Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PWC 266 07/26/1988 1984-1988 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS DATE : July 26 , 1988 PLACE : Councilroom TIME: 1 : 30 p.m. Chairman and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Public Works to which was referred Communication - No. 1693 and its attached Resolution No. 468-88 , reports as follows : The purpose of Resolution No. 468-88 is to provide the following authorizations regarding the Hilo Sewer Treatment Plant : 1 . The County to enter into a Consent Agreement with the of Health and to adopt the new Municipal Compliance Plan which is attached to the Consent Agreement ; and 2 . The Mayor to execute contracts and documents needed for the County 's conformance to the Compliance Plan . Communication No. 1693 is a letter from the Chief Engineer transmitting Resolution No. 468-88 and its attached Consent Agreement establishing the conditions which will permit County operation of the Hilo Sewer Treatment Plant after the July 1 , 1988 mandatory compliance date for minimum secondary treatment of effluent and discharge. Communication No . 1693 notes that the Municipal Compliance Schedule and items of the Consent Agreement have been negotiated by the State Department of Health, the Department of Public Works, the State Attorney General, Corporation Counsel and the Environmental Protection Agency. Your Committee has reviewed Resolution No. 468-88 and its attached Consent Agreement and Municipal Compliance Plan. Your Committee understands that the Municipal Compliance Plan covers the period from 1988 to 1993 for planning and constructing a secondary treatment plant in Hilo. Your Committee is aware that within the Consent Agreement, references are made to the Consent Agreement on pages 1 and 4 and to a Consent Settlement on page 5 in items 10 and 11 , yet both of these terms refer to the same document . PWC REPORT .';O , 266 r,DoPTED ; AUG 25 1988 ► PWC-266 Page 2 July 26 , 1988 Your Committee understands that the Consent Agreement accomplishes the following in relation to the Hilo Sewer Treatment Plant : 1 . Terminates the Municipal Compliance Plan which was attached as Exhibit B to the Consent Order dated December 13 , 1984 and which was intended to satisfy the requirements of secondary treatments . 2. Terminates the Addendum to Consent Order dated March 29, 1985 , which set interim effluent limits of 100 mg/1 for a 30 day average for both biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids ( TSS) . 3 . Adopts a new Municipal Compliance Plan which is attached to the Consent Agreement . 4 . Specifies new interim effluent limits of 75 mg/1 for biological oxygen demand (BOD ) and 75 mg/1 for total suspended solids (TSS) , both averaged over a 30-day period. 5 . Commits the County to pay penalties for violations of the new interim effluent limits and for failure to comply with the deadlines in the Municipal Compliance Plan. 6 . Commits the County to pay a penalty of $20 ,000 to the State of Hawaii by September 30 , 1988 . 7 . Provides for an appeal process to the Department of Health for relief from the Consent Agreement in the case of noncompliance with the deadlines of the Municipal Compliance Plan due to circumstances beyond the County ' s reasonable control . 8 . Provides for filing the Settlement Agreement with the Third Circuit Court for judicial approval to meet U. S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements and provides for continuing jurisdiction of the Third Circuit Court . 9. Terminates the Settlement Agreement if Congress extends the deadline for secondary treatment beyond July 1 , 1988 . The Consent Agreement outlines the following penalties: 1 . $1,000 per day for each deadline missed in the Municipal Compliance Plan; 2. $5 ,000 per day for failure to meet full compliance with secondary effluent limits by March 31 , 1993; 3 . $5,000 for initial violation of interim effluent limits and 1 ,000 per month thereafter until the County returns to compliance , which is defined as three months of meeting the interim effluent limits . , PWC-266 Page 3 July 26 , 1988 Your Committee initially reviewed Resolution No. 468-88 on July 12, 1988 and heard the Council Chairman comment as follows : 1. He arranged for himself and the Chairpersons of the Public Works Committee , Finance Committee , and Planning Committee to meet with Bruce Anderson, Deputy Director of the Department of Health, and with the Attorney General ' s Office in regard to the consent agreement . 2. He questioned certain parts of the Consent Agreement , particularly the cancellation of the prior municipal compliance agreement and its amendment , which raises the standard of compliance with regards to the total suspended solids and oxygen demand as well as shortens the compliance schedule for the treatment facility. 3. While the Department of Public Works has represented that the new effluent standards are reasonable and can be met, he wanted to fully assess the cancellation of the prior municipal compliance agreement before giving up what he sees as the County ' s substantial rights , especially in light of the representation that the Environmental Protection Agency is asking for fines in this matter . Your Committee concurred with the Chairwoman ' s recommendation to defer action on Communication No. 1693 and Resolution No . 