Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

All right, Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our informational briefing of the joint committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and Agriculture and Environment. It is Tuesday, January 7, at 9am and this is our first meeting of the New Committee for the Session. Not everybody's able to make it because we're all so busy this time of year.

But I am Chair Nicole Lowen of the chair of the Energy and Environmental Protection Committee. And on the House side over here, I have my Vice Chair, Repuso, our Committee Member and majority leader, Rep. Quinlan. And then I also invited Rep. Hasham from who chairs Water and Land Committee, to join us as well.

We are here to learn more about the sighting of the new landfill, the potential environmental impacts of which there has been much discussion. So I'll turn it over to Senator to introduce the Senate side and make a few comments and then we'll move into presentations.

Okay? Aloha, Mike Akwo. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the city and County of Honolulu, Also to the Board of Water Supply and for coming to our talk story on the proposed landfill. And also mahalo to you in person and also those who are online for taking the time to find out what's going on on this issue.

So we're going to be talking trash this morning. All right. And while it's not the most pleasant topic to be discussing on such a beautiful cloudy day in paradise, it's absolutely crucial that we do this because it's something that affects all of us who live here, who not only live here in Oahu, but also statewide.

So this info briefing will raise awareness not only about finding a new site for Oahu's landfill, it will also hopefully inspire us to do more recycling, composting, and yes, properly using those blue, gray and green bins that are sitting out in front of our houses. Right. So mahalo.

On my left on the A Committee is Senator Carl Rhodes. And and also we have what's that guy's name? Kurt Favela. I think this is his name. Yeah, Kurt's. And also our new Senator, Senator Samantha Decord, joining us today.

All right, great. So without further ado, I think we're ready to hear first from City and County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services. And we'll follow that with a few questions and then we'll hear from Board of Water Supply and then we'll open it up to further questions for both party. So over to you, Roger.

Yeah. So good morning. Thank you for inviting us this morning to be able to make a presentation on our efforts to site the next landfill for Oahu so I'm Roger Babcock. I'm Director of Department of Environmental Services.

On my right is our Deputy Director, Michael O'Keefe, and our Sydney County's Managing Director, Michael Formby is here along with of course Ernie Lau from Border Water Supply.

So we'll start with, you know, from the Department of Environmental Services, part of this so ENV, or Department of Environmental Services, we collect and treat all of the city's wastewater and refuse. So on the refuse side we have about 400 people in that operation. And on the wastewater side we have about 800 people.

But as citizens, each of us is responsible for creation of more than a ton of rubbish each year. And it's up to EMV to reliably and safely collect all that rubbish, to separate the recyclables and treat and dispose of the residuals. So these services safeguard and ensure the public health and a clean and healthy environment for everybody.

So on the refuge side, our services include collection of the three cart system, the gray, green and blue carts. We have seven convenience centers which are free for people to drop off all different and all different types of waste. Those are open seven days a week. They're only closed two days a year, Christmas and New Year's.

And we have three transfer stations. We have the H Power Waste to Energy facility and we have the Wyman Oligoch landfill for disposal. By the way, the H Power, the function of that facility is to reduce the volume of municipal solid waste that goes to the landfill by 90%.

So the ash constitutes only 10% the volume of the municipal solid waste. So it's a really critical part of our operations and with the size of a landfill. So we've been working very hard to identify a new site for the landfill because Waimanala Goats Landfill needs to close by 2028 by our permit from the.

Our Special use permit from the Land Use Commission, State Land Use Commission. So to give a little bit more background on the work that we've done in this with respect to finding the new landfill. So Mike is going to go over some of that.

Thank you, Roger. Aloha. Mike O'Keefe, Deputy Director of ENV. So as Roger mentioned, I'm going to go through a very brief recent history of the landfill because it really provides some important context for how we arrived at the decision at the site we named toward the end of the last month. So, Roger.

Yeah, so this slide, what you're looking at here is an informational flyer that we published in anticipation of our announcement. We distributed this broadly. I Think everyone in this room, or at least the representatives and the Senators, should have received a copy. We issued a press release with it. We published it on our website, honolulu.gov envelope.

But it more broadly describes what I'm gonna really succinctly describe right now, which is the history leading up to the site announcement that we made last December. So next slide please. Roger. Yeah, this slide.

So very briefly, 2019, as Roger mentioned, the state Land Use Commission issued a decision and order related to our special use permit to operate Waimanalo Gulch Landfill. That decision and order said that the landfill had to close no later than March 22028 and shall not receive waste after that date.

We also had to name a site by December 312022. Then in 2020, the state Legislature passed Act 73. Act 73 required several things. Most notably, it required no less than a 1/2 mile buffer zone around residences, schools, hospitals for the construction, modification or expansion of a landfill.

So basically, a landfill cannot be within a half mile of those entities. It also said that a landfill can't be in a conservation district either. So that is kind of one layer of restrictions with respect to siting a landfill. Act 73, there are also others, and you can see them as I'm talking.

You can see them depicted on the map on the screen here. Landfills. By federal regulations, landfills also cannot be within 5,000ft of an airport. They can also not be located within a tsunami inundation area. And you can see, as I mentioned, you can see all of that on the map here. That was 2020.

Act 732021 through 2022. Mayor Blangiardi appointed a Landfill Advisory Committee. So this was an eight Member Committee that met nine times between 21 and 2021 and 2022 to learn about the city's solid waste management system and then evaluate and score six potential landfill sites.

The Landfill Advisory Committee finished meeting in 2022 and they published their final report. The Landfill Advisory Committee did not recommend any of the six sites because of their location in the Board of Water Supplies. No pass zone. And you can see the no pass zone depicted on the map on the screen here.

The, the no pass zone is everything mauka of the dotted black dotted line that runs along the coast. So it's the vast majority of real estate on Oahu. Everything Makai is fair game. But also, as you can see, everything Makai is taken off the table by Act 73 or a tsunami inundation zone restriction or something else.

So when the Landfill Advisory Committee said recommended against any of the six sites that we had proposed because they were within the no pass zone.

They suggested that we request an extension to our deadline to name the site, which I mentioned was December 312022 so that we can further evaluate sites outside of the no pass zone, which we did. We both further evaluated those sites and we requested and received an extension. And then ultimately we named.

And that all culminated in us naming the site that we did last month in Wahiawa. So for a little bit more information on that site, I'm going to turn it back over to Roger.

Okay, so thanks, Mike. So just to clarify, on the diagram shown, the airports are that orange type color. The conservation districts are the green and the blue. A dark blue is tsunami and lighter blue is the half mile buffer. There's also military lands on there. And that was another thing that was that we were asked.

We were asked to do three things by the Advisory Committee. Evaluate sites outside, including military, and sites that could become available if modifications were made to Act 73. Okay. So what we did is we carefully considered all the restrictions and the legal requirements. And so we came up with basically three paths to siting the next landfill.

And we've chosen to follow the paths as shown here as path A as the legal path as to site the next landfill over the aquifer within the no path zone, There are two other pathways that are shown sequentially.

In order to do anything other than path A, we would have to move to path B, which is successfully amending Act 73 to reduce the buffer zone and the conservation zone to allow sites outside the no pass zone. Then if that is unsuccessful, then it would be necessary to extend the operations at the Waimanal Goats landfill.

We have chosen path A. We've identified a site in central Oahu. It's on agricultural land. It is 3.5 miles northwest of Wahiawa and 1.5 miles past the Dole Plantation on the western side of Kamehameha highway in what's currently a dole pineapple field. The total area required for this landfill site is about 150 acres.

And 90 acres of that is the actual landfill. And the remaining area is for a little bit of a buffer zone as well as storage of equipment, place for trucks to get off the road, Scale House, et cetera, that's needed for operations of a landfill.

So this site was chosen because it is the best site of the six that were evaluated by our landfill Advisory Committee. As Mike described in 21 and 22, it's legally acceptable under federal and state laws, including Act 73, it is away from groundwater wells and residences. It's acceptable. Sorry. It's accessible via a major state highway.

