Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN RAWEEMC 2021/02/16 2020-2022Committee on Regenerative Agriculture, Water, Energy & Environmental Management Yd Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii February 16, 2021 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Regenerative Agriculture, Water, ORDER: Energy and Environmental Management was called to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Chair (via videoconference from Kona) Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Vice Chair (via videoconference from Kona) Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member (came in later) Ms. Maile David, Member (via videoconference from Kona) Mr. Matt Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member (came in later) Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (via videoconference from Kona) STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: COMMUNI- CATIONS : Change Order of Business: Chair Richards directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. (There were none.) The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Communications. As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Committee Members, the following item was taken out of order. Comm. 106: REAPPOINTMENT OF MELISSA CARDWELL TO THE ENVIRONMENTTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION From Acting Mayor Lee E. Lord, dated January 27, 2021, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: March 13, 2021 (Section 13-4(k), Hawaii County Charter) RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 Vote on Comm. 106: Mr. Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to recommend (Approved) confirmation of the appointment of Ms. Melissa Cardwell to the Environmental Management Commission. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kdneali `i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas and Chair Richards — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Mr. Richards informed Ms. Cardwell that she does not need to appear at the Council meeting for the final confirmation of her appointment. Comm. 98: REQUESTS A PRESENTATION FROM THE DEAPRTMETN OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING THE CURRENT STATUS, PALNS, AND TIMELINE FOR THE KEALAKEHE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT From Council Member Holeka Goro Inaba, dated December 28, 2020. Motion to Close File: Mr. Inaba moved to close file on Comm. 98. Seconded by Ms. David. CHR. RICHARDS: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Mahalo, Chair Richards. I believe we have Director Mansour of the Department of Environmental Management in Hilo chambers. Mr. Mansour, mahalo nui for being here today. I called for this communication as we know the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in District 8, and is a priority for a lot of us here in Kona and Mayor Roth as well throughout his journey to become Mayor. And I believe you fall under the most qualified people to help us with this project. So being that Mr. Mansour has had the opportunity to be in his position now for a little over two months. I ask you, Mr. Mansour, take it away with this wonderful presentation you've prepared. MS. VILLEGAS: Excuse me. Just one second. My apologies. Clerk, I'm just being notified by staff that there's no sound on the live stream. MR. BROWN: Excuse me, Chair. CHR. RICHARDS: Yeah, go ahead. Page 2 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 MR. BROWN: You mind taking a quick recess? We're having an audio issue on our stream. CHR. RICHARDS: Okay. We're in recess. Recess: At 9:41 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 9:42 a.m. CHR. RICHARDS: We are back in session. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Mahalo. Just wanted to thank, Mr. Mansour for being here. He's prepared a presentation to give us an update on the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. So I'll hand it over to Director Mansour at this time. Mahalo. (Note: At this time, Environmental Management Director Ramzi Mansour came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. MANSOUR: Aloha, Chairman Richards and Committee Members. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to give you kind of an update on the Kealakehe Waste Treatment Plan. And I got here with me, Mr. Takamura to also kind of help us in giving some of the background of the facilities. CHR. RICHARDS: Mr. Mansour, a little closer to your mic please. MR. MANSOUR: Okay. I'll try to get as close as I can. Let me know if it doesn't go through. So we're going to give you a little bit of a background about the facility. (Note: At this time, Environmental Management Director Ramzi Mansour and Deputy Director Eric Takamura came forward and provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the subject presentation, see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 98. 1.) MR. MANSOUR: And mahalo. And I'm ready to answer any questions you may have. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Director. So with that, I'm going to open this up for questions. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, Ramzi. And again, mahalo for giving Council Member Villegas and I a tour of the Wastewater Treatment Plant last week. It's my understanding that we—is this correct, that we created a position recently so that we can have a master plan created for our sewage? Page 3 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 MR. MANSOUR: That is correct. We had the position usually for the Puna area, but because it's half funded by the grant the other half is going to be able to help us generate master plans for the entire system, yes. MR. INABA: Okay. Great. I'm sorry, I just have questions as you presented, so they're not all cohesive, they might be a little bit all over the place. But the next question is, the lining you said for the wastewater or for those lagoons were replaced in 2017 and that was the first time they were replaced, was the same material used as the initial lining? MR. MANSOUR: Yes. Usually you use the same material because once you adhere it—what we call it is a fusion welding. So some of the areas may have a tear, so you have to go in there and cut the tear and put another patch on it and it created a fusion welding around it. And so it has to be the same type of material. These materials are good material. That liner is about, you know, like 20 years lifespan. They use them for landfills, they use them for water recreational areas, and also for wastewater. MR. INABA: Okay. You mentioned hot spots in our line. Where are those two miles of hot spots that we need to address? MR. MANSOUR: I believe they're scattered. But Eric, maybe you could address it better? MR. TAKAMURA: Well one of the areas is that stretch of sewer right in front of King Kamehameha Hotel down to, I guess that was Hilo Hattie's before, Hualalai—that stretch of road. Then there's another area by our Waiaha Pump Station. There's about 1,400 lineal feet of gravity sewer we need to clean out, and check their condition. But those areas are below the—if we use high tide at plus two and a half feet, mean sea level. So those sewers are below that elevation. So we want to try and stop the infiltration inflow of seawater into our sewers. So those are the primary. It's mostly along Alii Drive. MR. INABA: Mahalo. For the 7,000 cesspools that we have on the west, on this side, what's kind of a plan for that? Whoever has an answer for that, to try and convert that more quickly into getting these people on our system? MR. MANSOUR: Yes. Our goal is to convert every person that lives along the shoreline, and they have accessibility to shoreline, to connect. The current ordinance allows for a 24 -month extension, and I do believe most of these probably have some extension granted to them. Our goal is definitely to investigate that further, identify the areas and the homes that are not connected and start issuing letters. And it depends if they are already within the 24 -month extension, we'll wait till the time expires. If the time expires, we need to take action. We'll work with Corporation Counsel in generating a type of enforcement letters to them. Page 4 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 MR. INABA: Okay. And last question for me. I know the master plan is needing to be created. Do you—and you said that we need to kind of figure out funding, do you have any ideas right now on ways that we can create a sustainable funding system for our wastewater treatment here in the County? MR. MANSOUR: We at this moment, there's so many ideas that are floating around. The goal is USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) funding, State Revolving Funds, EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). So we're looking at all possibilities. But once we get the master plan, we're really going to have a better idea of where the money needs to be spent and how much we need. Currently, trying to tie in $160 million on a project that may not give us that much benefit from what we have now. Currently, we could reuse the same water we have. But we don't have to spray it, or we could spray it after hours and we don't have to do the $160 million. That energy and the fund, could reallocate to other priorities we may have such as fixing the operational issues. Definitely, we need to pay attention on how to manage the operations so we could get a better effluent coming out'of the operation of that treatment plant. We need to fix all of our infrastructures that's been failing. So the master plan, is going to be a regional master plan. It's going to include priorities of all projects that we have. And it is very important to the Department of Health, and EPA. We just had a meeting with them last week, and they want us to commit of how we're going to get to that point and how we're going to create these important programs such as the pretreatment program. And they asked us to sit down and give them an answer in a week, if we are ready to sit down with them and negotiate a timeline because they were ready to finance. So the idea is we have so many things that we're juggling in the air now, and trying to put an understanding around the entire issues. MR. INABA: Okay. Mahalo, Mr. Mansour. That's all the questions I have. Chair, I yield. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Any other questions? Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Chair. Aloha, Mr. Mansour. Thank you for being here today, and thank you for the time that you've spent with myself and Mr. Inaba last week touring the wastewater treatment facility. It was really enlightening to see first-hand the conditions that the staff there works under. There's been a lack of facilities for them to be able to work more efficiently, and effectively. And also the amazing work that's done with so little and how they make their resources and extend the life of the equipment for as long as they do. Also to see the whole process, and smell the process from its way in to where it gets dumped. I mean for years I myself have been a member, one of the starring members of the local Surfrider chapter. It's been very contentious, the pouring of Page 5 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 that water into that sum spot up mauka. But to see the water itself and its clarity, and to understand the process more fully was very helpful. However, you know, I also really want to commend you. You've just been a real bright light inclusion into this cabinet, our new Mayor's cabinet. And your ability to identify opportunities, to think about some of these projects differently, as we look at, you know, $160 million we know that we don't really have that in the budget at the moment to spend on this project. But to diversify, and to think outside the box and to identify other opportunities along District 7, along Alii Drive. This is a primary area of focus. Thank you for identifying those two miles of especially leaky lines, which are causing damage to our ecosystems and oceans there. But the opportunity to transition what could potentially be such a huge spend into something that is more effective, and that we could have the opportunity to use this R-2 water in its current state and capacity, and instead transition the focus and the resources to fixing those sewer lines that do exist already on Alii Drive. And then ideally, also focusing on some energy saving performance contracts for the southern portion of Alii Drive. I just want to thank you for your insights into these opportunities and your enthusiasm for thinking outside the box and identifying partnerships and finding ways for us to really prioritize what needs to be fixed first, first off. One question I had for you. One of the members of the Environmental Management Commission had questions about legislation pertaining to allowing for Hawaii County to test the laterals, the lateral connections to private, in the context it was more like businesses or hotels, to