Draft Stone and
Lopez
2 2/6/24 Client Review Draft with
additional figures
Stone and
Lopez
3 3/18/24 SRWG Member Review
Draft
Stone and
Lopez
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
1003 Bishop Street
Suite 1340
Honolulu, HI 96813
United States
T +1.808.943.1133
F +1 808.954.4400
www.jacobs.com
Copyright 2024 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.. All rights reserved. The content and information contained in this
document are the property of the Jacobs group of companies (“Jacobs Group”). Publication, distribution, or reproduction of
this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs Group constitutes an infringement of copyright.
Jacobs, the Jacobs logo, and all other Jacobs Group trademarks are the property of Jacobs Group.
NOTICE: This document has been prepared exclusively for the use and benefit of Jacobs Group client. Jacobs Group accepts
no liability or responsibility for any use or reliance upon this document by any third party.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 i
Executive Summary
Overview and Background
This Source Reduction Working Group Report (Report) summarizes the purpose, procedures, and
recommended actions of the City and County of Honolulu (City) Department of Environmental Services
ENV) Source Reduction Working Group (SRWG) to improve Oahu’s solid waste management system. The
City’s 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan [ISWMP] Update (CCH 2019a) prioritized the establishment
of an SRWG for collaboration between various government, business, and community stakeholders
to discuss and determine source reduction recommendations. Throughout 2023 and 2024, the SRWG
collaborated to identify the best approaches to achieve source reduction and ultimately reduce the amount
of waste generated. After some initial discussion, the SRWG chose to focus on identifying source reduction
strategies for the following three waste types: Construction
and demolition (C&D) waste Photovoltaic (
PV) panel waste Product
packaging and food waste/organics Summary
of Recommended Actions Recommended
source reduction actions were developed over a course of several months, five SRWG meetings,
several permitted interaction group (PIG) meetings, and additional research. The following recommended
actions represent the final list of actions developed by the SRWG. Overall
Evaluate
funding strategies. Construction
and Demolition Waste Recommended Actions Adopt
a diversion regulation and/or deconstruction ordinance. Work
towards streamlining the permitting process for C&D material management for reuse. Work
towards establishing staging and storing areas for C&D waste materials for reuse. Educate
and involve stakeholders. Photovoltaic
Panel Waste Recommended Actions Educate
owners about PV panel maintenance. Consider
establishing a Statewide Stewardship Program. Consider
subsidizing shipping costs to ship PV panel waste to the mainland for recycling. Explore
extended producer responsibility (EPR). Consider
supporting or incentivizing secondary market programs for reuse of functional PV panels. Product
Packaging and Food Waste/Organics Recommended Actions Initiate
reusable container and mobile washing program. Continue
evaluating product packaging source reduction needs and options. Incentivize
food donations. Increase
food reuse and organics recycling.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 ii
Acknowledgments
The SRWG was made possible by the time and knowledge sharing provided by the following 10 members
of the working group, who brought representation from Oahu’s stakeholder groups in the areas of government,
environment, sustainability, education, culture, and industry. Government –
City and County of Honolulu Michael
O’Keefe, Department of Environmental Services Hayley
Cook, Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency Government –
State of Hawaii Lene Ichinotsubo,
Department of Health, Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch Environmental and
Sustainability Representative Nicole Chatterson,
Zero Waste Oahu Quinn Vittum, Re-
use Hawaii Educational/Cultural Representative Amy
Brinker, Kamehameha Schools,
Sustainability Industry Representatives Jessica Leorna,
Building Industry
Association of Hawaii (BIA Hawaii); SRWG member from Meeting 1 through Meeting 3 Allen
Evans, Island Demolition/
Refrigerant Recycling Lauren Zirbel, Hawaii Food
Industry Association Tina Yamaki, Retail Merchants
of Hawaii The SRWG would like
to acknowledge the following guest speakers, who presented at the PIG meetings and provided their valuable
industry knowledge to inform and spark discussion from the group: Dr. Michael Cooney, University
of Hawaii at Mnoa Hawaii Natural Energy Institute Brian Gold, Inter-Island Solar Supply
Laura Takahashi, Kamehameha Schools Eric Tamashiro,
Bowers + Kubota
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 iii
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ i
Overview and Background ................................................................................................................................................ i
Summary of Recommended Actions ............................................................................................................................ i
Overall ........................................................................................................................................................................ i
Construction and Demolition Waste Recommended Actions ................................................................. i
Photovoltaic Panel Waste Recommended Actions ..................................................................................... i
Product Packaging and Food Waste/Organics Recommended Actions .............................................. i
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................................................. ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... vi
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 What is Source Reduction? ................................................................................................................................. 1
2.2 Why is Source Reduction Important? .............................................................................................................. 2
3. Purpose of the Source Reduction Working Group ......................................................................................... 4
3.1 2019 ISWMP Remit ............................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Overall Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
4. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Members ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Process ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.1 Overall ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.2 Permitted Interaction Groups ............................................................................................................... 6
4.2.3 Meetings....................................................................................................................................................... 6
5. Recommended Actions ........................................................................................................................................ 8
5.1 Evaluate Funding Strategies .............................................................................................................................. 8
5.1.1 Impact and Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 8
5.1.2 Example ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
5.1.3 Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 9
5.1.4 Member Support ....................................................................................................................................... 9
5.2 Construction and Demolition Waste Recommended Actions ................................................................ 9
5.2.1 Adopt a Diversion Regulation and/or Deconstruction Ordinance ........................................ 10
5.2.2 Work towards Streamlining the Permitting Process for C&D Material Management for