468-88 pending the two meetings . Your Committee reviewed Resolution No. 468-88 a second time on July 26 , 1988. The Committee Chairwoman reported that the Deputy Director , Department of Health, made it very clear to the Council Chairman and herself that the EPA would want the County to pay the $20 ,000 fine. Your Committee then heard testimony from the Deputy Director of the Department of Health that if the County did not pay the $20,000 penalty for not being in compliance with secondary treatment requirements effective July 1 , 1988 , the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency would take enforcement action. He reported that the EPA did make one minor concession, which is to allow the County to split payment of the $20, 000 fine between two years and the Department of Health does not object to that . He also stated that the concession was made by an EPA enforcement officer during a telephone conversation with the Council Chairman . Your Committee heard the Chief Engineer testify that he would like to pay the fine at one time, dispose of it and get on with business . PWC-266 Page 4 July 26 , 1988 Your Committee also heard the Chief Engineer testify that he had negotiated several points as follows : 1. Interim limit fines which were initially proposed at $1 ,000 per day were negotiated downward to $5 ,000 one time plus 1 ,000 a month. 2 . The $20 ,000 fine couldn ' t be changed but the payment date was altered from July 31, 1988 to September 31 [ sic] , 1988 . 3 . The EPA and the Department of Health had wanted June 30, 1992 as a deadline for compliance with secondary treatment , which would have caused the County to be in an extremely aggressive construction and design schedule, but the County was able to get the deadline extended by nine months to March 31, 1993 . 4 . A termination clause was added to the Consent Agreement in case Congress decided to change the Clean Water Act and not require secondary treatment . 5 . The compliance deadline dates were reduced to three deadlines in each phase instead of six deadlines in each phase, which gives the County a greater degree of flexibility in meeting the compliance order . The Chief Engineer urged your Committee to support Resolution No . 468-88 so that he could carry out the provisions of the original resolution [Resolution No. 318-87 (amended ) ] which directed the Department of Public Works to proceed with the construction of a new sewer treatment plant . Your Committee heard testimony from the Chief Engineer in response to their questions as follows : 1 . Approval of Resolution No. 468-88 commits the County to secondary treatment . 2 . Congress has not extended the deadline for secondary treatment . 3 . If Congress did rescind the deadline, the County would no longer be in violation of secondary treatment standards and probably wouldn ' t have to pay the $20, 000 fine . 4 . The fine is a one time fine for the County ' s non-compliance with the July 1, 1988 requirements for secondary treatment . 5 . The Department of Health has set interim effluent limits which can be met, based on present test results, and no problems or fines are foreseen. 6 . The Municipal Compliance Plan is part of the Consent Agreement and will be filed in court subject to the adoption of Resolution No . 468-88 . a PWC- 266 Page 5 July 26 , 1988 When asked if all the dates in Resolution No. 468-88 were appropriate, the Chief Engineer replied that he would like to revise the 1995 date in the sixth and seventh paragraphs to provide some flexibility . He noted that because the Municipal Compliance Plan provides for relief, tying the date to the Municipal Compliance plan could allow the County to go beyond 1993 because of an act of God or a construction delay. In response to a Committee member ' s questions, the Chief Engineer confirmed that March 31 , 1993 is the target date but the Municipal Compliance Plan is subject to amendment . Your Committee concurred with the Chief Engineer ' s recommendation and amended the sixth and seventh paragraphs of Resolution No . 468-88 as follows : "WHEREAS, the construction of such a wastewater treatment plant would require the adherence to a Compliance Schedule which would cover a period of time between 1988 and [ 1995 ; ] as provided for in the Municipal Compliance Plan; and WHEREAS, the construction of such a wastewater treatment plant would require the expenditure of County of Hawaii funds during more than one year between 1988 and [ 1995 ; ] as provided for in the Municipal Compliance Plan [ ; ] . " Your Committee on Public Works is in accord with the purpose and intent of Resolution No. 468-88 Draft 2 and recommends its adoption by the County Council . ` C4/ �,,;` MERLE K. LAI, CH ' IRWOMAN LA- •USSELL S. KOKUB N, VICE CHR. FRANK DE LUZ III, MEMBER T KASHI DOMIN 0, MEMBE SHERWOOD R. H. GREENWELL, MEMBER LA/TW