Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> Motion amended and seconded: Vice Chair Olson moved to create a subcommittee <br />to formulate a monitoring program for the R-1 treatment process, and Commissioner <br />Pequeño seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Discussion: Chair Bennett said the subcommittee could study whether the plans are <br />congruent with the EMC’s hopes. The public assertion has been made that the two <br />components are going to reduce the nutrients by 90%, and a monitoring system should be <br />developed that will track that to make sure they’re in the ballpark. If they’re not in the <br />ballpark, adjustments will be needed. He wants to make sure there is a mechanism in place <br />to detect if the system is not functioning properly. He called for a vote. <br /> <br /> Vote: All commissioners voted aye. <br /> <br />6. REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE <br /> <br />a. Chair’s report on pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) <br />in wastewater and the effects of treatments for their removal. <br /> <br /> Chair Bennett said the subject of PPCPs in wastewater has been gaining global <br />attention, as some of the chemicals have potentially profound effects on the environment. <br />At the same time, it is scientifically impossible to look at the vast list of different chemicals <br />and definitively state what is going on. He has been advising people that until such a time <br />as one or two of the chemicals emerge as a significant threat, they need to be patient and <br />not run around saying everything needs to be measured. Encouraging data is showing that <br />most of the chemicals are nearly 100% degraded in the wastewater treatment process. <br /> <br /> b. Director’s Informational Report. <br /> <br /> Director Kucharski welcomed Dr. John Burns as a new commissioner and thanked <br />him for answering the call to serve the community. <br /> <br />• Status of the proposed Pāhala and Nāālehu Wastewater Treatment Plants: ʻThere <br />have been some changes with the EPA’s cross-cutting requirements that are <br />related to the use of State Revolving Funds. SRF funds are federal funds given to <br />the state, which the state then gives to the counties at a very low interest rate. <br />Most of DEM’s infrastructure projects are funded through SRFs, including the <br />Pāhala and Nāālehu WWTPs. There is a ʻnew requirement that if federal funds <br />are going to be involved, the historical review has to be completed before any <br />intrusive investigations can be done. The State Historical Preservation Division <br />(SHPD) has been taking a long time to do these reviews because they, like DEM, <br />are under a shortage of personnel. The Pāhala EA cannot be completed until the <br />SHPD review is done and approval is given. The project schedules are being <br />pushed back because of this. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />