Kauai County Council Committee Meeting on Landfill Status and Waste Diversion - February 19, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Kauai County Council Committee Meeting on Landfill Status and Waste Diversion - February 19, 2025
This combined Public Works & Veterans Services and Public Safety & Human Services Committee meeting on February 19, 2025, focused on a detailed briefing on the Kekaha Landfill's capacity, expansion plans, and waste diversion strategies. Council members heard from county staff, Zero Waste Kauai, and numerous community members, discussing short-term and long-term solutions including composting, a materials recovery facility (MRF), curbside recycling, and alternative technologies. No binding votes were taken on the substantive issues, but the council expressed strong support for immediate action and increased funding.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The Public Safety & Human Services Committee unanimously approved the minutes of its February 5, 2025 meeting. Motion carried without discussion.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Ruda (Zero Waste Kauai) urged the county to prove that recyclables are actually recycled, suggesting landfill tours and public data to counter the rumor that recyclables end up in the landfill. She advocated for making recycling and composting convenient.
- Joanne Yukimura (Zero Waste Kauai) presented a vision of a circular economy, arguing that 48% of landfill inputs could be diverted through curbside recycling, composting, and construction/demolition diversion. She criticized delays in building an MRF and called for fast-tracking its construction. She stated that the 42% diversion rate is insufficient and that higher goals (70%) are achievable.
- Michael Nakamura advocated for a comprehensive, coordinated approach similar to Japan, treating waste as a resource. He supported waste-to-energy as part of a solution and warned against narrow, piecemeal efforts.
- Sabrina Day emphasized the need for curbside recycling and local composting support. She noted that 42% diversion is below global standards and urged the county to adopt policies like extended producer responsibility and zero-waste event requirements.
- Steve Parsons called for a sense of urgency, advocated for free recycling and composting, and supported pay-as-you-throw pricing for trash. He opposed waste-to-energy incineration due to pollution concerns.
- Tommy Pasarella suggested charging tourists a fee for waste management and learning from other islands. He urged focusing on solutions rather than fear.
- Jesse Brown Clay (Compost Kauai) thanked the Solid Waste Division for supporting grassroots diversion efforts. He cautioned against expensive, experimental technologies and advocated empowering the division with funding and staffing.
- Alana Lester supported curbside recycling, composting, and C&D diversion, emphasizing that making recycling convenient will increase participation.
- Heidi Schemp proposed raising trash pickup fees and implementing a system where recycling is free to encourage diversion. She also suggested regulations for businesses to handle cardboard and pallets.
- Danford Cales (contractor with 20 years in solid waste) stressed that cost is the bottom line. He argued that waste-to-energy (including pyrolysis and high-heat treatment) is essential for dealing with non-recyclables and emerging contaminants like PFAS. He cautioned that recycling markets are volatile and that contamination can render recycling ineffective.
- Joanne Yukimura (second testimony) refuted the rumor that recyclables are thrown away, citing monthly reports showing shipments to off-island markets. She noted that recycling industry practices have improved since China's National Sword policy.
- Bruce stated that mandatory recycling and diversion are necessary, citing human nature.
Discussion Items
- Landfill Status and Expansion (PWVS 2025-02): Alison Fraley, Solid Waste Chief, presented the current status: the Kekaha Landfill receives about 90,000 tons of waste annually, with current permits through November 2027. A vertical expansion (Phase 2, increase height by 50 feet) would add three years, pending state DOH approval (expected soon). A Phase 1 expansion (over the unlined section) would provide 16 more years if approved by BLNR, with construction requiring four years. An RFP for alternative technologies (design-build-operate) is in development. Fraley also detailed curbside recycling costs: an MRF would require a 3-acre site, cost $47 million for land/building, with total annual operating costs of $11 million, increasing diversion by about 5% (to 47%). The current solid waste budget is $27 million per year, with about $6 million on recycling.
- Council Questions and Discussion: Council members sought clarity on costs, timelines, and feasibility. Chair Rapozo emphasized the need for immediate, tangible solutions like expanding composting and shredding waste. He stated he is "100% for" funding these programs in the upcoming budget. Councilmember Cowden questioned the high cost of the MRF ($1,700 per ton diverted) and suggested exploring revenue offsets and phased implementation. Councilmember Holland asked about the cost of the Phase 2 expansion ($1.6 million already budgeted). Councilmember Bulosan asked whether the situation constitutes a state of emergency. Council members expressed frustration with the pace of progress and stressed the urgency of acting now.
