Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-23 Meeting Minutes (EMC) ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIʻI MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:01 a.m. to 10:58 a.m. West Hawaiʻi Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway Building G Kailua-Kona, Hawaiʻi Commissioners present: Richard Bennett, Ph.D., Chair Jon Olson, Vice Chair John Burns, Ph.D. James Fritz Dee Fulton Rick Gaffney Justin Pequeño Staff present: William Kucharski, Director Diana Mellon-Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary Fujio, Secretary Others present: Jerome Warren, Michelle Sorensen, Sue Aronson, Chelsea Jensen, and several other members of the public. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 Motion, second, and vote: Commissioner Pequeño moved to approve the minutes as drafted, Commissioner Gaffney seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Chair Bennett asked Jerome Warren, who had signed up to testify, if he wanted to wait until after the Commission had discussed the items he had signed up to testify on. Mr. Warren said no. Chair Bennett told him to go ahead. Jerome Warren: On agenda item 5a, more effective public participation, people cannot hear what the commissioners are talking about, which is why he has been leaving meetings after he testifies. The Commission doesn’t have the courtesy to hook up a PA system. He can hear council meetings even though he sits in the back. The key word is user friendly, and this Commission is not user friendly. The meetings could be videotaped—they could request Nā Leo TV to come and videotape the meetings so they could be broadcast on the public access TV station. Regarding item 6b, the Nāālehu sewer, it is confusing because the ʻdirector’s report says there is no final land selection, but the public is being told there is one. Ironically, the wastewater will need to be pumped uphill, which takes electricity. He wonders what the electric bill is every month to pump the wastewater for the boondoggle in Kealakehe. In Nāālehu, it’ll be put next to the water well and will leak into the aquifer. If anyone wants him ʻ to extrapolate or has any questions, now is the time to ask him to stay. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Clarification of the historic review process and timelines, including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, for the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant R-1 Upgrade Project. Chair Bennett asked Director Kucharski to speak on this. The director handed out a flow chart showing the processes of Chapter 6E of the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (Historic Preservation) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as they relate to the Nāālehu, Pāhala, and Kealakehe Rʻ-1 projects. He explained that the 6E process is state and the 106 process is federal. The chart shows the steps required and what can happen after the historical review. The reviews take time, and he wanted to make it clear for the record that he does not want to do anything that is going to harm any cultural resources. The process and the laws need to be followed. However, there are ripple effects. In Pāhala, for example, they cannot finalize the design of the collection system because they cannot do any borings until the 106 final determination is made. The ripple effect causes multiple delays, which add up. He is not an archeologist and does not fully understand all the nuances. The flow chart was put together by Cultural Services Hawaiʻi and Brown and Caldwell to help explain why it takes a long time. The state has also been more involved lately in the process, following through on what they believe is their statutory duty. The commissioners asked several questions regarding the historical review requirements, timelines, and causes of delays. To summarize the Director’s responses: • The 106 requirement is federal but is delegated to the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). His understanding is that there is both a federal review and then specialized requirements the state has. • SHPD is responsible for making sure the federal and state requirements are followed. • SHPD has 90 days to review and make a determination, but the 90 days appears to start when they start their review, not when the request is received. This is based upon anecdotal data. • Some timelines are strict, and some requirements are fluid. • SHPD appears to be understaffed, but things are also slowed down because the “area of potential effect” (APE) needs to be determined before the AIS can be done. • There are only a few cultural resource firms which exist and can do AISs. • The APE preceding the AIS is a 106 requirement. As State Revolving Funds are used as a general rule for their projects, and because federal funds come in through the SRF funds, there is both state and federal oversight and cross-cutter conditions. If it were possible to use just county funds, only the 6E review would be required. • Before the final EIS can be issued, the AIS needs to be determined as adequate. He does not know whether the AIS is attached to the EIS or referenced within it. • The physical process of upgrading the WWTP cannot begin until there is a final EIS. Commissioner Gaffney said the state needs to fix this situation of delays due to SHPD review. The state is requiring that cesspools be closed, and yet a state agency is standing in the way of making progress. He wondered whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to reach out to the County Council or administration to push for making sure that SHPD moves faster. The requirements of legislation cannot be met with this roadblock in the way. Director Kucharski said a problem may be that there are not enough archeologists graduating each year with expertise in Hawaiian cultural practices. Cultural reviews take experienced, educated, and trained personnel. Commissioner Gaffney said the state was able to attract more people to the medical profession in Hawaiʻi and should be able to do so in archeology and Hawaiian studies. The red flag needs to be raised all the way up so the necessary changes are made and the logjam is broken. If the Kealakehe R-1 project is set back two years, they have failed the ocean. Commissioner Burns said he had been to recent meetings where there was mention of integrating SHPD into the university’s archeology program, and this may be an option to explore. He wondered who on the state side could be asked about this. Commissioner Gaffney suggested they contact the County Council about a resolution asking the legislature to support the marriage of those two schools to help solve this program. He does not believe this would be outside the Commission’s scope. Chair Bennett said they could entertain a motion. Motion, second, and vote: Commissioner Gaffney moved that Councilmember Richards be contacted on this matter, Commissioner Fulton seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. Commissioner Gaffney volunteered to contact Councilmember Richards. Chair Bennett said he wanted to acknowledge and thank Director Kucharski for his sensitivity on the subject of cultural review and for his clarification of the process. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Discuss recommendations to support more effective public participation and comments on agenda items, including but not limited to where on the agenda public statements and comments are appropriate. Chair Bennett said they have the authority per their rules to manage the public comment process differently. He is an ardent supporter of public participation in government and would like to make it more available in their commission. He would like a conversation on how the public can be advised on what the EMC is looking for. He believes the EMC wants commenters to make observations, recommendations, and suggestions on how the commissioners can do their work better. He also recommends they stand firm in not allowing commenters to personally attack commissioners and county staff. Ms. Mellon-Lacey said they needed to be careful about the right of free speech, but they do have the right to step in if someone becomes disruptive or out of line. Chair Bennett agreed but said that guidelines can be offered to the public to avoid personal attacks and be civil. He asked if the reception of public comments could be initiated with the reminder that commissioners are volunteers, and personal attacks against them or county employees are not welcome. Ms. Mellon-Lacey said they could put those guidelines out as long as they were not restricting the opportunity of people to speak on topics on the agenda. The chair can also interrupt a speaker who goes off an agenda topic or is uncivil and inappropriate. Chair Bennett said he did not want to propose more bureaucracy or guidelines that could be interpreted as dictatorial. As chair, he is willing to assume the responsibility of reining in commenters if they stray, and he hopes future chairs will be willing. Unless commissioners have strong feelings about having guidelines, they can leave this as is. He stands under advisement that he should be more active in the management of the public comment process. Commissioner Pequeño said he would like to solicit feedback from commenters throughout the agenda rather than having all of it at the beginning of a meeting. Chair Bennett said he would like that as well. For the next agenda, he will include a paragraph on what the commission is looking for from the public and stating that comments can be withheld on an agenda item until after the commissioners address it. Discussion was held on how to get the word out to the public about their meetings. Chelsea Jensen, a reporter with West Hawaiʻi Today, let them know the newspaper has a free calendar that can be used. The secretary was instructed to email the newspaper regarding the next meeting. b. Discuss the costs, including interest charged, for the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant R-1 Upgrade Project. Chair Bennett asked the director to provide some guidance on how the cost statements are derived. Director Kucharski explained that the original published cost for the R-1 system was $54 million, which was the figure in the initial request for funds. The R-1 system was designed to be expandable, depending on demand. The original proposal was for the system to handle a million gallons per day, but if it is expanded to 5 million gallons per day, the cost goes way up. There are some activities included in the cost that are not directly related to R-1, and he is having the consultants pull those out. Additional expenses are related to the SAT design and the fact that all the water will be UV treated. He believes the revised cost will be about $75 million, and he will have a better cost estimate at the next meeting. Two funding sources are being looked at. The first is SRF funds, which have a very low interest rate. Repayment would come from the General Fund, not through the sewer rates, and would be on the capital investment. The other funding source is the Bureau of Reclamation. A $634,000 grant was received to do a technical and financial feasibility study. Once the study is submitted, they will be eligible for additional construction funds of up to $20 million or 25% of the construction cost. However, another EIS would need to be done. If they were to start construction without the grant, the project can be done sooner. If they go with the grant, construction will be delayed because of the need for an EIS, but the cost will be covered. He does not know how the dynamics will work out as far as cost mitigation. A $750,000 grant from the state was also received to deal with the double pipe system for the county regional park. This park may be the first in the state designed with a purple pipe and potable water system together. Director Kucharski also mentioned the high cost of construction in Hawaiʻi. For example, installing a sewer line normally costs about $1.8 million per mile in the County of Hawaiʻi, but for the Lono Kona area it is costing about $4 million per mile. The real cost will not be known until the project goes out to bid. Chair Bennett said the next agenda should include a discussion on alternatives to running sewer lines, given the high costs, as it may be economically unfeasible. The conversation needs to be started, as there are 50,000 cesspits on the island and providing sewers to all is not the solution. c. Discuss the “waste to energy” proposals being considered by the County Council. Chair Bennett said there have been many news reports recently on waste to energy, and he would like to hear the thoughts of the commissioners on this. Vice Chair Olson said Procter & Gamble have come up with a method for recycling all their polypropylene, and the recycled plastic has caused a 70% reduction in new plastic. If this is taken to its logical conclusion, they’ll be getting back all their plastic from vendors and will suck the plastic market dry. They will be building plants, and he assumes they will be working on other aspects of anything petrochemical that goes into the waste stream. This changes the dynamic. Chair Bennett said waste to energy in many minds just means combustion, and he asked the director if it would require combustion here or whether there are other means of extracting energy from the waste. Director Kucharski explained different waste to energy methods, including incineration and gasification, which have different energy signatures and emission sources. There are a number of waste to energy processes that are not incineration, and on November 5, 2019, the Committee on Agriculture, Water, Energy, and Environmental Management is to have a presentation on a batch process being used on Oahu. Chair Bennett said if the