Reuse .......................................................................................................................................................... 13
5.2.3 Work towards Establishing Staging and Storing Areas for C&D Waste Materials for
Reuse .......................................................................................................................................................... 14
5.2.4 Educate and Involve Stakeholders ................................................................................................... 15
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 iv
5.3 Photovoltaic Panel Waste Recommended Actions ................................................................................. 16
5.3.1 Educate Owners about PV Panel Maintenance ............................................................................ 17
5.3.2 Consider Establishing a Statewide Stewardship Program ........................................................ 18
5.3.3 Consider Subsidizing Shipping Costs to Ship PV Panel Waste to the Mainland
for Recycling ............................................................................................................................................ 21
5.3.4 Explore Extended Producer Responsibility ................................................................................... 22
5.3.5 Consider Supporting or Incentivizing Secondary Market Programs for Reuse of
Functional PV Panels ............................................................................................................................ 23
5.4 Product Packaging and Food Waste/Organics Recommended Actions .............................................. 24
5.4.1 Initiate Reusable Container and Mobile Washing Program ..................................................... 24
5.4.2 Continue Evaluating Product Packaging Source Reductions Needs and Options ........... 26
5.4.3 Incentivize Food Donations ................................................................................................................ 27
5.4.4 Increase Food Reuse and Organics Recycling .............................................................................. 29
5.5 Implementation Summary .............................................................................................................................. 31
6. Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................................ 34
7. References ............................................................................................................................................................ 34
Appendices
Appendix A. Example Member Letter from Mayor
Appendix B. Member Information
Appendix C. Charter Document
Appendix D. Rules
Appendix E. Meeting Materials
Appendix F. Supplementary Background Materials
Appendix G. Personal Statements/Testimony Letters
Tables
Table 1. Members ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Table 2. Most Prevalent Material Categories in Overall Waste ..................................................................................... 26
Table 3. Organics Found in Waste Stream ........................................................................................................................... 28
Table 4. Implementation Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 31
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 v
Figures
Figure 1. EPA Waste Management Hierarchy ........................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. Overall Results from 2017 Waste Composition Study ..................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Portion of Waste Stream Associated with C&D ................................................................................................ 10
Figure 4. Deconstruction Benefits versus Demolition Benefits .................................................................................... 11
Figure 5. Example of PV Panel Components and Materials .......................................................................................... 16
Figure 6. Recycling and Reuse of PV Panel Waste on Oahu ......................................................................................... 17 Figure
7. Statewide Stewardship Program Proposed Structure for PV Panel Waste Management ................. 19 Figure
8. Statewide Stewardship Program Proposed Funding Structure from Industry to Consumer Level
Contribution .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure
9. EPA Wasted Food Scale ........................................................................................................................................... 29
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BIA Hawaii Building Industry Association of Hawaii
C&D construction and demolition
City City and County of Honolulu
DFWO Disposable Food Ware Ordinance
DOH Hawaii State Department of Health ENV [
City and County of Honolulu] Department of Environmental Services EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency EPR
extended producer responsibility EU
European Union HB
House Bill HRS
Hawaii Revised Statutes ISWMP Integrated
Solid Waste Management Plan LD Legislative
Document MSW municipal
solid waste P.L.
Public Law PEO public
education and outreach PIG permitted
interaction group PV photovoltaic
REO recycling
education and outreach Resilience Office
Office of Climate Change, Sustainability, and Resiliency ROH Revised
Ordinances of Honolulu SB Senate
Bill SRWG Source
Reduction Working Group
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 1
1. Introduction
The City and County of Honolulu (City) Department of Environmental Services (ENV) is determined to
identify the most effective strategies for managing solid waste while also protecting public health and the
environment. To improve Oahu’s solid waste management system, a key component includes source reduction
initiatives that involve collaboration with stakeholders from governmental agencies, business, industry,
non-governmental organizations, policy makers, and residents. To guide and increase source reduction
efforts, the City has established a Source Reduction Working Group (SRWG) that aims to determine
the best approaches and provide recommendations that promote reduction of waste generation.
The SRWG met during 2023 and 2024 and focused on the following three main topics: Construction
and demolition (C&D) waste Photovoltaic (
PV) panel waste Product
packaging and food waste/organics 2.
Background 2.
1 What is Source Reduction? Source
reduction can be defined as actions that reduce the generation of waste, waste disposal, and waste toxicity.
According to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 342G-1, source reduction is also defined as the design,
manufacture, and use of materials to (1) minimize the quantity or toxicity, or both, of the waste produced;
and (2) reduce the creation of waste either by redesigning products or by otherwise changing societal
patterns of consumption, use or waste generation.” These actions can be done at various levels spanning
from the manufacturer, legislative, industrial or business, and consumer level. The following
provides examples of source reduction at various levels: Manufacturing Level:
Manufacturers can redesign product packaging to use less material. Legislative Level:
Honolulu City Council passed Bill 40 (now Revised Ordinances of Honolulu [ROH] Chapter 34,
Article 13), the Disposable Food Waste Ordinance (DFWO), which promotes source reduction by
replacing single-use, polystyrene foam food ware with reusable products as an option. In addition,
under the DFWO, food vendors may only provide or distribute disposable service ware for prepared food
or beverage upon request or affirmative response of a customer or person being provided the
prepared food or beverage. This could result in the reduction of distribution and use of disposable service
ware. Industrial or
Business Level: Some local businesses have been established with sustainability and zero waste as
their objective. These stores sell environmentally friendly products and feature refill stations for common
toiletries. Consumer Level:
At the consumer level, reduced purchasing, reuse, and repair are common source reduction actions.