It has a flat terrain, and we know that we can build and operate a landfill there that will not harm the environment. So the location is shown there relative to the Wahiawa and other things that we can see. This is a photo of the Waimanau Gulch landfill. Very recent. So this is where it's at today.

And it probably doesn't look like what you imagine a landfill looks like. You might expect piles of trash blowing around and lots of tractors moving on top of that and birds. But that's not what Waimanalo Gulch is. This is what it looks like. It's primarily a receptacle for the ash from H Power.

So it looks like a dirt quarry. I've also brought samples here I of ash that comes from H Power. So this is what it looks like. There's a sample here that we can pass around if you folks would like to look at it. It's basically like dry dirt. And the new landfill will look like this current landfill.

And you see that it's not full. There is some space available, and it can easily be operated till the end of our permit. We understand the community concerns and Senate concerns and water. Water supply concerns about protecting our groundwater aquifers. And so I want to discuss the protective measures that we would use at the new landfill.

So this diagram here shows a conceptual layout of what the. Of the landfill, of that location in a little more detail, showing where the landfill itself would be, as well as support struct structures.

And this diagram here shows a schematic cross section of a landfill, a modern sanitary landfill that meets all the permit requirements from the federal rules that govern landfills in the United States. And that's called the Resource Conservation and Recovery act, or Re Crait, from 1974.

So there's a lot of things in this diagram, including the daily deposits of ash, which is in yellow. That's what's represented by the yellow cells. And the daily cover of soil, which is the little brown lines, the required monitoring wells in the groundwater to detect any unlikely leak.

And most importantly, the liner system and the leachate collection system, which together prevent the escape of contaminants from the landfill and prevent contamination of underlying groundwater. So landfills require a dual liner system that consists of both a thick plastic geomembrane and we have some samples of that. There's a sample of part of the liner at Waimanalo Gulch.

It was a sample that was taken during installation. It says Waimanalo Gulch, and it has the. Basically where it came from as part of the installation. This is a thick plastic membrane and it also includes a clay liner. So what's required is, is really a sandwich system which is shown here.

This is a different sample of liner, plastic liner. This is a water, water layer, a leachate collection geomembrane that goes on top of that, and then below that is a clay liner. And clay liners, they expand when they come in contact with water. So this is what's required for a landfill, according to recra.

So what happens is that both of these components, the plastic liner and the clay liner, are impermeable to water. So what happens is that. The water. That infiltrates through a landfill when it's in operation and it rains, it passes its way, percolates through the materials, the ash and the soil.

And when it gets to the bottom, it's called leachate. It encounters the flow layer and the impermeable plastic liner and flows to a Low spot depicted there where it says leachate sump. There's actually multiple leachate sumps. And in the leachate sump, there are pipes that connect that to the surface.

And there are pumps that are put inside that pipe to continuously pump out the leachate as it comes into the landfill. The leachate is continuously pumped out of the sumps. So this is not a big bathtub full of water. The ash is dry when it goes in. There isn't water.

We can't get water out of this even if you press on it. Water comes from rain. So the other thing is that the permits require, the rules require that we can have no more than 12 inches of water in the sump at any time. So the pumps are running whenever leachate comes into the system.

And that is in a Low place. That doesn't mean there's one foot of water across the whole bottom of that place. It's one foot of water in the sump. And so it's continuously pumped out. So it isn't a big water retention vessel. I wanted to point out that we are proposing to a double liner system.

And so the existing, the required liner is really two liners. It's a liner system, but we're proposing to do two sets of those. So that's shown in this picture. And so basically you got these six pieces here now. So this is a closer view of what that double liner system would look like.

And what's shown is the leachate collection sump for, for the primary liner is the upper one and sort of the upper middle part of there with the two things that are a leachate sump connected with pumps that pump up to the top and then there's a second set of liners and a lower collection sump.

So if there was a failure in the upper liner, then leachate would be found in the lower leachate collection sumptuous. So that would always be dry unless there was a problem. And if there was a problem, we would know it and corrective actions could be taken at that point.

And so this is very similar to what's required for a fuel storage tank, an underground storage tank anywhere on the island or in the state. It requires a double walled tank and an interstitial area where leaks can be detected. So this would basically be the same as what's required for a fuel storage tank.

I also wanted to point out the picture there on the right shows the liner and then on the lower right it shows the leachate collection piping. So that piping is going up to the surface and then it's going down to the right is going into the collection sump.

So you know, with this, I also wanted to point out that the existing Waimanalo Goats landfill, which is what the pictures are on the right, has been in operation for 35 years and we have never had any leaks of leachate from the landfill.

I'd also point out that the rules also require that closed land, once a landfill is finished being used and needs to be closed, there are closure requirements and post closure monitoring that is depicted in this earlier thing which shows the closure cap that has to happen.

And again, there's a impermeable liner at the top, this same geomembrane liner. And so when the landfill is closed, it's sealed, so new rainfall cannot get into the landfill. And so there should be no leachate.

But the leachate system needs to be collection system and pumps need to be maintained and everything maintained, including the top, for 30 years according to the federal law. So that's called post closure requirements.

The so we, as you know, Environmental services, as engineers, we're 100% confident that we can design and operate the next landfill on this selected site.

And by following all the federal rules and state Department of Health rules, we could obtain all the permits necessary to locate it at this site and we would be able to protect the underground aquifer from contamination as well as protect communities and businesses of Central Oahu.

In summary, this site is eligible to receive an operating permit from the permitting authority which is the State Department of Health, and also a special use permit from the Land Use Commission. This is also zoned agriculture, like the existing Waimanalo Gulch landfill. So it does require a special use permit.

Unlike the other pathways shown, there aren't legal restrictions, legal prohibitions for this site and the ability to be legally permitted by the Department of Health and following the federal rules means that the landfill would be safe and protect the water, the land, the air, and the people. So this is just the beginning, identifying the site.

It begins kind of a long process to actually open a new landfill, construct and open a new landfill, as well as then close the existing landfill. There are lots of permits required.

We have to do an environmental impact study and statement, which involves several additional studies that have to be part of that, including public outreach and human hearings that have to happen as part of those processes, including getting the permits. We need a solid waste permit, we need an air permit.

All those are public processes where, you know, reports will be submitted, discussions will be had, and there'll be hearings. So. But we're committed to continue public, you know, to do public engagement through, you know, throughout this process, which is going to take a few years for that to all happen.

So at this point, I think we're ready to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Can you just slide some of the stuff over to us? Zero, yeah.

Sure.

All right. I guess we'll do some quick questions and then we'll move on to hear from Board of Water Supply, and then we might come back for more questions. Rep. Quinlan.

Thank you, Chair for Director Babcock. What's in the leachate? Chemicals.

Yeah. So leachate. So the leachate has passed through the dirt and the ash. What's left over after combustion is metals, a lot of metals. And there's also other chemicals that don't get destroyed during combustion. And so leachate is a waste that needs to be treated. So there are requirements for it to be treated.

What we do is we treat it at our wastewater treatment plant. In this case, the nearest one is the Honoluli wastewater Treatment Plant, so it gets treated there.

Is there PFAS in the leachate?

Yes.

And are you aware that they are now called forever chemicals and have been linked to a number of different types of cancer and reduced fertility?

Yes.

Can you guarantee 100% that the lining will be impermeable forever?

No, we cannot guarantee that.

Quick question for bws, if I may. So given that we can't guarantee that the lining will be impermeable forever and Given that there are these incredibly dangerous and long lasting chemicals in the leachate, are we once again rolling the dice with our fresh water supply?

I would say that's potentially. That is correct. There's uncertainty for our future. And the timeline, my perspective, the landfills, they're basically, once it's installed, filled up, it's there forever. And will the systems that contain it, contain this Leache, which is based with a lot of different kinds of chemicals or toxins, be kept in the landfill forever?

If it can't, then I think the risk is too high to our groundwater resources. And I made that position clear for a long time.

Now, would you say it's fair to say we haven't learned our lesson from Red Hill?