see if it was the lateral connections that were leaking. Can you answer the feasibility, or the need for legislation like that or if that could be still accomplished without specific legislation? MR. MANSOUR: Yes, definitely. I think what we could do for now without legislation, is do what we call it in this type of business a smoke test. So what you do, you run smoke through the mainline and you could trace it and if it comes through the lateral then that lateral is broke. So what you do, you identify the broken uncovered laterals, and then you notify the property owner and you give him, you know, 3 0 days to fix. And if they cannot fix it within 3 0 days, then we will take action. Either we fix it, and we bill them for it—it depends on the location of the lateral itself. So that also was part of the master planning, of how we're going to set the program to do the smoke testing and identify the broken laterals in the process. And that's what the City and County of Honolulu does. They follow the smoke testing process. MS. VILLEGAS: Great. As far as the protocol, how often are those smoke testing processes utilized here on the island and I guess historically, versus what Page 6 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 would be—what has been done historically versus what your intentions are for practices going forward. MR. MANSOUR: I'll ask Eric if they've ever done it. I don't think they've ever done any smoke testing. MR. TAKAMURA: We just completed Papaikou. So that area was sewered by the plantation. And then the County went and put in new sewers. So there's still a lot of homes, still hooked up to the old system. So we went and did a smoke study. The problem we were facing, is how to enforce connection. So we know which homes are not connected. We know where there's excessive iodide through rain falling infiltration into the old system that's still—we had to hook them up to the new system, or else they wouldn't have a way to dispose of their wastewater. So we have to get off that system. So that's one area we did smoke study. The other area was way back in the 2000's, I think, for Nd`dlehu and Pdhala, when the County wanted to see what type of collection system existed from that plantation community. So we did a smoke study back then. And actually we are going through that results again to identify situations like Pdpa`ikou. MR. MANSOUR: Just in addition to that, I think you cannot utilize the smoke study to determine if people are connected or not because if they're not connected the smoke's not going to go through that lateral. So that would be a fault negative result. So in that situation, we do a dye test. So we allow the resident to use dye so we could monitor in the mainline to see if the dye has made it into the mainline. Then we know if it's connected or not. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you for that. So in essence, no smoke tests have ever been done to test the laterals in Kona or along Alii Drive or any of the connections with the commercial or hotel operations there? MR. MANSOUR: I guess that's a correct statement. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Awesome. Well I am hopeful that might change sometime in the near future. I was a little confused on how actually it was identified, then that the recent leak was that lateral connection to the hotel there in Kailua Bay. And as we have consistent cases of algae blooms, and other out of the ordinary blooms of species that are indicative of over nitrification and the oceans there. I'm very hopeful that we can identify where these sources of leakage are. And not only does it benefit our ecosystems in the long run, and our ideally pristine oceans and the species that reside within there. But also saves the county money, because by fixing these lines we're not allowing in the saltwater which then contaminates and causes more challenges for the system. Page 7 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 So thank you, again. I really look forward to continuing these conversations, continuing to educate myself and bring more solutions to the table as we work together to navigate getting our whole Kona coast, Alii Drive especially, to sewer and improved sewer lines. So thank you. With that, I yield. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you. Chair David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Mansour, I just wanted to say that your presentation has been the most comprehensive, and more importantly the most understandable one I've seen so far, for me in my opinion. And you've explained the situation very well, our position where we are right now and your plans of addressing those. So I really want to thank you for that. And my question is, these plans, or will this master plan that you have just presented us with, will that be part of the issues or possibilities incorporated into the pending projects in Pdhala and Nd`dlehu sewage treatment plants? Or are those basically on its own track? MR. MANSOUR: That's a great question, because we are under administrative order of consents. And we have to come up with something designed for the EPA by July. So this may end up taking its own track. Eventually it makes sense to have the master plan, so we could have a better design and a better system that could fit the entire envelope. But we're going to try to design these under separate tracks, but keep in mind as I move forward how we're going to connect the dots when the master plan is being addressed. So I'm sure I'll be able to vision how we're going to get the master plan as we work on these two communities. MS. DAVID: Thank you very much. And for that, I will have to also thank you for your hard work in getting just jumping in on those two very sensitive issues in my district. So I look forward to any suggestions that you can help the community with, with your expertise in resolving and solving those two treatment plants that were under the gun with the sights on. So again, mahalo for your presentation and I thank you for that answer. I yield. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Anybody in Hilo? MR. CHUNG: Tim, It's me, Aaron. CHR. RICHARDS: Go ahead, Aaron. MR. CHUNG: Good morning, Ramzi. Thank you very much, first of all for that, you know, really understandable primmer on this issue. I really appreciate it. And I also like your cost benefit assessment. I don't know if you call it an analysis, but really an assessment and approach to all of this. You know, I just have some questions, and they're really basic too. It says here when this discussion began in 2001, it says here that there was an estimated cost of Page 8 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 $12 million. Was that $12 million for the total cost of the project? Or what is this $12 million? MR. MANSOUR: I do believe that was a rough estimate. But Eric, if you have any background? MR. CHUNG: Total cost. So $12 million in 2001, $160 million now— MR. MANSOUR: In today's dollar. MR. CHUNG: 2018, right? MR. MANSOUR: Yes, which is crazy, isn't it? MR. TAKAMURA: I don't know what happened back in that time, but I think the $12 million was for the R-1 treatment plant where we had to add in a filter and UV (Ultraviolet) disinfection and the pipeline. Since that time this design includes the subsurface wetland, and the soil -aquifer treatment. MR. CHUNG: Okay. MR. TAKAMURA: So I think you take the $12 million, you can compare it to the $80 million. MR. MANSOUR: Actually, to the $55 million. MR. CHUNG: It's not too bad, right? MR. MANSOUR: But even still. You know, usually when you have these preliminary cost estimates, and it's unfortunate I remember people saying even on this project, they were given like $10 million or $15 million. The idea because you don't dig deep into the design criteria, and understand what's going to limit your ability to come up with a more conservative design. And sometimes if you let it go, the cost ends up growing and growing. So the big question is definitely, we need to be very financially conservative and fiscally conservative as it comes to our designed projects. And $160 million to convert pretty much R-2 to R-1 water, it's just you're not going to get the return for your investment any time soon. That's probably for our lifetime. MR. CHUNG: Right. Well, but I appreciate you Eric and Ramzi, for giving the comparison, you know, what we're looking at right? Not the total project, but just that one aspect, right? It gives context to that matter. Okay, of the $160 million, were we eligible for federal grants or anything? Is that the county's buy in, $160 million? Page 9 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 MR. MANSOUR: My understanding is we only got $2.6 million to assist in the planning and design. And we still have not got any commitment for the construction aspect of the project. And the intent was for us to chase some of that money. And our staff to chase some of that construction money. And usually for this big of project, we still have to have matching funds and it depends on what type of funding we were able to secure. MR. CHUNG: You know, just so that I get a better picture, and maybe the Council Members get a better picture of how this thing have progressed, if you're able to answer this. Now I'm looking around 2001 that was probably during Harry Kim's first time in office as mayor, right 2001? Are you able or do you know the progression of how this matter went from 2001 to now. Are you able to tell us that? You know, from the county side, just so that I have a (inaudible) MR. MANSOUR: And I think—I cannot explain it on the background and history is. The intent was to discharge it to the ocean, and they found an opportunity that there's development that's going to take place around the treatment plant. And they paused the button, and they said, why should we send it to the ocean? Let's see if we could capture and reuse it. MR. CHUNG: Was that in 2001 ? MR. MANSOUR: I believe in the mid 1990's— MR. CHUNG: Or was that later, that idea? MR. MANSOUR: Yeah. It was earlier. In the 1990's. MR. CHUNG: Oh, it was much earlier than? Okay. MR. MANSOUR: Yeah, before they started to build the plant. MR. CHUNG: I see. MR. MANSOUR: Because that's why the plant currently doesn't have the discharge to the ocean. MR. CHUNG: I see, I see. Okay. So this whole discussion beginning in 2001 was kind of centered on that idea then, of distributing it out to the— MR. MANS OUR: The 2001 was to convert the current F-1 to R-1 water. MR. CHUNG: Correct. MR. MANSOUR: But prior to that, in the early 1990's prior to the construction of the plan, the discussion was what are we going to do with the water? Should Page 10 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 we discharge it to the ocean, or should we keep it and reuse it. And then after they figured out, okay let's reuse it, but development did not come about. Then they said, okay, now we've got close to R-2 water, let's build a basin and let's let it percolate. And then that's when 2001 the discussion came, well we cannot let it continue percolating. Let's convert it to R-1 water for golf usage. And the idea here is—the question should've been, could we use what we had instead of converting what we got. And well we got. And you probably could've saved all that money and time and effort. MR. CHUNG: Right. And then it seems that you could use it because based on what you said, you can do it through subsurface, right? MR. MANSOUR: Yes. Based on the current test results, and we're going to continue testing. MR. CHUNG: Okay. Let's just go within the context of this $160 million project. Okay, let's just assume that we're doing it just for discussion sake. You talked about return on investment. And that being one of the $160 million questions. What is your thought on the return investment? I mean, how are we getting our revenues? It would be from the landowners, golf courses, and those using this thing. But how does that work in coordination well the Water Department too? MR. MANSOUR: Well the idea is, we're going to offset the usage of potable water with R-2 water or R-1 water. So that has a dollar figure attached to it. MR. CHUNG: Correct. MR. MANSOUR: So you'd calculate the dollar figure based on the users, and they're going to end up taking that water. And you figure out it's going to have the same benefit as potable water if it's going to go for land use. So whatever you pay for potable water, should offset the cost of the R-2 water because both have the same benefits. MR. CHUNG: So same cost almost. MR. MANSOUR: Same cost. MR. CHUNG: Okay. So what kind of revenues can you generate? I mean that's the one thing— MR. MANSOUR: And that's the idea, is to sit down with the stakeholder, the Water Board. And everybody wants to see their expenditures. My understanding, especially the golf courses, they run the numbers. They know, you know, it's expensive to use potable water and pump it and transfer it. So if we could make a Page 11 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 