Because the plastic bag ban mandated by ROH Chapter 34, Article 14 (as amended) requires a
minimum of 15 cents charge per allowable bag, customers often opt to bring their own reusable bag
avoiding the additional fee.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 2
2.2 Why is Source Reduction Important?
Source reduction is at the top of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) waste hierarchy
EPA 2023a) (Figure 1) and is important for managing waste at the most upstream part of waste
management. As such, source reduction is the environmentally preferred method to manage waste. HRS
Chapter 342G states that “each county shall consider the following solid waste management practices and
processing methods in their order of priority:
1. Source reduction;
2. Recycling and bioconversion, including composting; and
3. Landfilling and incineration.”
Therefore, in accordance with the HRS, the City considers source reduction as the highest priority for solid
waste management, followed by recycling, composting, energy recovery, and landfilling. Source reduction
and reuse also play important roles in meeting the goals of the Aloha+ Challenge, a statewide
commitment endorsed by the Mayor of Honolulu with the Governor of the State of Hawaii (State), county mayors,
and the State Legislature to achieve six sustainability goals for 2030. One of these Aloha+ Challenge
goals is to reduce the solid waste stream before disposal by 70 percent, through source reduction,
recycling, bioconversion, and landfill diversion methods. Source reduction is a key strategy for City
and State to reduce waste. Adapted
from United States Environmental Protection Agency, Last Updated June 2023 Figure
1. EPA Waste Management Hierarchy A
waste composition study was prepared for Oahu in 2017, with the results published as the 2017 Oahu Waste Composition
Study (CCH 2018). This study provided information about the types of materials present in
the waste stream that are currently being disposed of at H-POWER 1 and at the landfill. Figure 2 shows the
overall results of this study, which provide potential focus areas for source reduction efforts. 1 The
Honolulu Program of Waste Energy Recovery (H-POWER) is a City-owned waste-to-energy facility.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 3
Figure 2. Overall Results from 2017 Waste Composition Study
As further described in the City’s 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan [ISWMP] Update
CCH 2019a), the City’s current source reduction efforts focus on public education to increase awareness
of existing source reduction resources and encourage residents and businesses to prevent waste at the
source. The plan stated that future source reduction efforts will require further evaluation of economic,
social, and environmental factors to determine feasibility and support from stakeholders beyond the City
for implementation. The formation of a working group was one of the recommendations from the plan.
Additional links to background information such as the 2019 ISWMP Update, the 2017 Oahu Waste
Composition Study, and other information on source reduction are provided in Appendix F.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 4
3. Purpose of the Source Reduction Working Group
3.1 2019 ISWMP Remit
The City’s 2019 ISWMP Update (CCH 2019a) established the following goals:
Reduce per-capita waste generation 25 percent by 2030, from 6.5 pounds per day to 4.9 pounds per day.
Reduce carbon emissions from the waste stream by substantially reducing or eliminating carbon-based
single-use plastics and polystyrene from the waste stream going to H-POWER and landfill by 2030.
The 2019 ISWMP Update identified the establishment of an SRWG as a top strategy for the City to
implement during the life of the ISWMP to reach these goals. The ISWMP stated the following:
The City recognizes that a successful source reduction program will require ongoing collaboration
with stakeholders throughout Oahu, including the state and federal governments, business and industry,
research and education, non-governmental organizations, policy makers, and residents. Many
source reduction initiatives require further evaluation of economic, social, and environmental
factors to determine feasibility, as well as support from stakeholders outside the City
to achieve implementation. The City is committed to stepping up source reduction efforts and continuing
the discussion begun with stakeholders through the development of this Plan by establishing
a Source Reduction Working Group (SRWG), which will meet quarterly (or as often as determined
by the SRWG itself) and focus on developing quantifiable targets for source reduction, identifying
metrics and milestones to track progress, and evaluating the feasibility and practicality of
potential source reduction initiatives.” The
SRWG can further assess the City’s quantifiable targets for source reduction and identify metrics
and milestones to track progress and evaluate the feasibility and practicality of potential source
reduction initiatives. Recommendations from the SRWG will be given weight and preference when
working to meet source reduction goals.” 3.