- Zero Waste Kauai Presentation: Joanne Yukimura and Ruda presented an alternative vision, arguing that with strong diversion programs (curbside recycling, composting, C&D diversion), Kauai could reach a 70% diversion rate, significantly more than the 5% increase projected for the MRF alone. They criticized the county for not building an MRF when an EA was approved in 2009 and urged immediate action. A discrepancy exists: staff projects a 5% increase in diversion from the MRF, while Zero Waste Kauai projects a 27% increase from the landfill inputs (leading to 70% overall diversion) by including other programs.
- Public Testimony on Divergent Views: Testimony highlighted a split between those supporting expanded recycling/composting and those advocating for waste-to-energy as a necessary complement. Danford Cales warned that recycling is expensive and markets are unreliable, while Michael Nakamura promoted a comprehensive approach. Council members acknowledged the need for open-mindedness but expressed caution regarding incineration due to environmental concerns.
Key Outcomes
- The Public Works & Veterans Services Committee voted to receive the briefing (motion carried). No further action was taken on the substantive matters, but the council clearly signaled support for increased funding for diversion programs in the upcoming fiscal year budget.
- The Public Safety & Human Services Committee approved the minutes of its February 5, 2025 meeting.
- Several council members committed to seeking budget allocations for composting grants, education positions, and other immediate diversion measures. Chair Rapozo stated the council is "prepared to fund what needs to be funded."
- No formal decision was made on the MRF, curbside recycling, or alternative technologies; these will be revisited as proposals and cost data become available.
- Staff will provide additional cost breakdowns for the 16-year Phase 1 expansion and detailed MRF/curbside reports upon final review.
Meeting Transcript
You guys ready. Morning, everyone, welcome to the committee meetings. So today's February 19th. We'll start off with our public works and veteran services committee. Mr. Palala. I would like to call to order our public works committee. Let the record reflect the members are present except our of course Councilmember Cooley, who is out sick today. So let's think so. So Clerk, could you please read the first item of our agenda? PWVS 2025-02 communication from Council Chair Rapposal requesting the presence of county engineer and environmental services manager to provide a briefing regarding the landfill and status of the request for proposal for alternatives and diversion plans. Move to receive. Second by Council Holland. Members, again, this is a briefing on the regarding our landfill and the status and requests for proposal, RFP. So at this time, I'd like to call our public works team. Alison to come up and give us a briefing, and we'll take it from there. Very important discussion today. Thank you, Allison. Good morning, Council members. Thank you. For the record, Alison Fraley solid waste chief. I have a presentation for you today. So we're gonna be talking about the landfill status. We have a thank you, hopefully, of course. So the current status of Kajaha landfill is that last fiscal year we accepted around 90,000 tons of waste, and that's pretty normal over the course of the last 10 or 10 or so years. That's about the waste disposal rate. We do have capacity with the current permits through November of 2027. We're working on getting a vertical expansion, which I'll talk about in the next slide. So because of the short life, we're pursuing both short and long-term solutions to increase landfill capacity. So for the vertical expansion, um, we are going to increase the height of phase two, um, which is the um Malka side of the landfill by 50 feet. And we have put in a proposed uh draft environmental assessment, we've published the final EA, and um we've found no significant impacts, also known as a Fonzi. Right now, the State Department of Health is um reviewing the permit, and that that will provide capacity for an additional three years. So we're looking at the end of 2030 is when the landfill is scheduled to be closed at that area. So here's a picture of what that vertical expansion would look like. So to the left is the phase one landfill, which is the unlined portion of the landfill, and phase two is the line portion. In the middle of those is where we're actively filling the landfill at this time, but um that permit will allow us to go up vertically 50 feet to get another three years. So we do need landfill space, we're working on an expansion over phase one. We have um approval of a time extension for our conservation district use permit from BLNR to expand that area, which I'm just gonna shuffle back on the slide, the area to the left. Right now it's uh about 50 feet in height. We'd be able to go up to 85 feet if we got um all of if everything falls into place. So we're working with our consultant TetraTech. Um they've assessed that proposed height as well as others to determine capacity and also we're looking at the permitting pathways to do that because um we do need to get um land use permits and DOH approval and things like that. Um at that, at the 85 foot height that's permitted. We could get um about 16 years of landfill life if we're successfully to do that expansion. And what the what this would entail is a construction process where we open the cover to the landfill and we reconsolidate the waste so that it slopes toward the leachate collection, the leachate collection sumps to allow collection and recovery of any leech aid, and we would install an overliner because it is unlined. So this whole process would take about four years to implement. So we're well within the limit that DLNR gave us to start to open that phase or to complete construction, and that would be 2031. And so we can make that deadline. So another way that we're looking to be able to extend the life of any landfill is to assess the feasibility of having a technology for long-term management, an alternative technology for long-term management of MSW. And so we've been working working with our consultant HDR, who actually published a study which is on our website about different technologies that are out there that could potentially do this process.
openpublica.com