deal with them, and negotiate a better deal that could benefit the entire county then that's what we're after. MR. CHUNG: So do you have any general ideas of what the revenues might be? MR. MANSOUR: We have 1.8 in MGD (Million Gallons per Day), so it's, you know, we just need to negotiate a dollar for that. MR. CHUNG: So you guys haven't really crunched the numbers yet. MR. MANSOUR: We haven't. That's why I was saying that's part of the master plan in trying to—right now our current concern is, should we continue to put in the effort and resources on something that may not pan out. I'd rather use my staff, and the resources for something that will become more beneficial. And chasing our tail into something that may be wishful thinking at this time—down the road, maybe 10 to 20 years, yes. When we move from aerated lagoon to something else. Aerated lagoons are not the best process to capture R-1 water, because of the slime in the water and the algae. So it takes more operation and maintenance to clear that water. What's being proposed in the membrane filter, it's a nightmare for our operators. Because think about it, if you ever owned a swimming pool and you have the algae stick into membrane filter, it takes forever to clean it. It could have a backwash but it's still very high in cost too. So if we're ever going to do it, or make a deal with these golf courses, they could have their own sand filter within their own facility. So they could store the water, let it go through the sand filter and they could spray it any time they want. But the idea is the Department of Health now could allow us to use it with the spray, but after hours when nobody's around. Or you could do it as a subsurface, which is going to have a capital cost to it. MR. CHUNG: Yeah. We're going a little bit too far field here. I just wanted to know more about the return on investment. And you know, I would ask you to try to crunch those numbers a little bit more, I mean because it—what's that movie, Trading Places, right, with Eddy Murphy? They ask at the end. What do you want, lobster or crab? And the answer is, can't we have both? I don't know. I cannot really say whether, you know, each of these things whether addressing the cesspools or this are mutually exclusive. I really don't know. Because what if we can turn a profit? I think we can't, you know, at $160 million. But what if we can. We need a better picture as to what those numbers are. That's all, yeah? And if you say, "No, its cost prohibitive." Well then that's the end of that, right? Because I agree with you. I agree with you. MR. MANSOUR: Right. Page 12 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 MR. CHUNG: We could probably put this money to better use. But if we can make an aggressive move to do a lot of things, why not right? MR. MANSOUR: Right. MR. CHUNG: But I just don't have enough information. MR. MANSOUR: The good thing is you already have the resource of that water. It's where you need to find a user for it without spending the $50 million, or $80 million. MR. CHUNG: Right. MR. MANSOUR: So the idea, you're already from the get go, you're going to save that much money. MR. CHUNG: Okay. MR. MANSOUR: Without questions asked. MR. CHUNG: Alright. Try to see if you can get some numbers. MR. MANSOUR: Yeah, definitely. MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Ramzi. MS. LEE LOY: Tim. CHR. RICHARDS: Yes, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director. Thank you for being here, Eric. Like Mr. Chung, this has been a very refreshing presentation. And it's kind of an oxymoron, coming from wastewater that it's a refreshing presentation. I wanted to build off of what Mr. Chung was talking about. And I think you mentioned it in the plan forward, in the long-term which is rebranding the wastewater treatment facility as a resource recovery facility. Share with me what that vision looks like, because I think—and I absolutely get it. It's a resource now. What does that look like going into the future as far as rebranding that recovery facility? MR. MANSOUR: That is a good question. I think every wastewater treatment plan in the mechanical aspect is treatment, not aerated lagoon will have the possibility to generate gas out of the digester system is going to have a better reclaimed water quality, because you're not going to have to deal with the algae and the slime in the water; and the bio -solids, which is the sludge, become fertilizers. So all these are resources, and could come back to our community. And that's the resource recovery plan, you know, I'm envisioning for this as we Page 13 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 move into the future. A lot of mainland and even the City and County of Honolulu, you know, the Sand Island Treatment Plant, you know, they have Synagro are dealing with retracting the bio -solids from the digester and converting it to fertilizers. Honouliuli Treatment Plant, they're capturing and reclaiming the water and the gas generation. So there is so much resources that we could regenerate as we grow into the future. But currently the current plan, and the process of the treatment that we have it's hard to capture any of the gas. And like Eric was saying, it took us 24 years to dredge the lagoons to be able to capture the sludge. And once we captured it, we dumped it into a landfill and it was about 2,000 dry tons in 24 years. And that's where the differences are. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director. So I'm actually hearing not only is the R- 1) R-2 water, but the gas is another potential resource and then the bio -sludge. So we actually have three resources within this facility, and the ability to rebrand that? MR. MANSOUR: Definitely. MS. LEE LOY: Okay, great. And I just wanted to get back to some nuts and bolts, because you mentioned convert and update infrastructure. What is the age of our infrastructure in that area, just ball parking it? MR. MANSOUR: At least 30 years, Eric, or more. MS. LEE LOY: And typically what is the lifespan of that type of infrastructure? MR. MANSOUR: Well it depends. Here we ran some cameras and we found separation within our collection system, and that's where the chloride and the seawater gets into our system. So we need to fix that. And we need to control the chloride, and salinity coming into our water so we could have a better reuse for that water. So that's some of the challenges. Some of these infrastructure depends—concrete could last up to 