2 Overall Purpose The
SRWG brings together representatives from various stakeholder groups with expertise in the fields of government,
environment, sustainability, education, culture, and industry. Appendix A includes a sample invitation
letter from the Mayor’s office, and Appendix B provides information on the SRWG membership. The
working group Charter Document (Appendix C) tasks its members to do the following: Identify
potential best approaches to source reduction initiatives. Provide
recommendations for programs and policies to reduce waste generation. Develop
quantifiable targets for source reduction and identify metrics and milestones to track progress. Facilitate
coalitions between ENV, industry, educational institutions, non-governmental organizations, and
communities to discuss and achieve source reduction. By
the close of the SRWG, establish or lay the foundations for a self-sustaining long-term stakeholder coalition
that discusses source reduction needs over time. The
rules that were developed to support this charter and guide the SRWG are included in Appendix D.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 5
A successful source reduction program for Oahu will require ongoing discussions and coordination that extends
beyond the 1-year appointed term for the SRWG. As such, the long-term goal of the SRWG is to transition
to a permanent, self-sustaining, stakeholder-led group that discusses source reduction needs for
Oahu over time. While such a goal may not be attainable in 1 year, SRWG members will strive towards this goal
and, at a minimum, lay the foundations for continued source reduction coordination. 4. Methodology
4.1
Members The SRWG
is composed of a body of stakeholder members appointed by the Mayor (Table 1). The membership initially
included ten members, but was eventually reduced to nine by the end of the process. Members were
selected for their leadership and expertise in the governmental, environmental/sustainability, educational, cultural,
and industrial fields. Members are passionate about source reduction and understand the value
of comprehensive waste reduction for Oahu’s environment, public health, and economy. Table 1. Members
Member Name and
Title a Member Organization Michael O’Keefe,
Deputy Director City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services Hayley Cook, Policy
and Research Manager City and
County
of Honolulu Office of Climate Change, Sustainability, and Resiliency Lene Ichinotsubo,
Acting
Chief Hawaii State Department of Health – Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch Nicole Chatterson, Director Zero
Waste Oahu Quinn Vittum, Executive Director Re-
use Hawaii Amy Brinker, Sustainability Manager Kamehameha Schools
Jessica Leorna, Chief Executive Officerb Building
Industry Association of Hawaii Allen Evans, President Island Demolition/Refrigerant
Recycling Lauren Zirbel, Executive Director Hawaii Food
Industry Association Tina Yamaki, President Retail Merchants of
Hawaii a Note that all membership ends
automatically at the end of the SRWG process, after SRWG Meeting 5. b Jessica Leorna’s membership in
the SRWG ended prior to completion of the SRWG process, after SRWG Meeting 3. 4.2 Process 4.2.1
Overall The SRWG
held five meetings over
calendar year 2023 and the beginning of calendar year 2024 Appendix E), all facilitated by Lyndsey
Lopez of Jacobs. SRWG members attended meetings either in-person or virtually and engaged
in productive group discussions. The SRWG Charter Document Appendix C) describes the group’s
official rules and expectations for member engagement during meetings. Members formed and participated in
permitted interaction groups (PIGs) to explore topics in greater depth and engaged in discussions
and research to formulate recommendations for potential source reduction initiatives. Each PIG focused
on a particular waste type to concentrate their efforts on
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 6
specific strategies targeted for those waste types. PIG members drafted initial recommendations for the
larger working group’s consideration, and all group members had the opportunity to provide comments
and edits in subsequent meetings. All SRWG meetings were open to the public and public comments were
solicited at every meeting.
Appendix E presents meeting agendas, meeting materials, and summaries for the five SRWG meetings.
The following sections provide a brief overview of the meeting processes.
4.2.2 Permitted Interaction Groups
The SRWG convened in Meeting 2 (additional information on this is provided in Section 4.2.3.2, SRWG
Meeting 2) and voted to focus on the following topics:
C&D waste
Product packaging and food waste/organics
PV panel waste
A PIG was formed for each topic, with each PIG tasked to investigate ways to incentivize source reduction
for the topic, policies or regulations needed, and public education strategies. In subsequent SRWG
meetings, PIG members presented their findings and discussed them with the full complement of SRWG
members to form recommendations to promote source reduction.
4.2.3 Meetings
4.2.3.1 SRWG Meeting 1 (April 19, 2023)
The SRWG members were introduced and were provided an overview of the purpose and goals of the
SRWG by facilitator Lyndsey Lopez. Members reviewed the SRWG Charter Document (Appendix C) and
rules (Appendix D) and adopted the documents by vote. Members engaged in initial discussion of source
reduction topics for the group to consider.
4.2.3.2 SRWG Meeting 2 (June 28, 2023)
Prior to Meeting 2, members filled out a survey prepared by the consultant group (Appendix E). The survey
polled member interest in different waste types to prioritize throughout the term of the SRWG. At Meeting 2,
members reviewed the survey results, discussed source reduction topics for the group to consider, and voted
on the top three waste types to focus on. The members formed three PIGs, with the scope of each PIG
dedicated to one waste type. There three PIGs are further described in the following sections.
4.2.3.3 PIG Meetings
C&D Waste PIG
Members: Quinn Vittum, Michael O’Keefe, Allen Evans, Nicole Chatterson, Jessica Leorna
Meeting 1: The group discussed the current state of C&D waste on Oahu, anticipated upcoming issues
with C&D waste management due to the closure of the PVT landfill, and research areas to investigate
further. Meeting
2: The group discussed policies for deconstruction and waste diversion in other counties and
states, wooden pallets, education and involvement of stakeholders, transfer stations, film industry
waste, and guest speakers to invite.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 7
Meeting 3: Guest speakers Laura Takahashi from Kamehameha Schools and Eric Tamashiro from
Bowers + Kubota shared their experiences and lessons learned from the demolition of the Keauhou
Beach Hotel.