I think we're at the crossroads where Red Hill, and this is where I used the term Red Hill 2, that we were at the crossroads that Red Hill was in its decision making to place 250 million gallons of fuel storage underground fuel tanks, single walled, right over a drinking water aquifer. That decision was 80 plus years ago.

So we're kind of at that decision point. So the question that I have is, are we gonna 80 years from now or 100 years from now find out that that wasn't a good decision?

I'm sorry. Yeah. And with your indulgence, Chair, one more question for Director Babcock.

Okay, one more. Maybe we should have waited till after both I want to hear, and I.

Apologize, Members of the Committee, given that we have this March 22028 shutdown date for Waimanalo Gulch, and given the apparently lengthy processes that you described to stand up, design, construct and permit a new landfill, is there any way at any site that we can get a new landfill in operation before March 22028?

And if we cannot, does that mean that regardless of the outcome of your siting proposal, you will be going before the Land Use Commission to extend operations at Waimanalo Gulch?

So thanks for that question, Representative. So, you know, at this point, we do not know how long it's going to take us to site and open the next landfill. We have to get a little bit further down the road before we'll know that there's also land procurement that has to happen, permitting eis.

So right now we don't have a good answer for whether and for how long we would need an extension. If an extension is needed, then we would be submitting for that.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. I think that what we should do actually is go ahead and hear from Ernie and take questions at the End. So we'll get to everyone who has questions after. But thank you very much for your presentation. I have a lot of questions as well. But we'd like to hear from Board of Water Supply.

And then we'll take. Take all the time we need for questions from everybody. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Lohan and Chair Gabbard and Committee Members. Ernie Lau, Honolulu Board of Water Supply. I am going to depend on my engineer, Joyce Lin, behind me to actually advance the slide.

So if I'm a little out of sequence here, I have about 30 slides to provide some background information, maybe information to some of the questions that have already been asked by some of the representatives. Next slide, please.

So our vision for the Board of Water Supply, we've been around for 95 years, actually created by the territorial Legislature at the time. We're part of the city government. And, you know, I have the highest respect for the mayor, the managing Director, the leadership of the city and County of Honolulu.

They were a very difficult job to do here, and I have the greatest respect for them. On this issue of locating a landfill above our freshwater resources, that's where I respectfully have to disagree with that decision. Kawai Ola Water for life. That's our vision for the Board of Water Supply.

Our mission is to provide safe, dependable and affordable water now and into the future for our community. So it's not just in the next few years. It's basically forever as long as people live on this island. That is the mission of the Board of Water Supply to provide safe and dependable and affordable water service to our community.

Next, please. We have a large water system. We serve almost a million people every day with clean drinking water. And it takes about, on average, we have to produce about 145 million gallons a day. Our water resources basically come from underground sources from these volcanic and aquifers.

And we're blessed by the rainfall that occurs over the Koala and Waianae Mountains to provide this resource to our community. And it takes a lot of infrastructure to provide that service. Next, please. So the city, actually, Roger and Env did come to the Border Water Supply about two years ago. Next slide.

So two years ago, we received a letter with the six sites that Roger referred to that was the result of the study they did for the landfill Advisory Committee. LAC. Sorry. And in response. Next slide. Response.

Two years ago, around November 16th of 2022, I respectfully disapproved both sites, all six sites, because of their location above our freshwater resources. Next slide. Then again, you know, the press conference was held on December 10 to announce the site. This new site, which is also located over our freshwater resources in central Oahu.

I also sent another letter, basically reaffirming my disapproval that I made in 2022, since this was actually one of the six sites originally proposed and we had already disapproved it two years ago. Next, please. Some key points here, and I mentioned before, we're 100% dependent on groundwater, the groundwater aquifer for our source of drinking water.

It's very important that we. And there is no water without life. Landfills contain contaminants that can enter groundwater if it leaks out of the landfill. And that leachate actually is pretty contaminated. Landfills, once constructed, are permanently there. I have maybe Roger might know if any landfills.

Actually, I can only think of one landfill that was moved in Hawaii after Iniki on Kauai. They took all the hurricane debris off of from Iniki on the island of Kauai and they put it in Anahola. But Anahola was a temporary location. They had to move it to the permanent landfill in Kekaha.

So that took a lot of effort. But pretty much landfills are permanent fixtures once they're there. Preservation, protection of our precious and pure groundwater resources are essential to secure water security for our future for generations to come. One thing I learned, Representative Quinlan, you know, from the Red Hill experience, is that we.

We need to think carefully about decisions that we make that can affect our future. And we need to take a long view of what those decisions might leave as a legacy for those future generations. And it's not even the people that are alive in this room right now or that are viewing this meeting virtually.

It's the generations that haven't even been born. They're going to depend on these freshwater resources. And right now, this area in central Oahu and going toward the north shore, it's the freshwater resources that have not been fully developed yet that may be needed for the communities 100200 years from now, we don't know.

And also be needed for agriculture, for ensuring food security for our community. Next slide, please. This is just a schematic of cross section through our island. You'll see the light blue is actually the zone of fresh water there. And it's basically the porous lava rock is so porous, the seawater seeps under the island.

But fresh water, originating as rain falling over the Mauka watershed land sea seeps through the volcanic rock. And because fresh water is lighter in density than seawater, it floats on top of that salt Water below the Caprock is a very important feature here, geologic feature. Because that's the basis of why border water supply.

Over 40 years ago decided to create a no pass area on our island. Because that Caprock along the coastal areas helps to protect and keep the freshwater inland and allow us to build large capacities of fresh water inland in these underground volcanic aquifers.

If it wasn't for the Caprock, it would just flow right into the ocean and we wouldn't have the fresh water resources we do today. The Caprock is also a layer of protection for our volcanic aquifer below. And that Caprock is where we would recommend that landfills be considered if they had to be put in. Next, please.

This is just a map from the Commission of Water Resources. They estimate the sustainable yield in different hydrologic units around the island. And you can see the central area, estimated sustainable yield there, about 23 million gallons a day. Then you go down to Waialua particular. I wanted to have you focus on wailua.

That's 17 million gallons a day. These are our freshwater resources of our island. Next, please. So basically, landfills. And this is information. We've done a little bit of research. We continue to do more research that EPA has basically concluded that all landfills eventually leak into the environment. A USGS study done back in 20002003.

Although liners and leachate collection systems minimize leakage, liners can fail. And leachate collection systems may not collect all the leachate that escapes from the landfill. The fade and transport of leachate in the environment from both old and new landfills is a potentially serious environmental problem.

Landfill liners and cover systems are best designed to contain leachate and control emissions. But even the best designed systems will fail at some point. Remember, these landfills are there forever. So the question is, will these systems last forever to protect our environment, our water resources? Waimanalo gulch, right now, two years ago, we got this information from env.

Generates about 3.6 million gallons of leachate annually, or about almost 10,000 gallons a day of leachate. One thing to remember, leachate is correlated. The amount of leachate is correlated directly to the amount of rainfall over the landfill. So Waimanalo, you can all know that Waimanalo, on the west side, it's a drier place.

I grew up in Waipahu in Ewa. Not much rain there, and yet that still generates about 3.6 million gallons of leachate there. And this is from the data and this new landfill site, actually, when we looked at rainfall data, it seemed to Be almost dark. Double the amount of rainfall in that Helemano area, Waihawa area.

And I know that area actually has a lot of good rains, about 50 or 60 inches a year I think on average. So that will actually equate to greater leachate volumes. Next please. Question earlier was what's in the leachate? And this is just some data that we collected from env's reports. Waimanalo Gauche leachate from ash.

I'm not sure what SMP stands for but and you can see the different analytes or chemicals. Ph is the acidity of the water. Aluminum, arsenic, barium, calcium, cadmium, chromium, chloride. Levels are pretty high.

And we compared that to border water supply wells in Honouliuli and also right here, right across the street at Veritania pump station to what's in our aquifer and not in the leachate. So our freshwater resources are providing high quality water when you compare that with leachate. Next please.