focus is to generate energy from waste, it would essentially preclude recycling the waste for other than energy purposes. The goal, however, is to stop putting waste into a landfill and start using it in opportunistic ways, which may not necessarily be to create energy. Director Kucharski agreed, stating there would be no benefit in creating a by-product they cannot use and shipping it to a processing plant that would leave a big carbon footprint. In his opinion, it is necessary to look at what people are doing holistically. It should not be out of sight, out of mind. Shipping plastics to Asia and not understanding what happens to 90% of it is a problem. They need to look at the carbon footprint of what they are doing. They need to look at what alternatives there are for the small amount of waste this island has compared to places that generate hundreds of millions of tons. The Big Island is a special case, and its waste stream cannot be effectively transported anywhere without expanding and increasing their carbon footprint in the process. The issue of waste to energy needs to be dealt with honestly, and the decision on what to do should not be based on how good it feels, but on what it really means. Chair Bennett said he was interested in learning more about the holistic approach, including waste stream diversion and reuse of materials. Director Kucharski said the updated Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan has a recommendation to look at the different processes and evaluate what they are doing to the environment. Commissioner Burns said it would be useful for the county to have a practical economic analysis done, as there is a plethora of waste to energy technologies. Stability of cost is necessary, as the island is cost-strapped and hidden costs can far outweigh any benefits. Sometimes small steps can make dramatic improvements. Chair Bennett said he wanted a broad brush overview of what would constitute a holistic look at the question. People need to step back and see there are all kinds of ways waste can be used, and not just focus on waste to energy. There may be a combination of pathways in addition to waste to energy that should be put on the table. Director Kucharski said a full analysis of all options is appropriate. The energy created from burning fossil fuels needs to be reduced, and there should be an alternative fuel that has no carbon footprint. The process needs to be gone through systematically and answers validated. The ultimate solution likely will not come up the first time alternative processes are evaluated. Chair Bennett said that although the Commission has not yet received anything from the County Council on waste to energy, Councilmember Richards previously made it clear he wants their input on matters. This issue is worthy of their efforts, and they can prepare an outline of their views to present. 6. REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE a. Chair’s Informational Report on the update of the General Plan. Input and comments are needed, especially on matters concerning water. Chair Bennett reported that he has been encouraged by Bethany Morrison, the long- range planner with the Planning Department. She would like input from the commissioners as individuals, particularly on integrating water matters into the General Plan. The structure of the government and how the General Plan addresses water resources is disintegrated. Ms. Morrison is requesting they look into how the General Plan can address issues of water resources, both fresh water and wastewater. The imperative is to look at water very holistically. It will take some of their personal time to read and make comments, but Planning very much wants their input as individuals. b. Director’s Informational Report. • The judge rendered a decision in the Demoruelle lawsuit. The plaintiff’s claims and lawsuit are being dismissed, although she may appeal. (Ms. Mellon-Lacey clarified that the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order still need to be written and filed, and the plaintiff will have 30 days from when that happens to file her appeal.) • As indicated earlier, he is attempting to revise the R-1 schedule and move it forward, but they cannot do much until the EIS has been processed and finalized. • The 2-Bin Recycling Program has changed, as the contractor has decided not to renew the contract. The global market on plastics has collapsed, and they’ve been losing money. He provided a summary of the recycling programs, showing what has changed and what remains, and he explained that the county in and of itself does not recycle, but contracts with companies to do it. A PowerPoint presentation on the recycling changes will be given on November 5, 2019, before the Council’s Committee on Agriculture, Water, Energy, and Environmental Management. It will explain what happened, when, and what they are doing about it. To put it in perspective, 283,000 tons of solid waste were collected in 2018 and disposed of in the landfill. About 58,000 tons were diverted, which is about a 20% diversion rate. These figures do not include the big box retailers and businesses, which send their cardboard elsewhere. He provided information on how much of the waste stream was diverted to the 2-bin system, and it was disappointing. Options are being looked at, including whether to go out and get a new contract, or do an RFI or RFP to see what comes in. One of their employees was just appointed to be in the state Plastic Source Reduction Group, which should be helpful. In addition, they are also working with Habitat for Humanity and the Hawaiʻi Wildlife Fund on how to manage waste. Commissioner Gaffney asked whether the new vehicle to check sewer lines for leaks was on board yet, and Director Kucharski said they had ordered two, and he would check on the status. Commissioner Gaffney said he would like an update each month in the Director’s Informational Report on the sewer inflow and infiltration on Aliʻi Drive so they could see the results of the new technology. Commissioner Fritz asked whether members of the public who use transfer stations would get educated about not recycling what they previously could and if they would be signing agreements to uphold the rules. Director Kucharski said there should be signs posted, and the facility attendants are paying closer attention to what is put in the bins. Commissioner Fritz said people at the Puakō Transfer Station are not following the rules and also put greenwaste down the chute. 7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS This was not discussed. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next meeting was not announced. 9. ADJOURNMENT Motion, second, and vote: Commissioner Fulton moved to adjourn, Vice Chair Olson seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 10:58 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Fujio, Secretary (with her signature)