Group Memory - August 10, 2006

GROUP MEMORY

EIS Public Scoping Meetings
Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill Expansion
Thursday, August 10, 2006
6:30 PM – 8:30 PM
Kapolei Hale

Welcome and Introductions, Meeting Overview, Purpose, and Guidelines Adoption

The facilitator welcomed and thanked everyone for attending this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Public Scoping Meeting for the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill (here in after Waimanalo Gulch) Expansion. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a list of concerns and issues from the community that need to be addressed in the EIS process.

The facilitator explained that comments from previous meetings were consolidated and posted for meeting participants to review. Comments made at this meeting will be recorded on the newsprint at the front of the meeting and then consolidated with earlier comments from other meetings. After this meeting, the issues will be added to the consolidated issues sheet and, along with the Group Memory from this meeting, will be posted on the City and County’s website (web address: www.opala.org). Finally, the facilitator explained that questions will be answered, time permitting, and that questions not answered will be posted on the City and County’s website along with answers.

The following people were in attendance and introduced: Wilma Namumnart from the Refuse Division of the Department of Environmental Services; Brian Takeda and Kevin Polloi from R.M. Towill Corporation, who is serving as the City’s EIS consultant; and Russell Nanod from Waste Management of Hawaii.

Representative Michael Kahikina and Councilmember Todd Apo were acknowledged as being present in the audience when the meeting began. Senator Colleen Hanabusa arrived about 7PM.

Handouts provided included the meeting agenda, a tentative EIS public input schedule, a summary of the comments made from previous meetings, and comment forms. Written comments will be accepted until August 30, 2006 by sending the comment forms to the address provided on the form (City and County of Honolulu, Department of Environmental Services, Refuse Division, 1000 Uluohia Street, Suite 212, Kapolei, Hawaii 96707).

It was explained that four EIS Public Scoping meetings were held on the following dates: (1) July 10th at Nanakuli High and Intermediate School; (2) July 11th at Benjamin Parker Elementary School; (3) July 27th at Mission Memorial Auditorium and (4) August 10th at Kapolei Hale (Meeting rescheduled from July 28th due to a conflict with the Neighborhood Board meeting date for that area). Once the public scoping meetings are completed, an EIS Preparation Notice will be posted in August/September 2006 on the website with a link to the document, and a 30-day public comment period will be provided for community members to send in their written comments. The anticipated completion date for the Draft EIS (DEIS) is the end of 2006 / early 2007. DEIS Public Workshops will be held within 10 days of publication of the DEIS. Once these workshops are completed, a 45-day comment period will be provided before the final EIS is set to be completed by mid-2007.

An overview of the meeting agenda was posted and reviewed by the facilitator and included the following:

· Meeting Overview
· Remarks by Department of Environmental Services
· Development of Scoping Issues and Questions
· Summary and Meeting Wrap-Up
· Adjournment and Thank You

The following meeting guidelines were presented by the facilitator and accepted
by the group:

· Courtesy to each other.
· Share the O2. Give everyone an opportunity to talk.
· It’s okay to disagree.
· Focus on the issue.

Remarks by the City and County of Honolulu, Department of Environmental Services, Refuse Division

Wilma Namumnart, Assistant Chief of the Refuse Division of the City and County of Honolulu’s Department of Environmental Services thanked everyone for attending the public scoping meeting and stated that she wants to hear the concerns to be addressed in the DEIS. An apology was extended to all who attempted to get information off of the website prior to the meeting, but due to technical difficulties, the website was not available.

This is an island-wide issue, so preparation of the EIS has involved community input from other scoping meetings on Oahu, including communities that are directly affected because of their close proximity to the landfill and other communities that are located further away but are still dependent on the landfill. Two of the four public scoping meetings are being held in the Leeward/Waianae region, including Nanakuli High and Intermediate School held on July 10th and Kapolei Hale – tonight’s meeting, and the other public scoping meetings were held at the Benjamin Parker Elementary School in Windward Oahu on July 11th and at the Mission Memorial Auditorium in Honolulu on July 27th.

A number of events have happened since 2003, when the last EIS for the expansion of the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill was completed. It was acknowledged that some of the meeting participants are probably dismayed that Waimanalo Gulch is not closing and was selected in December 2004 as the landfill site. However, in 2006, Mayor Hannemann vetoed Bill 037, which sought to close the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill. Reasons cited for his decision were that a new landfill site will not be ready by 2008, and for the foreseeable future, the City needs to have a landfill site that is able to handle municipal solid waste, H-POWER ash and residue, and other refuse that cannot be further reduced, recycled, or reused. Waimanalo Gulch was determined to be the best alternative from an environmental and cost standpoint. Not everyone agrees with this decision, thus, the focus for the four Public Scoping meetings is to identify the concerns and issues that should be considered in the EIS process for the expansion of this facility.