Also some additional chemicals there that were actually being found in the leachate at Waimanola Gauche. And so next slide. I won't go over these in detail. The next slide. And next please. So this is some training that we took recently on pfas. And representative, you're correct.

PFAS is the dioxin of the DDT that we have to deal for the generations to come because these chemicals dwell the developed early in the 30s and 40s and there's about 14,000 plus different PFAS chemicals right now. One thing they're unique about them is that they're difficult to break down in the environment. So they're there forever.

You can see that I've circled in red the leachate from landfills as another potential source for pfas. I appreciate the challenges of dealing with Oropala and that's a community wide challenge.

It's not just ENV and the mayor here, but it's all of us together because we create that opala that has to be dealt in a way that is sustainable for our island community and doesn't compromise the resources that we depend on to survive, namely our freshwater resources. Next slide.

So this is some PFAS information from different studies, different countries, including Europe. The levels of PFAS ranging from different MSW is municipal solid waste landfills ash and below that is the ash monofill at the landfill in the US and C and D is construction demolition waste.

I think Rogers indicated to me that this new proposed landfill would not only take MSW on the municipal solid waste, but also with the closure of PBT would actually start to receive construction demolition waste too. Next please. So this is just more about pfas and I've highlighted in blue there.

EPA for the first time in a long time adopted some National Primary drinking Water standards or mcls Maximum contaminant levels. And these are two different examples of the set that they just recently adopted last year, PFOA and PFOS. And they are at 4 parts per nanogram per liter or 4 ppt.

And you can see in different sources of different landfills the concentrated PFAS was detected in those landfills. Next please.

And this is just another study here. Europe, Australia and China compared to the US and actually US stacks up pretty good but still pretty significant levels. Remember, in drinking water for PFOS and PFOA we're talking about four parts per trillion. I think that amounts to like one drop in 60 Olympic size swimming pools. Next please.

So the BWS no pass zone, just go briefly through that, the Caprock area and that's shown in light blue here. About 137 square miles ringing our island. And the no pass zone map which the Borda water supply adopted back in early 1980s and it's embodied in our administrative rules under Section 3301. Next please. The proposed landfill.

Next slide please. You can see in the middle there, the proposed landfill site is actually in the interior between the Wahiawa and the Waialua area. Next please. And the USGS and their groundwater atlas of 1999. You have the Schofield High Level water and North Central Oahu. The proposed site is right on the boundary between the two.

Next slide please. This map actually is from that atlas. It indicates the numbers are water levels measured above sea level. So there's some unique features of this school field are the aquifer system in Waihawa, the actual groundwater. The top of the aquifer stands about 275, 250ft above sea level.

When you go down to Central Wahoo to the Pearl harbor area, it can drop down to like near Pearl harbor to about 20ft above sea level. So underground in the school field area between the north side and the south side, there's some kind of underground dike or buried ridges that help to retain that water.

But the arrows indicate what they think is the flow direction of groundwater underground in the aquifer. And you can see the arrows from the Schofield or the Waihawa area are heading north toward Waialua, Mokuli and Kawailoa. And then on the south side of that Schofield or Waihiawa high level water, it flows actually directly into Pearl Harbor.

So we think that just based on the water level data, and this is not on groundwater modeling, I want to make it clear I haven't done any groundwater modeling on this yet, but just looking at the USGS information, water levels, just using the concept that water flows from higher elevation to a lower elevation based on gravity, that there's a natural flow gradient as indicated by the arrows, the blue arrows on this map, that if it were to leachate were to somehow leak from this landfill, it might head toward the Wailua Haleiwa area and impact the aquifer down there.

So the contaminant plumes would then move potentially to the north. We don't think it'll come back to Waihawa at this time because though you can see under that word, Schofield, the 275, that's 275ft above sea level. So there's no natural flow uphill, water flows downhill. So that's our concern.

And we have wells there and there are also private wells in the area of this proposed site or downstream of this site. Next please. So this is just a definition though. No pass zone. The path zone represents the area overlain by thick Caprock, unconsolidated and consolidated cell sediments, corals and weathered volcanic rock.

Basically not as permeable or porous as the porous lava rock. And it helps to provide kind of a protective layer. And that's where we. Those are the areas that we are recommended if a landfill had to be built. Consider sites in those areas.

The no pass zone which is above or mauka of that no pass line are areas where the freshwater aquifer has very non existent Caprock or just basically soil above the porous volcanic rock.

I know from experience from pineapple, from large scale cultivation, particularly pineapple and sugar, that the pesticides that were used maybe 800ft above the aquifer below eventually seep through the soil column above it and reach and is still contaminating the aquifer below because we still continue to treat the water in central Oahu through activated carbon filters and use about 1 million pounds of granulated activated carbon a year to filter that water.

So we know that basically rain helps to drive and carry contaminants from the surface down because rain will seep down, drawn by gravity down, and eventually can seep down into the aquifer over time. Next please. So this is just Section 3301 of our waste disposal systems. What's in our administrative rules and the footnote here back in.

And I'll just for the sake of full disclosure, I'm not hiding anything. Back in 1989, the manager at the time executed some kind of agreement with the Department of Health to actually try to delegate some of this responsibility that's still in our administrative roles to the Department of Health. I don't know why he did that.

He had his reasons and I have the greatest respect for that manager. And I worked under that manager too for many years. But for me as a manager, right now I am responsible to administer the Rules and regulations of the Board of Water Supply.

And right now, Section 3301 is still in our administrative rules and was not repealed after this. MOA was signed in 1989. So I am basically implementing Section 3301 because it still, in my mind, still applies. And the next slide, please. And this talks about the procedures.

Basically, two years ago, ENV proposed six sites and they all happen to be over the aquifer. I made a decision based on the information that was provided to me and also our research to disapprove because they were all over freshwater resources that is or could be used as sources of drinking water for our community.

And once a decision is made, there's an appeal period of about 30 days. That petitioner could appeal to my decision, and then after that, if I still continue to disapprove it, then they could appeal to the Water Board. And that never got to that point. So we gave our.

Issued our disapproval letter in November 2022, and that letter still stands. Next, please. Again, some repeat because this is so important. Key points. Oahu is 100% dependent on groundwater, the underground aquifer, the volcanic aquifer for our fresh water, for our drinking water. Landfills contain contaminants. We don't know what's put into the landfill, can't really control that.

As the rainwater seeps through that landfill, it'll start to pick up these contaminants, and that'll create something called leachate, which is contaminated rainwater. Landfills, once constructed, will be there permanently. Preservation protection of our precious pure and pure groundwater resources are essential to ensure water security for future generations to come. Next, please.

And we recently completed a source water protection plan. And this is the guiding principle. Prevention of sources or our water sources from degradation is always preferable to mitigation and cleanup, thus reducing risk to the foundation of our source water protection plan. And that is the foundation of our source water protection plan.

Prevention is better than having to deal and react with contamination of our water resources after the fact. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I think we have a lot of questions, so we're going to go back and forth. Senate, House, Senate, House. AFSCMEmbers one question and then we'll go to the next person. And if you have a second question, we'll work our way back around.

And we're going to start with the Senate first, since we have questions from the House.

Start off with Senator Rhodes. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation. Both city and border water supply. So I'm looking at the map. If I understand what border Water supply. I said that you would only approve of a landfill over the Caprock, which is on the Makai side of the no pass zone line. Is that correct?

That is correct. Or close to that boundary. Limana La Gulch actually crosses a little bit into the area where there's no protective Caprock. But the water is very brackish and unusable there. So if an applicant were to, say, propose something along the boundary and provide the hydrogeologic information that my question really is.

So in that area, the other overlays on the map that the city provided, I mean, I'm just. Do you guys have a map where it says here are the spots where the border, water supply and the city agreed you could actually put a landfill? I mean, it looks like it's not going to be very many places.

If I'm reading this right. Are there any places where you could do it?

Yeah. So the maps, the maps from the handout show that pretty clearly. The.

Let me see. You got that one?