PV Panel Waste PIG
Members: Hayley Cook, Allen Evans, Lene Ichinotsubo, Jessica Leorna, Quinn Vittum
Meeting 1: The group discussed the current state of PV panel waste on Oahu, anticipated upcoming issues
with PV panel waste management due to the 25-year lifespan of panels and upcoming first large
wave of decommissioned panels, and research areas to investigate further. Meeting
2: The group discussed the Recommendations on Waste Management of Clean Energy Products
in Hawaii report (Hawaii Natural Energy Institute 2022), the KumuKit and Re-use Hawaii secondary market for reuse
of functional used PV panels, and industry knowledge shared with SRWG member Allen Evans
by Josh Powell from Revolusun. Meeting 3: Guest speaker
Dr. Michael Cooney from the University of Hawaii at Mnoa Hawaii Natural Energy Institute shared his current
research and findings about establishing a Statewide Stewardship Program to handle, manage, and
fund the recycling of PV panel waste at end-of-life. Second guest speaker Brian Gold from
wholesale distributor Inter-Island Solar Supply shared information on their in-house recycling
program to receive, sort, and ship PV panel waste to a partnering mainland recycling facility. Meeting 4:
The SRWG PV panel
PIG members met separately to follow-up and discuss the points brought up in the previous meeting
by guest speakers Dr. Cooney and Brian Gold. The group discussed several topics including extended producer
responsibility (EPR), the Statewide Stewardship Program, subsidizing shipping costs, collecting
and storing panels, and EPA funding. Product Packaging and Food Waste/Organics
PIG Members: Hayley Cook, Nicole Chatterson, Tina
Yamaki, Lauren Zirbel, Amy Brinker Meeting 1: The group discussed opportunities
to explore further, including policies for residential and commercial food waste, incentives for
businesses to pursue Hawaii Green Business certification, updating the language in the Good Samaritan
Law to encourage food donations, implementing EPR, and connecting food scraps to pig farmer
operations. Meeting 2: The group continued discussions of
the previous meeting’s topics, as well as additional topics including reusable container programs (and traveling
washing facilities), Food Packaging Transparency Act, and a new food waste
diversion project in Chinatown in downtown Honolulu. Meeting 3: The group narrowed down the
strategies to present for SRWG Meeting 3 and mapped out a potential implementation timeline for all
strategies. Strategies included seeking EPA funding, mobile dishwashing and food service ware project,
food donation incentive program, and future recommendations for packaging and food waste. 4.
2.3.4 SRWG Meeting 3 (
November 28, 2023) Between Meetings 2 and 3, the PIGs
met separately to engage in discussions, conduct research, hear from selected guest speakers, and develop source reduction
considerations. At Meeting 3, the PIGs brought forth these considerations to the larger group. Lyndsey
Lopez presented the findings of each of the PIGs as well as considerations on behalf of the PIGs. Following
the completion of Meeting 3, the PIGs were dissolved.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 8
4.2.3.5 SRWG Meeting 4 (December 4, 2023)
At Meeting 4, the members had the opportunity to discuss the considerations of each of the PIGs, share
their thoughts and opinions, and suggest modifications to the considerations. The members voted to
move forward with the considerations that received five or more votes to be included in the SRWG Report
as recommendations with the opportunity for the members to comment on the draft of the report.
4.2.3.6 SRWG Meeting 5 (May 10, 2024)
At Meeting 5, the members discussed comments on the draft report and adopted the SRWG Report
as revised.
5. Recommended Actions
The working group has identified multiple ways for government, consumers, and industry stakeholders to
advance source reduction and help improve Oahu’s solid waste management system. Some of the identified
recommendations will be able to be implemented more quickly, while others may require future steps
and evaluations to continue assessing feasibility. All recommendations rely on continued engagement
and participation from the stakeholders that were part of this working group or some form of new,
long-term, self-sustaining coalition. Section
5.1 presents an overarching recommendation as to funding, while recommendations by PIG topic that
is, C&D waste, PV panel waste, and product packaging and food waste/organics) are summarized in Sections
5.2 through 5.4, respectively. Table 2 in Section 5.5, Implementation Summary, summarizes all the
recommended actions, associated owners/partners, and potential milestone dates. For the vote count on
recommended actions provided under Member Support in each section, note that attendance at Meeting
4 (where this was determined) included eight of the nine SRWG members. 5.
1 Evaluate Funding Strategies The
SRWG recommends the overarching initiative to evaluate funding strategies for all recommendations supported
by the SRWG. The SRWG recognizes that new source reduction initiatives will require money for development
and ongoing implementation. One example of a funding source is federal grant funding from
the EPA. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, provides $
275 million for Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grants from fiscal years 2022 to 2026. The
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also provides $75 million to fund a Recycling Education and Outreach REO)
Grant Program from fiscal years 2022 to 2026. Federal EPA grants provide a unique opportunity within
the next few years for investment into new source reduction initiatives and strategies. City entities such
as ENV and the Office of Climate Change, Sustainability, and Resiliency (Resilience Office) could work together
and potentially partner with other government entities and stakeholder groups to apply for grant funding
from the EPA in the upcoming years. 5.