Last fiscal year, Oahu generated over 1.76 million tons of waste, of which 600,000 tons was converted to electricity at H-POWER; about 500,000 tons were recycled; over 200,000 tons went to construction and private landfills, and the remaining tonnage was sent to the existing municipal landfill at Waimanalo Gulch. Every day over 1,500 tons of refuse and ash from H-POWER must be landfilled. This need and its importance in maintaining public health and safety is the reason for seeking the expansion of Waimanalo Gulch.

It was also announced that a Request for Proposals (RFP) for alternative technologies for the handling of solid waste will be issued by the City on October 1, 2006. Since October 1, 2006 falls on Sunday, the date will be changed to either Friday, September 29, 2006 or Monday, October 2, 2006. The RFP is something the City has long worked on and will help to address previous public comments made that more needs to be done to consider alternative technologies for the handling of refuse.

Development of Scoping Issues and Questions/Comments:

ISSUES:

The following comments were made and issues were identified for inclusion in the DEIS:
· Farrington Highway’s appearance is deplorable and unsafe
· The State of Hawaii denies the condition exists; has disapproved claims of automobile damage due to the condition - situation has existed for 15 years and
not dealing with it is gross negligence
· There is a question about who is responsible for this section of Farrington Highway. Some at the meeting felt that this section had been turned over to the landfill operator to maintain
· State of Hawaii has set low standards for maintenance of highway as safe
operating area; there is no credible reason for not maintaining the highway
· Higher standards are needed for maintaining dust/debris/rocks/stones
· Leeward Coast needs to stand up; State of Hawaii needs to claim highway
· Worried about environmental impacts and potential hazardous incidents
· Concern that it is difficult for a local firm to be neutral, and provide honest, pure
full disclosure for EIS, including honest evaluation of risks
· Need to address fines imposed by EPA (i.e., asbestos storage, record-keeping,
locating old problems)
· Structure/stability of landfill a concern – leachate problems can lead to loss of
lives, health impacts, closure of highway
· Need to include monitoring of methane gas levels (i.e., explosions, air quality)
· Need to address overfilling of the landfill site
· Recommend rigid standards to ensure protection of the public’s safety and health
– how will they be monitored?
· Need regular monitoring by City and County of Honolulu’s Department of
Environmental Services
· Need every federal/state/local law that affect landfill operations to be included in the EIS
· Need to minimize the waste that goes into Waimanalo Gulch
· H-POWER resources exist but are not enough – need to increase H-POWER
capacity and explore use of ash (i.e., aggregate)
· Maeda Timson not allowed to go to landfill or Dept. of Environmental Services unescorted
· Want mainland consulting firm to take the EIS and make connections with other
jurisdictions that have addressed landfills
· Need to extend comment periods and hold user-friendly public meetings to
explain EIS
· Need solution that addresses lost revenues to the city should the solid waste go to a private landfill
· City must explain why we are here – other meetings have been held in the past which promised closure of the landfill and it is still open (i.e., December 2002)
· People need to understand that they need to participate in the comment period, and provide comments that are very specific
· Draft EIS must address how the landfill operations got to the point where it was fined $2.8 million by EPA
· Same consultant has prepared prior landfill reports; need an explanation regarding recommendation relating to 20 years without excavation (Previous expansions have involved excavations)
· Need to address Waste Management’s 1999 contract between Mayor Harris and Waste Management
· Need clarity between landfill and airspace
· Need to address stability of the slope and the “Great Wall of Waimanalo Gulch” (i.e., rock berm that has been created due to non-compliance with height requirements)
· Need to include compliance and monitoring; currently capacity has already been exceeded
· Need to address the relationship between Waimanalo Gulch and Nanakuli B and what the City and County will do. They don't need both.
· Need to address fiscal impacts to City’s income if the landfill is closed – as related to tipping fees
· Need to address trans-shipping of waste
· Need to include serious discussion of alternatives, how to control waste stream, what can be done to address issue as an island
· Need to review recent State of Hawaii Supreme Court case regarding State Department of Health responsibility for water quality in relation to how it is being affected by the landfill, e.g. runoff to ocean
· Need to look at rubbish control, sludge issues – why and how it will get better
· Need to address where the soil will go; excavation as related to airspace, location of asbestos (where is it?), methane gases
· Need to explain why the community should believe the City at this point and why promises have not been kept
· Need to look at expanding H-POWER’s capacity since it is already beyond capacity
· Need to include in the consolidated issues summary: Leachate pumped out to sewer treatment plant and what happens to it and what is its effect on the final outflow water quality from the sewer treatment plant
· Need to address who will be responsible for enforcement of EIS and what guarantees will be made within the EIS
· Need to include status of compliance with current permit – by modifying the permit, are we negating prior violations? It should not be allowed – inappropriate.
· Landfill should not be going above ridge lines, which can be seen from Waianae
· If expansion moves forward, retention basin, leachate and gas monitoring systems are needed
· The location of various items such as asbestos are within the landfill need to be addressed in the EIS
· Need specific operational plan for soil cover
· Need to address future ash monofills
· Need to have information about chemical composition of ash – why it is not being used for asphalt
· Need to address basic concern regarding why the community should believe that this is any different from prior promises – community needs reasons
· Waimanalo Gulch should be closed as soon as possible; community should not have to go through another battle
· H-POWER has never failed any EPA tests; and DOH has had the paperwork to allow reuse of the ash for six years and has not done anything
· Because of our tourist economy, average amount of waste generated per person is 7 pounds per day instead of the 4 pounds per day national average
· In addition to expanding H-POWER, need to improve curbside recycling. Public needs to go to the powers that be and ask questions, demand action.
· Need to address use of tipping fees to explore/expand alternatives – this was the intent of the fund and it has been raided for other uses
· H-POWER trash is fuel – facility can go anywhere and should consider building in other areas
· EIS needs to provide factual/historical information for issue such as 2004 landfill decision to close Waimanalo Gulch by 2008, and issuance by Land Use Commission of operating permit for 2003-2008 with mandate to close Waimanalo Gulch by 2008
· Need to revise summary of consolidated issues, page 2 (Todd Apo re promise to close Waimanalo Gulch in 2003)
· Need to expand H-POWER and use the newest technology available
· Need to address all available technologies, differences proposed in earlier EIS and now – need to find viable alternatives
· Need to address all violations imposed by DOH via $2.8 million fine
· Need to discuss comprehensively the leachate management system, including possible failure of geo-membrane lining system and how it will be taken care of
· Need to address water quality issues (i.e., mud and runoff), trash that escapes to the ocean and hampers marine life
· Need to speed up action on alternatives
· Because Hawaii is an island state, has a finite area, is like paradise, need to be at the cutting edge in terms of how problem is addressed
· Need to address Solid Waste Management Plan which deals with all issues
· Need to consult County of Hawaii who has just completed review of 61 alternatives and chosen 3 proven technologies to address same issue
· EIS needs to reinforce that regulations need to be followed as well as look at other types of waste disposal
· Need to look at technology that can address what goes into landfill, as a means of cleaning out the contents

