Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-26 EMC Minutes draft ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 26, 2021 9:04 a.m. to 11:37a.m. (Online meeting via Zoom videoconferencing) Commissioners present: Georjean Adams, Chair Rick Gaffney, Vice Chair Melissa Cardwell Dee Fulton Lee McIntosh Jon Olson (Audio only) Elyse Robinson County staff present: Ramzi Mansour, Director Sanne Berrig, Recycling Specialist George Hayducsko, Recycling Coordinator Peter Sur, Secretary Diana Mellon-Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel Holeka Inaba, Council Member, District 8 Wendy Baez, Legislative Assistant, Council District 8 Others present: Sandra Demoruelle, Kristine Kubat, Steve Holmes, Michelle Nicholls, Jennifer Navarra, Michelle Sorenson, Jerome Warren, others. 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Adams opened with a roll call and called the meeting to order at 9:04a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MEETING ON MARCH 24, 2021 Motion and second: Commissioner Olson moved to approve the minutes, and Vice Chair Gaffneyseconded the motion. Discussion: No discussion. 1 Vote:The minutes were approved as presented by voice vote. Ayes: 6 (Adams, Fulton, Gaffney, Olson, McIntosh, Robinson); Nays 0; Absent 3 (Cardwell, Burns, Hoopii). Motion carried. 3.STATEMENT FROM THE CHAIR Chair Adamswelcomedattendees. There is a bill on the Governor’s desk to allow the continued use of virtual meetings, so until who knows when, we will continue to have these meetings virtually. She finds it advantageous to avoid the drive, and it encourages the public to participate as well. But she knows that some meeting participants are having technical issues and we will try to work on finding ways to get them to log on and see and talk with us. She has been spending a lot of time in Zoom meetings, talking about recycling and life cycle assessments. We are excited to move along to do something good for our environment. We will be continuing to have those opportunities. We’ve got a lot of energy out there, wanting to move forward with some good ideas that got presented in this last session. The Council is interested, the Legislature is interested, and we’ve got a lot of energy with the public interest groups, and this Commission wants to get things accomplished. She was excited. We’ve got some great things going on. 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA Kristine Kubat opted to defer her testimony until after the discussion on agenda item 6 (pages 15-17). Sandra Demoruelle commented on the agenda items concerning the Nlehu and the sewer projects. First thought, I imagine I share everyone’s disappointment for the lack of information in this month’s Director’s report so I hope this lack of transparency is just a one- time occurrence. But the really bad news is the County Council wants to give Brown and Caldwell another $31,528,000 this coming year, which is another $130,000 per home on the Ka large capacity cesspools. There are 243 homes, 99 in and 144 in Nlehu. So $230,000 in just this one year alone. However as Commissioner Lee McIntosh said in his Bill 22 written testimony, the County should just go back to the septic conversion plan, which cost the county taxpayers only $403,000, and which completed the Administrative Order on Consent for the senior center on schedule on April 28, 2018, as you can see on that semiannual plan that I attached. So please speak up and ask the Council not to waste this $31,528,000 this year by paying more tax dollars to the same outside contractors to design two wastewater plants in Ka that are not needed. Mahalo for your attention to my concern. Thank you. Jerome Warren of Kubat has registered asa lobbyist. So let me get on with my testimony here, the business report. In regards to abandoned vehicles they are not reported this month. The woman from New Zealand has failed to get control of the situation at 95-1206 Milo Road in Nlehu. That’s the house across the street from the sewer spill. The woman from New Zealand is not alone. The man from Montana who works in traffic services has not gained control of this property. And neither has the mayor’s deputy in Hilo or 2 the planning inspector in Kona. All of these County employees and many others have produced no results. Their conversations with me boil down to two words, golly willickers. Now, over to the agenda item 7-C, the sewer. Here is an open letter to all Department of Environmental Management commissioners past and present. Back in the late 90s, the federal government created a law which prohibits the use of gang cesspools. The branch of the federal government which enforces the ban on gang cesspools is the Environmental Protection Agency. They are slack with enforcement in regards to . Please consider the County of Hawaii is in violation of a federal law because the County operates a gang cesspool in . The Department of Environmental Management is negligent. The homeowners in who are connected to this illegal structure are forced to pay the County for the County’s illegal sewer. The County’s Department of Environmental Management is guilty of operating the illegal sewer and they are guilty of forcing people to pay. They are oppressive. I will repeat that. They are oppressive. Forcing citizens into complicity with a federal crime, they are forcing – they are – they are oppressive by forcing citizens into complicity. I’ll spell complicity. C-O-M-P-L-I-C-I-T-Y. Forcing citizens into complicity with a federal crime. That’s what you are doing. The Department of Environmental Management commissioners must understand the laws which they are sworn to uphold. When you ignore these laws you are creating disrespect for the EPA, the County of Hawaii, and for the environment itself. You are not doing what you are put into office to do. You commissioners, past and present, are guilty of malfeasance. When your constituents add up all of these factors, they lose faith in government. They lose respect for all laws. Some become anarchists, like the ones next door to me. Others suffer from their anarchy, like me. It is because all of you commissioners have shrugged your duties. What you commissioners will do next is to look around and see who you can blame. Thanks for nothing. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Status report on 2021 EMC Priorities – Each lead commissioner to provide brief report on assigned priorities. Chair Adams o DEM reports each month on progress on ISWMP goals, with specific emphasis on reducing and recycling organic wastes. EMC provides comment and support with Council. Chair Adams said this is about the only thing that was done in the Director’s report, and we will be tweaking that to get a handle on how the implementation is going forward. o DEM adopts an explicit philosophy of water resource management versus wastewater management and begins to reflect this in its planning and goals. (Example – Kealakehe WWTP). o Get review from the state Attorney General regarding the Konno decision that seems to unnecessarily prevent cost-effective, creative solutions to problems. 3 o Champion cross-agency and multiple stakeholder engagement in addressing life cycle issues of waste and wastewater management. Have joint commission meeting(s). Request presentations by other departments (e.g. HDOH, HDOT). (Co-lead Olson). o Become involved in the Mayor’s sustainability planning process. Chair Adams said she has been trying to catch up from an informational standpoint with what other groups have been doing relative to waste management life cycles. Commissioner Burns o Enhance the availability and capacity of transfer stations to ensure residents can effectively manage waste and reduce the likelihood of waste being improperly or illegally disposed. (No report/Excused from meeting) Commissioner Cardwell o Support efforts on sustainable island-wide residential food waste composting: i. Support identification of barriers and solutions with stakeholders. ii. Pilot scalable, safe and cost-effective processes to collect and convert food waste and distribute valuable compost to users. (No report) Commissioner Fulton o Support public-private comprehensive sewage management for the Keauhou area. o Recommend Council allow DEM to evaluate laterals to WWTP for Kailua Bay. o DEM to identify priorities for moving its infrastructure at risk of sea level rise in the Kona area (indeed all areas) as part of county sustainability/climate planning efforts. (No report) Vice Chair Gaffney o Support public-private sustainability planning in the Keahole area, particularly to achieve sustainable water treatment for reuse. o Refocus efforts at Kealakehe WWTP to recover and use R-1 water locally. Vice Chair Gaffney referenced a document that he provided from the Hawaii Department of Health on what you can and cannot do with regard to recycled water, which includes all of the definitions. He wanted that to be accessible because we need to start thinking about using this stuff. If the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant is going to complete its R-1 process or if the distribution of R-2 water becomes possible, people need to understand what the parameters are with regard to that. It’s a long document but it’snicely broken up, and it’s easy to find things in the table of contents. With regardto the things he has been working on we’re a lot closer to sewering Honokhau Small Boat Harbor, and have the support of the highest levels in the Department of Land and Natural Resources. We are reaching out to legislators and preparing also to reach out to senators and members of Congress to be sure that the additional money that is necessary to sewer Honokhau becomes available from any infrastructure program to come out of Congress. One update is that State Rep. Nicole Lowen managed to get an allocation of funds for sewering Honokhau. It’s looking like a $7 million project to sewer the 4 harbor and connect to the wastewater treatment plant. We’ve got a commitmentof $2.5 million from the Legislature which will include planning. He also wanted to remind the other commissioners that there seems to be a constant problem with Catch-22. We have this opportunity to sewer Honokhau but at present there’s no larger plan to connect to the wastewater treatment plant and return recycled water back. We were frustrated enough by that and the obvious need to sewer Honokhau that we (the DLNR Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation) are prepared to pay for the connection. And there is also a developer that also needs to make a connection. We are thinking about just getting it done because it doesn’t appear that it’s going to be done unless it’s forced. That’s the kind of Catch-22 that we run into. We are ready to do something important with regard to wastewater, and then there are hiccups that prevent the completion. And also it’s a very easy thing for bureaucrats to say, I’m sorry, we can’t proceed because X-Y-Z, and really those things are created blocks. They are not necessarily true and they don’t represent the reality, and we have to do something. Finally, he was involved in an interesting webinar with regard to water rights in the and an interesting part of the discussion is who owns the water, once recycled water goes back into the ground and recharges the aquifer, and who is responsible for the water condition. One of the interesting things about using R-1, R-2, even R-3 water to recharge the aquifers in the State is that there are a lot of negative things – chemicals, pharmaceuticals, radiological products from imaging and cancer treatment and other things like brighteners in laundry detergent, sucralose and other things that pass through humans and wastewater treatment plants. Those things individually and collectively are a negative to the human population and to everything alive on Earth. So we need to do some long-term thinking about the recycling of wastewater and what that means to the future, particularly because we