Let me see that one there. So if you exclude the no path zone areas, then. And you have Act 73 in effect, the federal requirement, federal restrictions for airports, for example. The only sites that are available are some military lands, which. So that's the answer. The residential exclusion, the buffer distance and the.

And the tsunami take out all the rest of the coastal areas.

Those white areas around Pearl Harbor.

Yeah, they're gray or white. Yeah, that's the military.

And next we'll go to Rep. Perruso, who's been patiently waiting. Zero, thank you so much for your presentation. So I actually have a concern about process to start with. I have so many questions, but my first question is, I heard you say that you're going to be seeking a special permit.

Then is it true you won't be seeking or applying for a district boundary amendment? Because. And I asked that question because that process would more, I would say substantively allow for community. The investigation of community concerns and addressing community concerns, whereas this special permit process would not. So can you speak to that?

So currently we have a special use permit for Waimanalo Gulch landfill. And the reason that you need the special use permit is because it's agriculturally agriculture zoned land. The identified site is also on agriculture land. So it would require either going back to the land use Commission for a special use permit or.

Or seeking a district boundary amendment which essentially changed the. Essentially effectively change the zoning to acceptable zoning that would allow a landfill without a special use permit. So I guess I'd have to say we haven't made that decision yet about which permitting process we would go through.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Next. Senator DeCorte.

Good morning. My question is, is Waimanola Gulch up to full capacity for its closure? Because Waianae time and time again continues to suffer the environmental injustice by hosting the most landfills in history. It's evident by the placement of sewers, power plants and industrial zones in my district.

So my fear is that you folks will come back to my community and ask us for an extension. So my question is, is there a slight possibility to go further back Mauka in Waimanalo Gulch and keep the landfill there for, say, another 30 years?

So thank you for that question. The. The landfill has a permit to operate now, and that includes a land area and sort of a footprint of space. And that then equates to a volume that it can accept until it reaches its full height.

The current capacity at, at the current fill rates that we have, including the ash and non burnables that go there, there's a capacity to approximately 2032 for the existing permitted site. However, the permit also specifies that no more material will go there after 2028. So those two things are. Are different.

Whether the landfill could be expanded at the back within the existing footprint is something that requires further investigation. But our understanding right now is that there's little if any, additional area to expand within the permitted area, the permitted footprint. I hope that answers your question.

Okay, I'm going to ask a couple questions. I guess I'll preface it by saying my understanding is that about or more than 400 tons per day of ash from H power goes to the landfill, and the leachate production of the current landfill, I think is something close to 10,000 gallons per day. Does that sound correct?

That sounds correct. So there's clearly a lot of potential for a lot of impact just based on those volumes. And I think, as Board of Water Supply mentioned, we have to think way into the future. We have a site existing, existing there.

I'm sure when Red Hill, for example, was built, people were saying the tanks will never leak. Well, almost 100 years later, you have that problem. And there's going to come a day when, if we sight a landfill over the aquifer 100 years later, is this plastic liner going to be as infallible as you say?

And I think those are the questions that we really need to consider here today. So my question is, I think that the role of the Legislature, one of the things we can do is take a look potentially at the buffer zone issue.

And I'm wondering if you've done the analysis to look at sites that might be available if we come back to that buffer zone issue and look at reducing that.

If you had a suggestion, if you had an idea of what sites would be preferable if we took that action or what sites might be on the table and what kind of buffer zone, you know, if it's a half a mile now, would it go to quarter mile?

What would be the recommendation if we're looking at trying to find a better choice in terms of not putting something that could cause so much potential damage to our drinking water supply, you know, in a place where it can cause that damage.

So, Chair Low and Mike Formby, managing Director, do you mind if I lead off and then let Roger Babcock share more details with you? But I'll tell you that there are sites and Dr. Babcock can talk about those sites with all of you.

I had numerous discussions with legislators on both the House and the Senate side and talking about potentially, and this is years ago, legislators who are still in office talking about what would be the possibility or the probability of coming to the Legislature and seeking an Amendment to Act 73.

And I'm not expressing a legal opinion, but one of the common concerns that I received from those Members was that if we were already identifying which Act 73 site that would be, that it might be a special legislation issue and that we should not do that. But I will tell you that.

And I don't know if that's, if that's valid, but that's. That was a concern that was, that was voiced to me. So we know it would just be.

A matter of seeing that, you know, that GIS map and just take that blue layer and just show us, you know, play with it and see what the different options are.

So there definitely are sites that are outside the no pass zone that violate Act 73 as currently in law. And Roger can talk more about those sites, but we have not, as of today, identified one preferred site.

Understood.

Yeah. So thanks, thanks for that question. So, yes, we've done that analysis. So that was one of the requests, one of the things we said we would do when we requested the extension to identify the site.

So that work has been done and we have a report that was published and it's on our, it's available on our website. The overall results, though, are on the handout that you have. It's on the backside and it does identify the sites that become available if the restrictions of Act 73 are relaxed.

And so you can see those there. The HCND quarry, for example. Those sites are closer than a half mile to residential, and they're also green. So they're in a conservation district.

So are these the red stars on the map?

So the green stars. The green stars, yeah, the green stars. The red stars are ones that either military or they are too small. The Prince Golf course, or they are on the west side of the island. And the mayor has made a commitment that we would not pursue another site on the west side of the island.

Okay, thank you, Senate.

Okay, I'll start going back to the no pass zone. Ernie, you said here that the proposed waste disposal facility in the no pass zone would not contaminate groundwater resources used or expected to be used for domestic water supplies. So based on that, had you identified, we're looking at 150 acres. Right.

Have you identified a place that fits that definition? I know it's not your job, but since we're all working at this thing together.

Yeah, you know, the. I think that's an important point. It's actually. We haven't actually been involved with the landfill discussions, although we did present a few times to the Landfill Advisory Committee. But we welcome the opportunity. Maybe Roger Env. And look at sites and give them our kind of. Our initial read.

Yeah, it seems like that since you're working so closely together on this, hopefully that would be very helpful. My second question has to do with the military. I think you had the site that was going to be out at Waipio by the soccer field out there.

The military came back and said, well, that's not going to work because we do training or whatever. Did we reach out to our congressional delegation and ask them for help on this? Is there in fact, military land that's available and that we should maybe. How do I say this?

Try to get a little bit more aggressive with our congressional delegation and having them step up to the plate and help us out here.

So Senator Gabbard, Mayor and I reached out to the military. Shortly after, the Committee came back and recommended that we do that. And we met with us Indo Pacom because we wanted to go actually to the highest. So at the time, it was Admiral Aguilino, and we met with him and he brought in all services.

So in his conference room at Cap Smith, all services were there and they took this very seriously. And they did look at federal lands. The one that they did not look at at our request was along the Waianae Coast. And that was because we made a social justice operational issue that we would not go there.

So they did not consider that, but they considered other federal lands and they have operational restrictions, in other words, they have classified operations, they have top secret operations, training missions that are important to their duty and roles.

And so they eventually, after much study and our discussion with the congressional delegation as well, advised us that they could not make those lands available. And some were for many reasons.

Some weren't just for operational reasons, but it was also that the lands were in a tsunami zone or they were in a protected area that was an environmental area with species that are protected. Most it was more than just operational mission. But at the end of the day they were unable to make those available to us.

And you're satisfied that that exploration that's it's off the table now, is that correct?

We are.

Okay. Wait, House.

Zero, I'm sorry, after the house, you're next question.

Go ahead.

So just to clarify, and I guess this is a question for Mr. Lau, my community has concerns, obviously, and should something happen to the landfill site and we should start to see leachate, evidence of leachate in the water, then--and our understanding is that would contaminate the waters of Mokuleia, Waialua, the North Shore--then where would those households need to draw their water from?

Yes, thank you. That's in a situation where now we're reacting to a leak from the landfill of leachate or contam--which the challenge there is the leachate can contain so many different types of chemicals. We'd have to figure out what is the appropriate treatment system for chemicals that eventually might reach our wells.