1.1 Impact and Benefits Funding
for source reduction initiatives will allow government agencies and industry stakeholders to pursue new
strategies and ideas with high potential for large island-wide impacts on reduced waste generation. Long-
term funding sources will have longstanding impacts on the implementation of source reduction programming
to reduce waste in landfills and move towards a more sustainable circular economy.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 9
5.1.2 Example
In 2023, the EPA awarded over $2.1 million in grant money for Hawaii’s recycling infrastructure. The
County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management was awarded $1,522,130 to design and implement a
city-scale reusable foodware and refillable bottle system in Hilo for the community. The Hawaii
State Department of Health (DOH) was awarded $673,004 to develop a statewide waste characterization study of
the four major counties’ solid waste disposal stream. 5.1.3
Implementation Because grants are
one-time payments and are not sustainable long-term funding sources, grant money should be put
towards initiatives that benefit from one-time investments, rather than initiatives that require ongoing funding.
For instance, grant funding could go towards one-time capital improvements, development of a
new education and outreach campaign, or establishment of new programs that would be self-sustaining
in the future. Grant money (unless paired with other long-term funding) should not go towards establishing new
programs or services that could end later due to insufficient funding. In addition to
grants, other sustainable funding strategies should also be evaluated to support source reduction initiatives long-
term. Some of the recommendations below will require ongoing funding beyond one-time grant
opportunities. For example, consumers could pay a fee for disposal of PV panels to support sustainable long-
term funding that matches the level of PV panel waste stream at a given time. Further exploration is
needed to identify and seek out funding for various source reduction initiatives, and different funding methods
may work for different initiatives. 5.1.4
Member Support At Meeting 4,
six SRWG members voted yes in support of evaluating funding strategies for C&D waste initiatives, six members
voted in support of this action for PV panel waste initiatives, and seven members voted in support
of this action for product packaging & food waste/organics initiatives. 5.2 Construction
and Demolition Waste Recommended Actions C&D materials
represent a significant amount of material in the waste stream, as illustrated in Figure 3. Between 2018 and
2022, C&D represented 25 to 41 percent of the total waste stream tonnage. Of this, 185,000 tons
of C&D were landfilled in 2022. The following sections describe recommended actions for C&D waste.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 10
Figure 3. Portion of Waste Stream Associated with C&D
5.2.1 Adopt a Diversion Regulation and/or Deconstruction Ordinance
Diversion of C&D waste involves diverting waste away from landfills through salvaging, recycling, and
reusing waste materials. Deconstruction is the process of dismantling a building to salvage the materials
for reuse and recycling, while demolition is the act of tearing down a building with heavy equipment, which
generates large amounts of waste and destroys potentially reusable construction materials (Figure 4).
In addition to promoting waste reduction through salvaging, recycling, and reuse, there are many different
benefits of deconstruction as compared to demolition.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 11
The City currently does not regulate the diversion of C&D waste away from landfills or the deconstruction
of buildings to minimize landfilled C&D waste. Other county agencies both within the State of Hawaii and elsewhere
in the United States regulate or track the diversion of C&D waste and deconstruction of buildings.
To emulate, the City could implement an ordinance that includes a combination of diversion regulation
and deconstruction requirements or focus on one method over the other. Figure
4. Deconstruction Benefits versus Demolition Benefits 5.
2.1.1 Impacts and Benefits Implementation
of a diversion regulation and/or deconstruction policy for C&D waste on Oahu would have a
large impact on source reduction by increasing the amount of C&D waste diverted from landfills. With the
PVT landfill (that is, commercial C&D waste handling) closing and ENV potentially set to assume responsibility for
C&D waste island-wide, policy-driven requirements and regulations for C&D waste can reduce the
amount of waste landfilled. Overall, this would benefit the environment and contribute towards a circular
economy. Further research, stakeholder discussions, and financial studies are needed before implementation of
any specific policy, but ordinance language and requirements should draw from existing ordinances
and successful cases in other counties, states, and countries. 5.2.
1.2 Examples In the
County of Hawaii, a solid waste management plan is required for all developments seeking an environmental assessment, environmental
impact statement, or Special Use Permit. The solid waste management plan must
contain recommendations and mitigation measures for solid waste, and must be drafted and certified
by a State of Hawaii licensed engineer or architect (County of Hawaii 2023). The Solid Waste Management Plan
is used by the County of Hawaii to “(1) promote and implement recycling and recycling programs; (2) predict
the waste generated by the proposed development to anticipate the impacts on County Solid
Waste Management Facilities; and (3) predict the additional vehicular traffic being generated because of
waste and recycling transfer.” In California, Foster City is making
strides towards the state-required diversion rate by adopting the California Green Building Code. Under this
code, “applicable construction and demolition projects divert a minimum of 65% of the debris
generated by the project.” In addition, a waste management plan demonstrating how the project will maximize
reuse and/or recycling must be submitted to receive a building permit (Foster City 2024).
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 12
The City of Austin, Texas, regulates C&D recycling for the following (City of Austin 2024):
Construction projects with more than 5,000 square feet of new, added, or remodeled floor area
Commercial and multifamily demolition projects of all sizes
The city requires those projects to do one of the following:
Reuse or recycle at least 50 percent of C&D debris
Landfill less than 2.5 pounds of debris per square foot of floor area
Contractors must provide a report to the city with the tons of C&D debris reused or recycled and the tons
of C&D debris landfilled.
Orange County, North Carolina, has an ordinance that requires C&D projects to have a waste management
plan and waste haulers to be licensed (Orange County 2002). The ordinance requires recycling of corrugated
cardboard, clean wood, and scrap metal.
