2001-09-05 Enviromental Management Commission Minutes

Home

Minutes for Wednesday, September 5, 2001Page 3 of 5 this commission become ex-officio members of the SWAC. They will have notice of the meetings. They may not have a vote on that committee, but they would at least be able to ask questions which members of the public may not be able to ask. Jon Olson, a member of the subcommittee, believes that it is up to the Commission to hear directly from the contractors because it is your official obligation to make a decision. DRAFT RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC SEWER AT KAUMANA GARDENS SUBDIVISION, AINAKO AINA-NANI, PUUEO, KOMOHANA HEIGHTS, AND KALANIANAOLE PHASE II Carolyn Witcher moves that we add to the agenda discussion of the draft resolutions concerning sewerline extensions. Mack Asato seconds. Motion is unanimously carried. Galen Kuba, Acting Director for the Department of Environmental Management, deferred for further information and clarification with Mayor Harry Kim. Carolyn withdrew her motion. Mack withdrew his second. LETTER TO THOMAS ARIZUMI OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PeterBoucher stated that this is a letter responding to an operation and maintenance inspection of the Hilo Wastewater Treatment Plant. The main reason for getting an unacceptable rating was because of the non- compliance with the Pretreatment Program requirements. The federal regulations detail how you control the quality of the influent sewage at our treatment plant with regards to your waste. Our argument is that we don’t think we fall under those requirements because we don’t have any significant industrial users. Essentially, the Department of Health agrees with us and we are no longer required to go through that program. This issue should go away. However, because of this, we have started having discussions with the consultants for implementing a program which would require rewriting the sewer code. There are so many issues and regulations overlapping. It is too messy. It is better to throw out the entire sewer code and rewrite the sewer code based on the pretreatment regulations. Several years ago, we were 75% through that process, but it was never completed. Basically, our presentation to the Council will include the old, the new, and an explanation on handling the issue. The O&M Report should be considered a report card. It is not actually a notice of violation. Carolyn Witcher questions why so many consultants are required to do what she considers the Department’s job coming up with the appropriate sewer code. Why is everything out to consultants? Peter responded that there is only one engineer to design projects, project planning phases, regulatory requirements, the permits, reports, etc. They are just very understaffed. This is too much work to be placed on one engineer. Peter Martin stated that Peter Boucher may be in compliance with the spirit of the law and may have other issues that impact this. Why doesn’t the Department of Health just respond to Peter’s explanation for the things that are unacceptable? Riley puts perspective on how the Department of Health operates. DOH administers the EPA rules. The EPA delegates to the State DOH to monitor the NPDES permits which dictates what you can put in the ocean. In that permit, there are certain parameters that you have to follow. One of them is the 85% removal and the other one is what Peter talked about the 30 mg per liter BOD and suspended solids. The more critical one of the two is the 30/30 requirement. The 85% removal is more a requirement because EPA is concerned about people diluting their sewage so that it is weaker. An indication of your infiltration is how much fresh water enters your system. There are two things you have to do. One is that you have to meet the NPDES permit when you discharge into the ocean, which Peter is saying they do, except that there are some problems periodically with the 85% removal. The other part is the DOH report which is more like an file://C:\Test1\minutes090501.htm6/22/2011