My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008-11-24 TDLNR
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2008
>
2008-11-24 TDLNR
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 3:53:16 PM
Creation date
6/14/2011 3:53:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
basically a holding tank and, instead of an anaerobic condition where the wastewater is broken <br />down without oxygen, it creates a more aerobic environment that stimulates, I guess, more <br />bacteria growth to cut down the nutrients; the bacteria would break down the nutrients in the <br />wastewater. But it’s going to be still disposed of by a leach field. This provides a little bit of <br />additional protection, but right now that only works if the system is functioning properly. It does <br />require more maintenance, and seeing the way our boating maintenance works due to the high <br />cost, I mean, if we don’t maintain the system properly, I really don’t think that there will be <br />much benefit over the regular septic tank system. <br />WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Yuen -. <br />IWASHITA: Can I follow up? <br />WATANABE: Sure. <br />IWASHITA: What you described before, the anaerobic, that’s actually what Aquatic <br />Resources is asking for, a tank system? <br />WATANABE: No. <br />IWASHITA: An enclosed tank system? <br />WATANABE: No. <br />IWASHITA: That’s different? <br />WATANABE: Yeah. <br />IWASHITA: But with an enclosed tank system which then everything is shipped out, <br />gets pumped and shipped someplace else? <br />YUASA: Yes, that’s correct. <br />IWASHITA: Right? So basically Aquatic Resources is saying this is important enough, <br />we think it should all be taken away; that’s what it’s asking for. And we are saying that we want <br />this additional protection, which require maintenance, require cost, but it’s better and provides, <br />when properly maintained – if it’s a condition, I think we’ve got to put in “properly maintained” <br />as a condition of granting this – then it should be better, right, for reducing the filtration of <br />nutrients. <br />YUASA: Unfortunately – we try to discuss things among our different sister <br />divisions before it goes to the public – but in this case we’ve sent many letters to Division of <br />Aquatic Resources for comments during the EA pre-consultation, during the draft EA and even <br />the final EA, but even after the final EA was published in June 2008, we still haven’t, we didn’t <br />get any comments from Division of Aquatic Resources. We got comments on September 19, <br />2008. And I want to add that this project was advertised in May 2008, bids were opened in June, <br />EXHIBIT E <br />9 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.