Questions which were asked and answered at the meeting include the following:

Q: How much advance notice will be provided relating to public workshops?
A: Once Draft EIS is published, public workshops will be held within 10 days of publishing barring holidays and conflict. In response to a previous question on timing the 45 day comment period, it will not start until after the public workshops are completed. As noted in your handout the Draft EIS is anticipated to be available in late 2006/early 2007. The document will be posted on the website www.opala.org as will the date/time/place of public workshops.

Q: Who will be accepting the EIS?
A: Mayor Hanneman and City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and
Permitting will accept EIS.

Questions which were asked as part of the comment section but not answered are noted below. Responses will be posted shortly.

Q: Who is responsible for the maintenance of Farrington Highway in front of the Landfill?
Q: What is the status of the current fines at the landfill?
Q: Who monitors the landfill and what are the monitoring criteria and schedule?
Q: What is the process for visiting the landfill should anyone want to go?
Q: Why is the city not honoring its commitment to close the landfill in 2008?
Q: Why did the previous assessment of landfill sites not include excavation costs for the expansion as excavation was needed for the current site?
Q: What were the provisions of the contract between Mayor Harris and Waste Management that impact on the current expansion?
Q: Why was the rock berm built at the landfill and will the expansion create the need for more of these?
Q: Has the capacity at the landfill been exceeded if so why was that allowed to happen?
Q: Has the capacity of H-POWER been exceeded?
Q: What is the status of permit modifications and have they been utilized to negate prior violations – if so why?
Q: Was a portion or all of the tipping fees suppose to be earmarked for developing alternatives and if so how much and was this fund used for other purposes by the Harris administration and if so what and why?

There were no more issues and the meeting closed at 8:00.