In Oregon, the City of Portland has an ordinance that requires projects seeking a demolition permit to fully
deconstruct rather than mechanically demolish structures (City of Portland 2016); Portland was the first
city in the country to adopt such an ordinance to salvage C&D materials for reuse. Deconstruction is
required for the following structures (City of Portland 2023b):
Single-dwelling structures built in 1940 or earlier
Special historic structures designated as historic resources by the City of Portland
Deconstruction work must be performed by certified deconstruction contractors.
The establishment of this deconstruction ordinance launched the beginning of a new deconstruction
industry in Portland and a workforce training program to train certified deconstruction contractors. Since
2018, the costs for deconstruction have gone down and the costs for mechanical demolition have gone up
in Portland (City of Portland 2023a). Portland’s deconstruction ordinance has been a success, contributing
to the city’s circular economy and diverting salvageable materials away from landfills for reuse instead.
The following are among the variety of guides and other resources that provide additional examples of
how local governments are encouraging deconstruction and reduction of C&D waste:
https://www.epa.gov/smm/example-local-government-climate-action-plans-address-materials-
management-and-waste
https://labs.aap.cornell.edu/sites/aap-labs/files/2023-05/CR0WD%20-
20Local%20Government%20Deconstruction%20and%20Reuse%20Guide%205.3.2023.pdf
https://www.acrplus.org/images/technical-reports/2019_ACR_Sustainable_construction_guidelines_
for_public_authorities.pdf
5.2.1.3 Implementation
The SRWG recommends that the City works towards establishing an ordinance to require diversion of C&D
waste and/or deconstruction of structures. The City is primed to follow the lead of the County of Hawaii in
requiring the preparation of a solid waste management plan. As a guideline, the County plan describes the
following: The
potential waste generated from the project Onsite
source separation methods
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 13
Identification of a proposed waste reduction, waste reuse, recycling facility, or disposal site to receive
the waste
Identification of impacts to County-operated waste management facilities and mitigation measures to
minimize impacts
Requirement and identification of licensed waste haulers in the plan could also prevent potential misuse
of transfer stations or recycling and reuse facilities. The City should explore requiring a set percentage of
waste to be diverted from landfills and also identify the types of construction projects that would be
affected by the ordinance. For example, larger projects could be targeted for bigger impact, or residential
projects built before a certain year could be targeted because old, single-family homes are often
demolished to rebuild new homes on Oahu. It
Is important to note that there have been previous attempts by the City to develop C&D-related ordinances
and resolutions. Those have not been successful and have faced opposition in the past by industry
groups; however, the current C&D management situation is much more dire and additional assessment
and development of an ordinance for further consideration is recommended. As
the State considers its own focus areas that will be part of their integrated solid waste management planning
efforts, a statewide C&D diversion and/or deconstruction directive may be another avenue to
consider. 5.
2.1.4 Member Support Six
SRWG members voted in support of adopting a diversion regulation and/or deconstruction ordinance for
C&D waste initiatives. BIA Hawaii shared their concerns about mandates in the opinion letter submitted to
the SRWG (Appendix G). 5.
2.2 Work towards Streamlining the Permitting Process for C&D Material Management
for Reuse The
permitting process for C&D material recycling and reuse currently poses a barrier for establishing new recycling
and reuse facilities. As a potential solution, industry stakeholders and City agencies could work with
the State to streamline and simplify the permitting process for C&D material management. Stakeholders
could also work with the State to provide online educational materials on permitting processes
and requirements for permittees. 5.
2.2.1 Impact and Benefits Streamlining
the permitting process will support the establishment of new recycling and reuse facilities for C&
D materials. Education would also greatly reduce barriers and challenges during the permitting process, as
not all permittees are familiar with permitting requirements and contaminants of certain materials types. 5.
2.2.2 Implementation Efforts
to streamline permitting processes should be focused on permitting for source reduction processes that
produce no waste as a byproduct. For example, concrete waste can be completely recycled, with no waste
as a byproduct.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 14
The State is currently taking steps to streamline the DOH permitting process by converting all State DOH
permitting to electronic forms rather than hard-copy forms. The SRWG recommends that the State
continue efforts to streamline the permitting process and work with industry stakeholders and City
agencies to produce educational materials on the permitting process.
5.2.2.3 Member Support
Six SRWG members voted yes to work towards streamlining the permitting process for C&D material
management.
5.2.3 Work towards Establishing Staging and Storing Areas for C&D Waste
Materials for Reuse
A large limiting factor for diverting C&D waste away from landfills is the lack of space for staging, sorting,
and storing C&D waste materials. The supply and demand of reusable salvageable C&D waste materials do
not always align, as construction projects have varying timelines and material demands; C&D waste
materials are often transported offsite to a landfill rather than stored on the construction site to wait for
potential future buyers or receivers. Construction sites typically have limited space, and the time and cost
of waiting for a future receiver poses a barrier for diverting C&D waste materials for reuse. As a potential
solution to this issue, industry stakeholders and government agencies should work together to establish
staging and storing areas for C&D waste materials for reuse around the island of Oahu. These areas would serve
as designated spaces to stage and store C&D waste materials for construction sites. From there, other
construction projects could purchase or accept donated C&D materials from the supply as needed. 5.