So we have Wailua and Haleiwa Wells, which are just--the Department of Health did some groundwater modeling. They identified two-year and ten-year capture zones, you know, because basically, where do you think the freshwater resources would come from, the underground aquifer?

How in ten years would a particle travel to the well that's pumping? And that just actually falls a little shy of this location, but if you go and take the forever look at the landfill there that's there forever, then a ten-year travel, you should look at 20 years, 30 years.

So actually it looks like this site potentially could impact our Wailua Wells, maybe even our Haleiwa Wells. If it was impacted, we'd have to see what is in the contaminant plume, can it even be treated and at what levels, can we treat it, what type of technology we'd have to use to treat it, if it's even possible, or is the other alternative is to give up those wells and actually drill new wells someplace else beyond the reach of any contaminants that may be emanating from the landfill. So those are the challenges, but it comes back to the bottom line.

Board of Water Supply, we're a water utility. We provide water to our community and we're going to have to figure out how to provide that water. Also, it will be our customers that will have to pay for the cost of that treatment system or the new wells that will have to be put in elsewhere because at the end of the day, Board of Water Supply, we're financially self-sufficient on people paying their water bills, and this is the water portion of the bill that comes through the BWS. That is our sole source of revenue to operate our utility. So that cost will be passed on to our ratepayers.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Senator Iwa? Senator Fevella.

Thank you. You know, my concern was always that you guys wanted to repeal Act 73, yeah? If you look at you guys' map, take it from me, you're not gonna build anything on the west side, but the south side, you get four or five in my area for potential landfill.

Now I didn't support amending Act 73, not because I've seen this. It's because, again, we're going to put a burden on somebody else's community in having a landfill. I don't support it in anybody's community, but you guys had a long time and we know the Act 73.

So the potential you guys talking about again, and I understand you guys don't pick this site, regardless of what people think out there, I really believe when I went to the meetings at the land use and I went to the meetings previously, this right here is an act to pressure the Legislature, legislators, to amend Act 73.

And that's the reason why this controversy site that you guys pick, knowing that nobody's going to support it--I don't care how much liners you put in--because Waimanalo Gulch, Waimanalo Gulch liners went in 20 years later. They made it beautiful now because of the closure and the pressure to close Waimanalo Gulch.

So you can show us a nice picture up there, guys, but that's not the picture that was presented back when we was young and that place had birds and trash and everything that you guys would bury and then put in you guys' beautiful liners. So there's no guarantee here. I'm just going to just make my comment.

I'm not going to support amending it even more so now because I'll let my community know majority of them is going to be another beach. That is crazy, and I wouldn't do that to anybody here and I hope none of my legislative colleagues won't do that to me neither.

So again, going forward, you guys got to come up with a better plan. You guys should have came up with a better plan four years ago, but there's not, and I understand you guys talk about each power and all of that, but that ash right there could be 100% renewable if we had a better waste to energy plant. And I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

All right, House. It's a good lead-in, I guess, to next question for Department of Environmental Services. You know, there's, there's not a lot of good solutions, right? We don't want--no one wants a landfill in their backyard, no one wants it near their residences, we don't want it over an aquifer, but we still make all this trash that has to go somewhere.

So what is the Department of Environmental Services doing on a policy level to look at long-term policy solutions for tackling source reduction of waste? And let me just preface that by saying, expecting individual action and individual consumers recycling things they buy, that is not a broad policy solution.

That's a drop in the bucket. We need bigger actions and to take the problem seriously because it's not just about reducing waste or, you know, some feel-good Earth Day slogan. We're talking about our water supply. We're talking about burden costs on taxpayers.

We're talking about vast environmental impacts from the amount of waste that we produce and not a lot of proactive policy to address it. So now we're stuck trying to figure out how to site a landfill that nobody wants because we have to do something with the trash. So what is the policy of DEM on that?

Yeah, thank you for that question, and I know Mike would--let Mike speak to this as well. He's been involved with refuse for more than 15 years, including all the recycling programs, but let me just say a couple of things before I turn it over to Mike--this Mike.

We, you know, we're required and we have an integrated solid waste management plan which really lays out the policy of what we will do and what we're striving for and what all of our various programs are, and I'll let Mike talk to us more about that.

And there was a committee that met and came up with a bunch of ideas to move forward and I'll let him talk about that, but I did want to mention--because I really like showing, you know, show and tell stuff--we do have an ash recycling project that is under contract and currently in, in the permitting process.

We've built the building, we have the contractor, we have the design pretty much done, and we are at Department of Health right now waiting for permits. And this is--what this is, this is a product, a renewable product that comes from this ash and makes it into this, which is a sand substitute material which can be used in asphalt. So that's what we're seeking permits for. This replaces a portion of the sand component in asphalt used in paving.

I'm curious what--because that still gets rained on and erodes over time, and even if it's not going into groundwater supply, it's going into the environment. Now I don't know how that compares to already existing asphalt, but--and also, how much of that 400 tons per day are getting used for that?

I mean those kind of solutions are great, but what I'm saying is we need a broad scale effort to do source reduction. There's no other realistic way to think about this problem, in my opinion.

Yeah, so let me just answer a couple questions about this and then I'll let Mike talk about source reduction because we have a source reduction working group. So this material, it's been tested. So we didn't--this wasn't made from our own ashes. It was made from a facility in Pennsylvania that we're building the same facility like it.

And all the studies have been done about toxicity, TCLP--toxicity, characteristic leaching, potential--bioaccumulation, bioavailability of when you grind this up and leach it. And so basically it gets bound in there and it becomes unbioavailable and unleachable. This is also true. There's all kinds of stuff, research about that for concrete as well and using fly ash, and it becomes immobilized permanently, but anyway, that's about 60%.

No, it's great. I just think sometimes you get distracted by the shiny technology solutions that really just take care of a fraction of a fraction of this big problem.

Yeah.

So the harder, less exciting stuff is where we still need to put focus and energy.

And you're right, we're doing essentially almost everything that could be done. On the processing side, we're at 82% diversion right now of the waste stream--does not end up in the landfill, it's either recycled--and with this we'll be at 90%.

Are you counting diversion as--does diversion include what gets sent to each power?

Yeah. So diversion means if you take the entire waste stream, how much of it ends up in the landfill. And so right now about 18%, 15% to 18%. With this, it'll be over 90%. So only 10% of the entire waste stream ends up there. But I want to let Mike add some stuff.

Yeah, thanks for the question, Representative Lowen, and the importance of source reduction is not lost in our department, as Director Babcock mentioned. We did our integrated, our most recent integrated Solid Waste Management Plan 2019. The biggest thing that we heard from plan stakeholders at that point was do more for source reduction. That was the number one thing.

And so to that end, we formed a source reduction working group that met in 2023. We tried to meet during COVID; it didn't work out very well, so we postponed a little bit. We started in 2023, finished in 2024, and we published a report, and so it was a group of all different kinds of stakeholders.

I think there was about a dozen of us from all industry, including myself, representing government, and came up with a number of things that we're going to act on this year. But it's targeting stuff that's source reduction. So it's further upstream, right, before the waste is even generated, and it's looking at packaging, it's looking at PV panels.

The panels that came online with--the first generation of panels that came online right now are going to be pretty quickly cycling out of their useful life expectancy, and so what do we do with that influx of waste. E-waste is another big thing.

So all these kind of special waste and just our regular trash, how can we reduce that? So this, this source reduction, those are some of the topics that the group covered. It's in a, it's in a report that we're going to be acting on this year. The report is published on our website, but we're going to be proposing city and state policies' rules to, to affect source reduction to help us with our, with our landfill problem.

But I would also be remiss if I didn't mention some of the things that we do have on the books that are not pure source reduction, but they have notes of source reduction in them, which is our disposal foodware ordinance regulating single-use foodware, single-use plastics.

We're going to be proposing language to strengthen that disposable foodware ordinance, and the effect of the strengthening of that ordinance is going to be less of that single-use stuff in the waste stream.

