The Big Island Sewer Plant Where Everything Went Wrong – Honolulu Civil Beat

Report on the Proposed Mālama One Plastics Recycling Facility in Hawaiʻi County

Introduction

A proposal to establish Hawaiʻi’s first bulk plastic recycling plant, the Mālama One Recycling project, is currently under scrutiny in Hawaiʻi County. The project, while aligned with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) concerning responsible production and innovation, faces significant opposition due to environmental concerns that conflict with other critical SDGs, particularly those related to health, clean water, and ecosystem preservation. The Hawaiʻi County Environmental Management Commission has formally requested a pause on all project approvals pending the establishment of state-level regulations for micro- and nanoplastic pollution.

Project Overview and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Project Details

• Proponent: Mālama One Recycling
• Location: Shipman Business Park, Keaʻau, Hawaiʻi County
• Investment: $20 million
• Scope: To process approximately 4,000 tons of imported HI-5 polyethylene terephthalate (PET) beverage containers annually.
• Process: The facility plans to clean plastic containers using water and friction, melt the resulting PET into pellets, and manufacture “preforms” for new beverage bottles. The process is described as a “zero liquid discharge system.”

Stated Contributions to Sustainable Development Goals

The project proponents assert that the facility will advance several SDGs by addressing systemic waste management issues in Hawaiʻi:

1. SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): By creating a local, circular economy for plastics, the facility aims to reduce waste and promote sustainable supply chains, directly supporting Target 12.5 to substantially reduce waste generation through recycling.
2. SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): The plant represents an investment in sustainable industrial infrastructure, fostering innovation in local waste management and manufacturing.
3. SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The project intends to divert a significant volume of plastic from the county landfill, contributing to more sustainable waste management systems within the community.

Environmental Concerns and Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

Primary Concerns Voiced by Stakeholders

Despite its potential benefits, the project has raised alarms among county officials, environmental groups, and the public. Key concerns include:

• Micro- and Nanoplastic Contamination: The primary objection is the potential for the recycling process to discharge micro- and nanoplastics into the environment, a significant pollutant with known ecological impacts.
• Regulatory Gaps: The State of Hawaiʻi currently lacks specific rules governing the discharge of micro- and nanoplastics, creating a regulatory vacuum for such a facility.
• Process Transparency: Officials have expressed concern over a lack of detailed information regarding the recycling process, particularly the management of sludge byproduct and the veracity of the “zero liquid discharge” claim.
• Wastewater Discharge: The State Department of Health (DOH) is requiring the facility to install a pre-treatment system to remove microplastics from wastewater before discharge, contradicting the proponent’s claim of a zero-discharge system.

Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

These environmental risks place the project in direct conflict with the objectives of several SDGs:

• SDG 14 (Life Below Water) & SDG 15 (Life on Land): The potential discharge of microplastics poses a direct threat to marine and terrestrial ecosystems, undermining efforts to conserve and sustainably use natural resources.
• SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation): Concerns about contaminated wastewater and sludge threaten the availability and sustainable management of clean water.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Microplastics are recognized as an emerging contaminant with potential risks to human health through the food chain and water supply.

Stakeholder Positions and Official Recommendations

Commission Recommendation

The Hawaiʻi County Environmental Management Commission has formally urged county officials to pause all actions related to the Mālama One project. The commission’s recommendation is contingent upon the following conditions being met:

1. The State Department of Health establishes comprehensive permitting procedures for plastic recycling facilities.
2. The State Department of Health promulgates specific rules governing the discharge of micro- and nanoplastic pollution.

Government and Community Stance

• Hawaiʻi County Officials: Expressed a need for more information and caution, citing that the project’s claims seem “too good to be true.”
• State Department of Health (DOH): While determining that the facility falls outside the jurisdiction of its Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch, the DOH Wastewater Branch has mandated a microplastic pre-treatment system, indicating regulatory oversight is necessary.
• Community Groups: Organizations such as Recycle Hawaiʻi have labeled the project “the wrong thing” in the absence of robust environmental regulations.