40 years. You know, it depends—cast iron pipe could go faster. So it depends on the material that was utilized for the sewer collection system. Definitely as the R-35 PVC pipes have longer lifespan to them. But because we deal with hydrogen sulfide, we deal with the atmosphere that we have corrosion is a major factor. A good example; the Hilo Treatment Plant, our entire headwork coming to the facility is deteriorating and corroded. And my understanding is, staff is taking it out of service because they cannot fix it. And that potentially is going to get us in violations, and fines if we don't do something fast. So it depends on the product, and the lifespan attached to it. The plastic liners, you know, they are UV protected liners. They design them to be UV protected, Page 14 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 but even with that everything has a lifespan about, you know, 20 years. And it depends on the abuse of these liners, and, you know, what's going to cause the tear and the weak spots for them to give away in what area. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. And I guess that's what would be advantageous in our long range master plan is not only how we reuse the resource, or the potential for other resources but a mitigation and repair and maintenance plan, right, meeting these various benchmarks. MR. MANSOUR: Yes, definitely. My main goal is to create a prevention maintenance program, not reactionary. We cannot continue doing things based on reaction, rather than preventative. So definitely that's going to be—we're going to audit each facility, we're going to identify the equipment of each facility, the lifespan of each equipment, and how much remaining life for each equipment and when it's going to need to be replaced. So the master plan, won't do that. Facility audits, tag every equipment, and the replacement of this equipment at what time within the master plan, so we could financially be fiscally responsible, have a vision of when we need the money and when we need to start planning for it. MS. LEE LOY: That's spot on, because some of that resource could actually help offset and plan for the repair and maintenance. I had one other thing, well two things. You know, that mother may I, right, we're in a wetlands and there's, you know, all those others things. So I absolutely agree with that statement even if we have to go in and repair something, we're going to have to ask the federal government because of some of the species that exist in that area. But one thing that did peak my interest, was the soil -aquifer treatment. And it really peaked my interest, because I served on the Water Board. And so I understand how an aquifer works. But this is the first time, I'm hearing about a soil -aquifer treatment. Just high level, tell me what that's about? MR. MANSOUR: Actually they proposed to have that soil -aquifer treatment system, just to be able to discharge that effluent without reusing it. You're sinking in $35 million just to get a little bit better quality effluent before discharge. It didn't make sense to me as an engineer when I first came in. So the idea is, you know, we already have the R-2 water. Based on the test results I've seen so far it looks good. I want to get a third party to retest the waters just to confirm it for me. So the idea is to have the aquifer, soil -aquifer just to give us a better level of water prior to discharge. Just, you know, we need to negotiate something better with the Department of Health and something that could be more affordable. If we're not going to be able to capture the entire water then we, you know, we have a system right now even the way it's percolating, you know, we don't know where it percolates. You know, I know it's going through lava tubes, but nobody knows where it goes. So there's a lot of work that needs to be done. Page 15 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 But definitely I could tell you now, the design that's proposed I think we need to shelf it and start finding stakeholders that are willing to use the current water. If we need to spend money, we need to spend it on improving the operation itself. Because we've got the lagoons, we could tweak the operation on the process and yeah. Because we have clarification, we have chlorination systems now. It's the water, as it leaves the sod it gets disinfected. So, you know, it's supposed to kill the bacteria, the algae's and heavier. We had a test on the effluent leave -ins. We're getting about 150 to 200 or less in fecal coliform. You know, when you test the storm water you read in about 1,600 in fecal coliform, but it doesn't have the E. coli. So the idea is, is fecal coliform really would get people sick. Likely, you know, the Department of Health Organization, the World Health Organization department, they determined that you need 1,000 part per milliliter of fecal coliform, you know, that's the world organization determination. And we can control that by doing more disinfection. So you increase the dose of chlorination, you know, and you could control that. The difference between the R-1 and the R-2 is the filtration. Do you want to filter it through MPR (Microparticle Performance Rating), or do you want to filter it, you know, like the soil aquifer. It's really a filtration system that allows the water to sit there for it to create a wetland. And once you create a wetland then it becomes a habitat, and once it becomes a habitat you're going to fall in the same predicament. Now you're going to say, mother may I, so you fall in the same circle. CHR. RICHARDS: Excuse me, Director. I've been informed that our laptop is going to reset itself and restart. So we're going to have to take a recess for about ten minutes. Sorry for interrupting, but we're going to go offline in just a second here. So we stand in recess for about ten minutes. Recess: At 10:46 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 10:58 a.m. CHR. RICHARDS: I'd like to call the meeting out of recess, and we're back in session. Forgive me, Councilwoman Lee Loy, I cut you off. Please continue. MS. LEE LOY: Actually, that was my final question for the director. But I look forward to the long range master plan as Chair Chung, just crunching up the numbers as far as what we can get out of that resource, not just the water but some of the other resource material that's available. Yeah, and kind of bringing us into the 21St century. Thank you, Director. Chair, I yield. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you very much. Anyone else in Hilo. MS. KIMBALL: Chair Richards, this is Council Member Kimball. Page 16 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 CHR. RICHARDS: Go ahead, Councilwoman Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Director for being here today. You mentioned that the capacity of the plant was designed at 5.3 million gallons per day. And that's what it's permitted for as well. Is that the actual capacity? Could you really get to that size at some point? MR. MANSOUR: Yes, you can. Usually in the wastewater you want to stay within 80 percent of the design capacity, so you could start planning ahead. But yes, technically you could get to the 5.3 eventually. MS. KIMBALL: And if you were to incorporate all 7,000 cesspools in the area into the wastewater treatment system, would that still be within that 80 percent of the capacity or would you have to expand the capacity of the plant to accommodate all those additional users? MR. MANSOUR: I believe that is still within the plant capacity. MS. KIMBALL: Great. And then the pipe that was put in with the extension of the Queen K—the 2.3 miles, was that paid for by us or was that part of the DOT (Department of Transportation) funding for that highway expansion? So is that part of the $11 million? No, that's an addition to the $11 million that's been paid for planning. Do you know roughly how much that was? MR. TAKAMURA: About $4 million, $3.6 million. MS. KIMBALL: Okay so in addition to the $11 million for the planning and design, we've already invested we've also invested $4 million for that piping? MR. MANSOUR: Yes. The good thing about the sewer infrastructure, we need it for the R-1 and R-2. So it's a good thing that it's being built. And we may need to spend a little bit more money to extend that sewer infrastructure, because that's how we're going to convey the water. So that's a benefit. The idea is just the filtration aspect to convert it from R-2 to R-1. That's, you know, that's the big question. And I think from my slide spray versus subservice, is it worth that $80 million type of question? MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Alright. What is the annual operating budget of the plant roughly? MR. MANSOUR: I know our division for that is at least $20 million, for the whole division, $15.6 million. MS. KIMBALL: Fifteen point six million dollars. MR. MANSOUR: But that's for the whole division, not just the plant. Page 17 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 MS. KIMBALL: Okay. I'll look at the budget on that. Thank you. For the one question that you asked, this is not currently a noncompliant driven matter, correct? It's just a matter of wanting to—there's not any obligation to do this right now, it's just that it's been in the works for a while. MR. MANSOUR: Yes. We don't have any administrative consent order, or violation or noncompliance from the Department of Health or EPA. MS. KIMBALL: Is there concern that one could come out of the Maui case? MR. MANSOUR: It could be the way we're disposing it now. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. MR. MANSOUR: But I think we could argue that it's already being treated based on the effluent data. MS. KIMBALL: Got it. Okay. MR. MANSOUR: So it depends on the data results. And that's why we are recommending that we try to capture it as an R-2, and send it somewhere else rather than continue it. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Okay. The master plan, is that going to be all done in-house or are we going to contract that? MR. MANSOUR: It's going to be a combo. We are asking for additional staffing on the west side, because I felt when I first came in the west side is not getting as much attention either. It's hard for our staff to drive there and spend an hour and a half on the road, and an hour and a half coming back, three hours. That's half of their day. And they don't have a place for them to even sit on the west side. So it's going to be a combination of in-house, and the possibility of having a consultant. MS. KIMBALL: Do you have an estimate of cost and timeline? MR. MANSOUR: Not at this moment. That's the whole idea, is we're going to sit down and brainstorm it with all the stakeholders. And it depends on the outcome of the discussion with all the stakeholders, and what's going to be involved within the master plan that's going to impact the costs. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Just one final comment. You know, I share my colleague's concerns about looking at the overall return on investment, but very aware as Sue was talking about some of these other both avoided costs and ecosystem benefits that would come out of this that may not be currently part of a typical return on investment analysis. So I do hope those will be included in this Page 18 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 master plan that we're looking at, the whole ecosystem picture and accounting for some of those ecosystem services when we look at return on investment. Thank you for your time. I yield, Chair. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Any other comments or questions from Hilo? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, I have a quick comment, please. CHR. RICHARDS: Go ahead, Mr. Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Two thousand nineteen the previous Director Bill Kucharski, came and basically said the department needed more funding. And we passed a bill that was to slowly incrementally increase sewer connection fees over the next five years. I heard you mention we don't have enough funding in different parts of the department. But there was a plan for that increase of fees to cover upcoming expenses, including maintenance. So I just want you to be aware of that, if you're not already. MR. MANSOUR: May I? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes. MR. MANSOUR: Let me add one point to this concern. I think the rate that they came up with is the monthly rate, which is going to have increment increases. And that's only to cover O and M (Operation and maintenance) cost. Unfortunately, this county has not been charged— MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Which cost? MR. MANSOUR: Operation and maintenance. The O and M cost. So the idea is this county has not been charged in any connection fees since the creation of the waste treatment plant. Anywhere you go in any waste treatment plans, even in city and counties in the mainland, any developers come in and try to connect to our shoreline they're supposed to pay connection fees. Connection fees vary between $10,000 to $15,000 per connection, per house. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, I did. I misspoke. So yes, it's just the— MR. MANSOUR: The monthly rate fees, sewer rate fees. MR. KANEALI `I-KLEINFELDER: Yes. Thank you. MR. MANSOUR: And that's why earlier, I was saying we need to have a sustainable funding system. We need to start charging connection fees, to be able Page 19 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 to pay for the capital improvement projects. And that's where the money needs to come in, through the connection fees to give you the ability to start to expand these treatment plants. Because every person that connects to a sewer line, it takes away capacity within that sewer pipe. But they aren't paying for it. Eventually you're going to have a sewer line full of sewage, but nobody paid for it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think their concern was that we are going to require people to connect to the sewer, and so forcing them to pay while requiring them to connect was, I think, it was called an oxymoron. It was just going to create difficulties in the community. That is what we were told previously. MR. MANSOUR: It will. But eventually they're going to pay for it through taxes, or somewhere because somebody eventually is going to pay for the system once it fails. And you either collect it now, and put it in a fund where you could gain interest on it and when it fails you have the fund to pay for it, or you could react instead of preventative and have a large hike in taxes to offset the cost of failure. So that's the stuff that we need to look at as part of the master plan. How we're going to fund it? What is the connection fees that we're going to implement? And since nothing has been implemented since the plant was built, so there's no fund that was set aside. CHR. RICHARDS: Director, I'm going to have to cut you off again a second. What I wanted to do, is bring this conversation back as it pertains specifically to the west side wastewater treatment. All these are very valid questions, but we're going to be having a meeting, a presentation from Environmental Management concerning the wastewater management as a county, as a whole coming forth. So I'd like to wait until that, and focus back in on what this agenda is specifically speaking to. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Yeah, pertinent in a way just from what was mentioned previously. But due to our time constraints today, yeah. I'll yield for now. Thank you, Chair. CHR. RICHARDS: Yeah. And Matt, I appreciate that. That's exactly right. It's a time constraint, and we could probably go on for another hour concerning this, so we'll schedule more time at the next presentation. Any other comments or questions concerning west side, please? Okay. Seeing none. Director, again, in the interest of time I had a bunch of questions but I'll catch up to you on that. Just a few things for public. You had mentioned two-mile replacement a rough number, so we as Council know what we might be facing here. Do you have a replacement cost for that? Page 20 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 MR. MANSOUR: Approximately my staff has given me $1,000 per foot. That's the number they've been giving lately to replace the segment of sewer line. And that's a rough estimate. But like I- said, we need as part of the master plan, is to put our hand around the impact. We need to televise these pipes. We need to understand the damages these pipes are under. And assess is it replacement, or slip line in the project. So the cost could be varied based on slip lining versus total segment replacement. CHR. RICHARDS: Okay. Thanks, Director. You had mentioned that the ponds were dredged back in 2017, and that was hauled off to the solid waste. Is there any value in that sludge for soil conditioning or anything or is that just a waste product? MR. MANSOUR: Yes. It has a value to it, if you process it right. And I think at that time our staff, my understanding, they let it sun dry before they hauled it to a landfill. But eventually that bio -solids become fertilizer. So there's benefit to you could use it for compost actually. You can mix it with green, and create mulch out of it. And so definitely with the right prices it'd become a good resource to use rather than landfill. CHR. RICHARDS: It sounds like something for the next presentation. And then you'd mentioned the effluent, the billing for the wastewater. How are you measuring that effluent? Is that by measuring the water coming in? MR. MANSOUR: Yes. We have inflow meters, and outflow meters for effluent. So that's how they measure the effluent coming into the facility. CHR. RICHARDS: Okay. And then for the stilt, (Hawaiian stilt) the habitat, the wetland is that—what is that water in those ponds? It's not R-1, is it going to be R-2? MR. MANSOUR: Actually it's raw sewage. The first lagoon is totally raw sewage. It hasn't even went through the process of oxidation. But eventually it's R-3 and then R-2 as it leaves the sump itself. So within the facility, it's still within R-3 definition. CHR. RICHARDS: Okay. Thank you. And I'm just wrapping this up. Ms. Kimball pointed out return on investment. Mr. Chung pointed our return on investment. This is something we're going to have to be very mindful of it going forward, and at the next presentation we'll talk about the whole wastewater treatment on a county -wide basis. I'm sure that will be another line of questions. So with that, I think we've had everybody speak on this topic. I'd like to call for the question to close file, all signify by saying, "aye." Page 21 RAWEEMC-3 February 16, 2021 Vote on Comm. 98: The motion to close file on Comm. 98 was carried Filed by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas and Chair Richards — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Inaba — 1. Excused: None. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 11:13 a.m., Ms. David moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. Kimball and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas and Chair Richards — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Inaba — 1. Excused: None. CHR. RICHARDS: We stand adjourned. Approved: r �� 1,--,-7 Mr. Herbert M. "Ti" Richards, III, Chair (Date) Regenerative Agriculture, Water, Energy and Environmental Management Committee TR/tk Page 22