The reason we're going to be proposing to strengthen that is because we also have a, a food waste composting program coming online later this year, and that's in ordinance and city ordinance. That's going to take the food waste that's currently going into the gray carts, and by the way, about 30 or so percent of all the stuff that residents throw away in the gray carts is organic material and a big chunk of that is food waste. So that's going to take that food waste out of the gray cart, put it into the green, that's going to get composted with green waste to create compost.

I don't want to hijack this too much, but we should talk offline about that and I would just say I hope that, you know, any legislators that want to oppose amending Act 73 so that we have somewhere to put a landfill that's safer should also support the kind of measures that would help us do some solutions. So, over to the Senator.

So Roger, earlier you mentioned the various next steps, permitting with the Department of Health, etcetera, right? Could you walk us through all the way to the final say on--you've got a proposed site out of Wahiawa, right? So some of my constituents have been, 'well, what's next? What's next? What's next?' That would be very helpful, I think, if you could walk us through that.

Yeah. So thank you. Thank you, Senator. There are several permits that need to be obtained, and those take, you know, a long time, an application process, and a couple of them are through Department of Health.

But the first thing that we'll be starting--so actually, we'll start several things simultaneously--but the first thing we'll be starting is our environmental impact study and statement. And so we already have, we already have that in a contract. So we have a contractor available who can start that work. We just sort of need to give.

But that's first? That's what you--the EIS is coming first?

That would get started first, yes, I believe, along with--yeah, we need to also work with the landowner to procure land. So that would begin very soon as well.

I've heard reports on the media that Dole is not real excited about selling that land. Is that true or what's the latest?

Yeah, so we. So we don't really have much of an update. Our understanding from what Dole has said is that that particular specific location that we identified would affect their operations because they do have operations there right now, but at the same time, they did say that they have other land that they have for sale.

So that would indicate--I think--it's a pretty good indication that they're interested in talking with us and working through and trying to find a solution. So we do need a solid waste permit. So a landfill requires a...because it's a solid waste receiving facility. It also requires an air permit that's also a State Department of Health.

It requires either the special use permit or perhaps the district boundary amendment to be able to get another operating permit essentially for the location. And then there's also a stormwater permit, which is sort of after a design, you know, is prepared, then--that's actually a city permit--there's building permits from the city as well.

So there are--so the other thing that would happen also is design will begin with our design consultant, who will take what we have right now as basically just a very simple schematic outline of what it would look like.

We need to get into full design and as soon as possible to be feeding the rest of the process and the public outreach and what's proposed for, for example, view, view plane management and things like that to, you know, to make the impacts as little as possible.

And traffic--traffic study is also necessary because it's very likely that some modifications should be need on--needed on Kam Highway to facilitate safe ingress and egress from the site. Expansion of the road, left turn lanes, perhaps signalization--it's not, it's not clear. That has to be analyzed.

So I think those are, that's kind of a list of the things. I can't really give you a good timeline. We have some preliminary ideas about that, but some of those permits take--EIS could take two years at least, probably, and that's a critical one that needs to get approved as part of it.

As part of that, though, you have to have quite a bit of other information. Usually a drainage study is in there, an archeological study is part of that before you can finalize that process, so there's lots of components.

So, but who has the final say? Board of Water Supply, City Council, the mayor? Where does it end? Or is it, this is it. It's happening.

Chair Gabbard, the way I would answer that, in trying to be responsible--and respectfully, I don't want to disagree with the Senator about the intent of our briefing--but what we did is we set out a plan that basically allowed us to exhaust as many options as we could, as we could, respecting the rule of law.

And so we know that the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill has a decision in order that says it needs to shut down by March 2, 2028. We know that Act 73 says that we may not site within a certain distance of buffer-protected zones. So we know those are legal obstacles.

The first path is a path that gives us some discretion working with the Board of Water Supply, and we haven't formally gone through that process yet, but the decision about who makes the decision and when we move forward has to incorporate all of this discussion. I mean, it really, it has to be an informed decision.

We're not going to put down millions of dollars starting at EIS on a piece of property that we know we're not going to end up getting to turn into a landfill. We're not going to do that. But the purpose of the four-page document and the last four years that we've spent going through this process is to make sure everybody understands that it's very complex.

There's no acceptable solution, there are options if laws are amended, but we knew that if we came to the Legislature and we said we want you to amend Act 73 to give us more options to then discuss with the community, the first question would be have you exhausted all options before coming to the Legislature?

And then if the Legislature says no, ultimately, to amending Act 73, before we go to the Land Use Commission, they're going to ask us, have you exhausted all options before coming to us to extend Waimanalo Gulch?

So we set forth a path that is agnostic as to personally how we feel about this, but it's to try to say that we're sensitive to all the concerns. Board of Water Supply concerns--we're sensitive to all of this, but we're looking for a process that allows us to eventually say, now we're going to engage and we're going to spend the many millions of dollars that are going to go into handling our waste in the best interest of the taxpayers.

So it's not a simple answer, but I think all of you understand the complexity of it, but there are two paths that are blocked by laws and that's the second and the third path. So we have to try the first one and if it doesn't succeed, then we'll go where we have to go. And we're not going to spend money foolishly in doing that.

Thank you, Mike.

So I have a follow-up question about pathways and it goes back to my original question about process, so then it's my understanding that if you did go in for a district boundary amendment, the reason you might avoid that pathway and choose a special use permit pathway is because there would be less public scrutiny, it would be more streamlined, and it would be faster, but that is one possible decision-making point, correct, where a decision could be made to halt this process? Is that correct?

Respectfully, can I ask a question? I'm not sure I understand, but you're talking about whether or not we would do one of two different processes for the proposed site?

Correct.

Yeah, I don't think we'll even get to that decision until we decide whether or not we're going to be able to survive Board of Water Supply objections. So we haven't formally made a recommendation for this specific proposed site to the Chief Engineer yet, and if he then--and that's a discussion that is a legal issue and the Chief Engineer has written us a letter and we reserve the right to respond, but we have not gotten to that point yet, but at some point we will get there and then we'll have to make a decision, but we're simply not there yet on that.

I see. Thank you.

Mike, sorry. I was trying to comprehend what you just said. Month ago, we heard the mayor was adamant not going to Waianae; it's going here; this is the best. After the due diligence that you guys put in, this is one of the pathways. But if Board of Water and hearing the concerns, does that change anything? What did I just hear?

It could. I can't say that it does today, but it could. We're very sensitive to the concerns that are talked about. We're very sensitive to the security of our water supply. I mean, we're not insensitive to any of that, but we're looking at a situation where the pathway to siting the landfill becomes increasingly closed and smaller and smaller and smaller if we don't, at every level, try our best to say this is a path that we can take.

So right now the mayor firmly believes that the city and county can site a landfill over the aquifer safely. Whether or not that gets challenged--and the Chief Engineer might write us a letter saying, for your specific proposal, I say no, in which case we would appeal that to the Board.

And the Board then has the ability to actually override the chief engineer, which would then give us a green light for this proposed site. We're just not there yet. But I'm just telling everybody we're not insensitive to the concerns and the risk, and I don't want anybody to think we are by having chosen the site. It's just, this is where we can go now unless we change the law.

Okay. Thank you.

Can I do a follow-up?

Go ahead.

So if BWS comes through with a parcel, 150-acre parcel on no-pass zone land, you would be open to looking at that, is that correct?

Yes, we would.

Not--or not just PWS, but if that were made known to you, you would be open to exploring that possibility, correct?

Yes, that's correct. Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Just a--I think we're getting close to wrapping up, but I was curious, like, the current landfill--I have kind of a couple, a two-part question maybe--but the leachate you said is treated at Honouliuli?

That's correct.

And that is capacity for that 10,000 gallons a day?

It does, yes.

And then is that treated--I mean, how does that process work because there's so much toxin in it? What's the byproduct and how is that disposed of? Does it become part of all the rest of the sludge from sewage waste and stuff? Is it all mixed together?

So leachate is liquid, so it goes in a tanker truck and it is put into the head of the treatment plant, and so it passes through all the processes at the treatment plant with the rest of the wastewater.