2.3.1 Impacts and Benefits Staging
and storing areas for C&D waste materials will allow more C&D debris to be reused rather than landfilled.
Construction projects will also benefit from potential lower cost of reusing materials. 5.
2.3.2 Examples SRWG
member Quinn Vittum shared that Re-use Hawaii has experienced their own challenges for storing materials due
to lack of sufficient storage space and the high cost of renting warehouses on Oahu. For example, hotel
renovations on Oahu produce massive amounts of reusable waste materials, but Re-use Hawaii does
not have the storage space to accommodate the amount of material associated with these renovations. As a result,
a majority of materials are landfilled. The City of San Francisco,
California, requires that C&D debris removed from a project in San Francisco must be recycled or reused (
City of San Francisco 2021). C&D debris must be transported offsite by a transporter that has obtained a
permit from the City Environment Department, and the waste must be transported to a registered facility
that has been vetted and approved by the City Environment Department to receive mixed C&
D loads. In August 2023, the Honolulu
City Council passed Resolution 23-168 to establish the Kapaa Quarry Transfer Station reusable material collection site
pilot project. The City is working with Re-use Hawaii to collect and redistribute reusable construction materials and
household items at the Kapaa Quarry Transfer Station. The transfer station typically functions to
collect, sort, and store waste materials before transportation to a disposal or recycling facility. In
comparison, this innovative pilot project is using the same designated City space to collect materials for
reuse, thereby diverting reusable materials away from landfills. The pilot project serves as a collection
site model for the SRWG’s recommendation to establish staging and storing areas for C&D waste
materials.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 15
5.2.3.3 Implementation
Industry and government stakeholders should build from lessons learned and successes of the Kapaa Quarry
Transfer Station pilot project to implement a larger island-wide collection site network for C&D waste.
Existing City transfer station sites and/or existing C&D reuse and processing facilities could be incorporated
into this network, or new warehouse and storage spaces could be established. Network systems
implemented in other counties and states should serve as examples for Oahu. 5.2.
3.4 Member Support Six members
voted in support of moving forward with this recommended action. 5.2.
4 Educate and Involve Stakeholders The SRWG
recognizes that there is a current gap in education and knowledge in the industry for reuse and recycling diversion
methods. The SRWG recommends the establishment of educational programs to inform industry stakeholders,
such as contractors, consultants, engineers, and project managers, of reuse and recycling options
on Oahu for different C&D debris material types. The SRWG also recommends that the City adopts a core
value system for source reduction and environmental stewardship, which is rooted in Native Hawaiian cultural
values—for example, aloha ina (love for the land), mlama (to care for), kleana responsibility), and laulima (
working together). Education and outreach should also focus on educating stakeholders on this
core value system as a means to unite people for a common cause and larger purpose. 5.2.4.
1 Impacts and Benefits Education and outreach
is vitally important to encourage and enable behavior changes in the industry. Education on reuse
and recycling options will help others understand where and how C&D materials can be diverted to
other pathways instead of the landfill. In addition, education on a Native Hawaiian core value system has
great potential to encourage behavior changes through cultivating a deeper respect for the land and
a sense of shared responsibility. 5.2.4.
2 Example When Kamehameha Schools
demolished the Keauhou Beach Hotel on Hawaii Island, they diverted over 90 percent of the
C&D waste (approximately 21,000 tons of waste) away from landfills to instead be recycled, salvaged, or reused.
The project managers were deeply committed to waste diversion to minimize the negative environmental impacts
of the project on the island and work towards Kamehameha Schools’ commitment of zero waste
by 2045. The project was revolutionary in the industry, especially for its size and close proximity to the
ocean, winning several design and engineering awards for the project’s waste diversion achievements. Laura Takahashi from
Kamehameha Schools and Eric Tamashiro from Bowers + Kubota spoke with the SRWG’s
C&D PIG and shared several lessons learned from the project. One of their biggest challenges was not knowing
what to do with the waste because of the current lack of guidance and knowledge in the industry
for reuse and recycling options. They particularly struggled with concrete waste and identifying a receiver
to take the concrete for reuse. They also found that the adoption of a Hawaiian core value system and
education on the Hawaiian culture notably impacted the mindset of the construction staff and served as
the key motivator for care and respect for the land throughout the project.
Client Review Draft
Source Reduction Working Group Final Report
240109150803_7c669895 16
5.2.4.3 Implementation
The City should build off other successful public education campaigns and develop new materials
in coordination with stakeholder representatives) to inform industry stakeholders, such as contractors,
consultants, engineers, and project managers, of reuse and recycling options on Oahu for different C&D debris
material types. The City should also consider the benefits of adopting a core value system for source
reduction and environmental stewardship, which is rooted in Native Hawaiian cultural values. 5.
2.4.4 Member Support Six
SRWG members voted yes in support of education and outreach for stakeholders on C&D reuse and recycling
methods. 5.
3 Photovoltaic Panel Waste Recommended Actions PV
panels are made of many different components and contain harmful toxic metals like lead and cadmium,
which are hazardous to human health and the environment when illegally dumped (Figure 5). For
PV panels to be recycled, these components have to be disassembled. PV panels can be recycled or reused
if the proper steps are taken (Figure 6). The following sections describe recommended actions for PV
panel waste. Figure
5. Example of PV Panel Components and Materials