Conclusion

The Mālama One Recycling project exemplifies a complex challenge in sustainable development, where an initiative aimed at advancing circular economy principles (SDG 12) and industrial innovation (SDG 9) simultaneously poses significant risks to environmental health and clean water (SDG 3, 6, 14, 15). The prevailing recommendation from county environmental bodies is to prioritize precautionary principles, demanding a robust regulatory framework be established before the project proceeds. Achieving a sustainable outcome will require transparent dialogue and partnership between the developer, regulatory agencies, and the community, in line with the principles of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), to ensure that industrial development does not compromise foundational environmental health.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The core of the article is about managing plastic waste through a new recycling facility. This directly relates to sustainable consumption and production patterns, specifically waste management and recycling. The project aims to process 4,000 tons of plastic beverage containers, addressing the “tremendous waste problem” mentioned.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • A primary concern raised by critics is the potential release of contaminants, specifically “micro- and nanoplastics,” into the environment. As Hawaiʻi is an island state, any pollution discharged into wastewater systems or the ground has a high potential to reach the ocean, connecting the issue directly to the prevention of marine pollution from land-based activities.
3. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • The debate over the facility’s wastewater is a key theme. The Department of Health (DOH) is requiring the company to install a “pre-treatment system to remove microplastics from the water” before it is discharged. This highlights the goal of improving water quality by reducing pollution and treating wastewater.
4. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • The article discusses the development of new, local infrastructure—a “$20 million project” to create Hawaiʻi’s “first bulk recycling plant for plastic.” This represents an investment in industrial infrastructure aimed at creating a more sustainable and circular economy (“a sustainable, dependable supply chain”). The controversy centers on whether this innovation is truly clean and environmentally sound.
5. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The project is intended to improve waste management for Hawaiʻi County by diverting plastics from the local landfill. This directly addresses the challenge of managing municipal waste in communities. The public and official pushback also reflects the community’s role in ensuring sustainable urban development.
6. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article explicitly mentions that micro- and nanoplastics are being studied as a “potential health risk” and that the commission is concerned about their “long-term impacts on human health.” This connects the potential pollution from the plant to the goal of reducing illnesses from water and soil contamination.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.
   • The Mālama One project’s plan to process “about 4,000 tons of that plastic” annually is a direct effort to increase recycling and reduce the amount of plastic waste that would otherwise be shipped out of state or sent to a landfill.
2. Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris…
   • The call by the Hawaiʻi County Environmental Management Commission for a pause until the state establishes rules “regulating discharge of micro- and nanoplastics” is directly aimed at preventing a new source of land-based marine pollution.
3. Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.
   • The DOH’s requirement for Mālama One to “design and install a pre-treatment system to remove microplastics from the water used in its recycling process before that water is discharged” is a specific action to reduce pollution and improve the quality of discharged wastewater.
4. Target 9.4: By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes…
   • The project itself is an attempt to create sustainable industrial infrastructure. However, the public concern and official scrutiny question whether the proposed technology—specifically its “zero liquid discharge system” and management of byproducts—is sufficiently “clean and environmentally sound.”
5. Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
   • The facility aims to improve municipal waste management by providing a local solution for plastic recycling, thus diverting waste from the county landfill. The debate centers on ensuring this solution does not create a new, adverse environmental impact through pollution.
6. Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
   • The commission’s letter citing the “potential long-term impacts of microplastics and nanoplastics on human health” directly links the regulation of the plant’s discharge to protecting public health from pollution.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Amount of plastic recycled: The article states the plant will “process about 4,000 tons of that plastic” annually. This is a direct quantitative indicator for measuring progress towards Target 12.5.
2. Level of microplastic discharge: The entire controversy revolves around the “discharge of micro- and nanoplastics.” An implied indicator is the concentration and volume of these particles in the facility’s wastewater, which would need to be measured to ensure compliance with future regulations and the effectiveness of the DOH-required pre-treatment system (relevant to Targets 6.3 and 14.1).
3. Waste diversion rate from landfills: The article mentions the project would “divert some plastics from the county landfill.” The amount of particulate matter and sludge from the recycling process that is sent to the landfill (“Doyle said he does not know how much particulate matter would be left over”) versus the amount of plastic recycled is a key indicator of the project’s overall efficiency in reducing waste (relevant to Targets 11.6 and 12.5).
4. Investment in sustainable infrastructure: The “$20 million project” cost is an indicator of financial investment in new recycling infrastructure, which is relevant for tracking progress towards Target 9.4.
5. Establishment of environmental regulations: The call for the state DOH to “establish permitting procedures” and “promulgate rules governing discharge of micro- and nanoplastic pollution” is a policy-based indicator. The existence and enforcement of such rules would measure progress in protecting health and the environment (relevant to Targets 3.9, 6.3, and 14.1).

4. Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: civilbeat.org