But the wastewater treatment isn't always treating to remove toxins, right? I mean, I'm not sure what standard it's treated to.

So we have a NPDS permit for that treatment plant, and it has a very, very long list of chemicals as treatment requirements for the effluent limitations, and we're able to meet all of those requirements. After two months.

And then where does it go? Is there an injection well or what's the--

So the Honouliuli Wastewater Treatment Plant has a deep ocean outfall that goes out into the bay. And again, like I said, it meets--it has primary and secondary treatment. Half of the effluent goes to a Board of Water Supply facility next door, which is a recycled water facility, and that 13 million gallons a day gets recycled to golf courses and industry. The rest, the remainder currently goes out the outfall. The recycled water program could be expanded in the future.

And I guess a question for either of you, Ernie, may be of an opinion that, I'm not sure exactly what the, what the national standards are for treating that water, but--and clearly if it's, if it's disposed of sort of offshore, not our problem anymore, I guess, but I imagine it still contains quite a lot of toxins.

Yeah, I think, I'm looking at the data, the limited data we have on Waimanala Gulch, it contains quite a bit of toxins. And I think, like Roger mentioned earlier, too, PFAS is, you know, among those toxins that are coming out of the leachate because PFAS is in so many materials.

Our current system is we sort of just put those out, put them out in the ocean.

Moving it from one location to another location in the environment. So then it goes out into the ocean and gets into that ecosystem.

Yeah. And has there ever been any incidents with the Waimanalo landfill of leachate leaking or being detected, affecting the downslope environment or the nearshore environment?

No. Thanks for that question. So, as part of the operating permit for a landfill, there are monitoring wells required around the landfill, both upgrading it and downgrading it. And so we are required to monitor those quarterly, and so this has been operated and monitored for the 35 years of its operation. And no, we've never detected any contaminants.

Because presuming you're moving the landfill to some other site, that landfill is closed, and I think you said earlier that it doesn't get wet because it's sealed off, but, you know, 80 years down the road or whatever, I mean, what kind of ongoing monitoring is that because there's still a lot of toxins contained in that landfill site just buried in the ground that you kind of presume, eventually, those work their way into the environment.

So that is the, you know, that is the reality of any disposal site. The rules and restrictions and requirements, federal laws are set up to prevent that to the--to minimize risk to, you know, to the greatest extent possible.

And obviously there was a lot of things that went into that rulemaking process back in 1974, and some of it would have been a practicality, you know, sort of issue, but what it provides is a 30-year post closure monitoring program as the minimum, and that's what's in, what's in federal law.

They--in the mid, late 80s, it was brought up to consider perhaps a longer post closure monitoring requirement. Ultimately they did not pass that and they said we will leave it to the states to decide whether, based on their own local conditions, whether they thought additional post-closure requirements--

We don't have any state law that is higher standard than federal law right now?

That's correct.

Okay. Okay, sorry. Send it again and then I guess we'll, some closing remarks maybe?

If in the event that Act 73 is amended, does the city have potential sites that they are considering?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. So the sites are identified on the back page of this, of this facility, of this document, and so those are a complete list of the sites that become available.

They've only been, you know, they haven't been evaluated in detail in terms of site layouts and things like that, but they do meet this, you know, essentially the area requirement and are otherwise permittable. In other words, they're not in a tsunami inundation zone, they're not near an airport and stuff like that. So they meet all the requirements other than Act 73.

Rep Perruso.

So going back to our conversation about diversion, and I would just say that I don't really consider waste-to-energy or a form of diversion because that waste is still going to a landfill. So thinking about that a little bit more concretely and directly, I'm wondering--because in other jurisdictions, even around our state, but also around the world--they have been introducing more innovative technology and methods around recycling.

And my, I realize, you know, you're directing the department and you're not necessarily making the policy decisions, but at some level you are, and I'm wondering with the advice and the guidance that you're giving the mayor, how much energy are you folks putting into improving what we're doing around recycling?

Because--and I hear this question, you're already kind of addressing it, but I would like to hear something more concrete about the ways in which--at the state level we're talking about EPR, right, making producers have more extended responsibility, and I'm wondering at the county level what you folks are doing, even if it's not the council-making decisions, you folks in your rules and regulations and the authority and power that you have. So if you could kind of speak to that.

Yeah. So I'll just say that that's very important, and that is what is our integrated solid waste management plan as well, which is, which is a written document and we're doing--the five-year update is just about completed and then it's a ten-year document but there's a five-year update required and we are almost ready to publish that, but we also had that, you know, the waste aversion working group. Do you want to say--

Yeah, so--yeah. So we're going to be following on with the recommendations of our source reduction working group. You know another thing that I'll mention too, at the end of 2024, this is all in the vein of source reduction and reducing waste at the point of origin.

We are--very early this year, we're going to begin a pilot program similar to what happens on Hawaii Island where they have these take back centers at the disposal locations.

We're going to be starting a pilot program at our Kapaa Transfer Station where we're contracting with an entity, a private entity to come in and be a diversion area for stuff that would normally go into the transfer station.

And so that's going to pull out stuff, goods, and--not waste, I don't want to call it waste--but stuff that still has some useful life left in it. So we're going to be starting that early this year. We--toward the end of 2024, we applied for a federal grant that would allow us to implement that island wide at all of our disposal sites. We have--Roger mentioned earlier--we have seven convenience centers.

So just another example of a program that we're trying to implement to focus on diverting waste from disposal at all or waste elimination actually. Yeah, and just to reiterate the stuff that's already in place, we have our, our Blue Cart Program that recycles 25,000 tons a year.

From H-POWER, we pull out 25, just under 25,000 tons of metal every year. 80,000 tons of green waste, we recycle. We're also--as I'm talking, I'm thinking about more things here--where, in the new year, we're going to be having--we're going to be installing lithium ion battery take back locations at our convenience centers.

We're going to be further expanding our metals recycling ban in our convenience centers. We're going to have new cardboard drop-off locations at our convenience centers. So we are, we're taking a number of strides in source reduction in the recycling area. E-waste as well. Thank you, Roger. Yeah. Yes.

I think we're good. I'm just going to make some closing remarks maybe and then if you want any, closing remarks. Just following up on what, you know, we talked about earlier and then Rep. Perruso followed up on, I appreciate the efforts that the city is saying they're making towards source reduction and the state needs to do more too.

I mean, we've been working on trying to further this idea of EPR for many years. So, you know, to bring this back to the landfill, I think it's just a wake up call that we live on an island and, you know, we produce an enormous amount of waste and there's nowhere to put it and we need to start taking this waste problem seriously.

But what I hear from the city and the things that you're working on too is all things that cost taxpayers money. That can be incredibly expensive. It's all policies tacked on the end without any feedback loop or incentive for producers of products to better design them, to make them last longer, to make them more recyclable, to be responsible for providing services, to be responsible for ensuring that their products are taken back and recycled.

And so those are the kind of things I think that we're working towards. You know, it would be great if we had Department of Health here. We thought about including them, but now, but we didn't. Now I'm second-guessing that.

But I mean, I'd love to work together more on that, but we need to get serious about actually implementing these and doing things and not just another plan, another working group, because that's been going on for a lot of years.

Yeah. And I just want to thank you for making your presentations and sitting down with us and having a talk story about this, and I have to admit my bias. You may have seen it back in 2003, as a city councilman, I introduced a resolution that would not allow any landfills over aquifers or drinking water sources.

And so it was interesting because at the same time here at the Legislature there was a bill to allow landfills to be built over aquifers. There was a project out in Kunia; came very close to passing, but at the very last minute it died.

And I don't know if it had anything to do with the council with the resolution that was passed, I mean, it was just a harmless resolution, right, but they never go anywhere. But that's my bias, and so I'm hoping that we can just continue forward, working together, and just solve this problem. So thank you.

Yeah. Yeah, I think the, the landfill over aquifer seems like just not the greatest idea. So thank you so much. We're adjourned.