live on islands. Chair Adams encouraged the Vice Chair to bring specific proposals, if any, to the Commission for action. Vice Chair Gaffney said it doesn’t appear the County is going to be prepared to make that connection in the next three years, and we (the State) are hoping to be able to do it sooner than that, although there are questions about easements and other things that need to be worked out with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and so forth. The basic decision is, the practical action is to make the connection immediately, and then in a discussion with Director Mansour, it came out that anyone who should connect to the connection we put in between the harbor and the wastewater treatment plant after the fact would have to pay in part to reimburse the State for having done that. It’s our presumption that we would make the connection now rather than waiting the three to five years that it takes the County to do it, and then later on get reimbursed for the parts of the connection into which the other people tap. Commissioner McIntosh o DEM to re- identify more reasonable cost solutions (No report) Commissioner Olson o Champion cross-agency and multiple stakeholder engagement in addressing life cycle issues of waste and wastewater management. Have joint commissions 5 meeting(s). Request presentations by other departments (e.g. HDOH, HDOT). (Co-lead Adams) o Enhance solid waste and wastewater infrastructure, given expected population growth in the Puna district. o Review and support sufficient funding and creative cost reductions recommended by DEM. Commissioner Olson said the discussion on his end has been the issues of level of service on the solid waste side. In other words, our population out here is just booming. The transfer stations find themselves to be overwhelmed on a fairly regular basis. And so we have been having a lot of discussions about how we are going to deal with that, and it always comes back to the issue of money. The discussion that he has been having with the people out here, particularly around Phoa town, is where the money is going to come from. As things are currently structured, (a large portion) comes out of the property tax for the County of Hawaii. We have to find another solution to that because 1950 is over and it’s not working. We need to have more facilities to handle the solid waste issue, and we’ve been talking about the possibility of getting the disposal fee at the point of purchase, much as we have done with the cans and bottles. The number of drop-off stations is inadequate for the population, given the large size of our subdivisions out here and the rural nature. So that’s something he would like to have more opportunities to discuss with the commissioners. He didn’t expect an immediate agenda item but would like them to think about doing that so we can collect the resources we need to meet the demand. Chair Adams replied that one of the approaches that applies to solid waste is covered under New Business, and that is the extended producer responsibility, and how that can contribute funding. We can have discussion today for a potential approach for solid waste. That is a big issue and one we need to tackle in multiple ways and forms. a. Status report on action items from previous meeting i. Letter to Council regarding funding for Life Cycle Analysis Chair Adams said she submitted the letter to the Council asking for an additional $50,000 to fund the life cycle analysis of our solid waste operations. She also gave oral testimony. There is one final reading of the Council budget on June 3. She’s not sure there is anything more we need to pass on there. It flows with our support of looking at total effects. What are the best ways to manage everything we do by looking at total life cycle impacts if we can? We’ll keep you posted if by chance we are able to fund that work. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Product Stewardship/Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Programs -George Hayducsko, SWD Recycling Program Coordinator Chair Adams said that one of the things that could serve as a funding mechanism to help with waste is the concept of extended producer responsibility, or EPR. She had asked George Hayducsko, Recycling Coordinator, to talk about what the Solid Waste Division, Recycling Program, is working on in that area. It’s one of the areas that we covered in the ISWMP, and 6 she thought it appropriate to hear what the Division is working on, and some of the progress we made for looking at opportunities for EPR. i. DEM Recycle Group’s efforts on an EPR program for architectural paint Background reading on EPR model programs: https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/paper-packaging extended-producer-responsibility-approaches/and ISWMP Chapter 3.5.10 http://records.hawaiicounty.gov/weblink/1/edoc/110921/2019%20I ntegrated%20Solid%20Waste%20Management%20Plan.pdf Mr. Hayducsko began his PowerPoint presentation by thanking the Commission for its support of Life Cycle Assessment funding. He said the solid waste and recycling industry is relatively new and there are still a lot of discussions about definitions. What is a product stewardship, how is it different from EPR? Words are still sort of interchangeable. So he began with a slide from Seattle Public Utilities. The difference between product stewardship and EPR is that the former is initiated by a producer, including voluntary actions, and the latter is resulting from, and enforced by, legislation. There is still a lot of discussion in the industry regarding exactly what these terms are. The idea behind both is to put more responsibility on the cost of managing the product with the producers, especially with EPR, and also the consumer, and get it away from the taxpayer base. With EPR, the intent was that the manufacturers would be responsible for the product, and in the long term they then would make the product so it is easier to recycle and take back, and be less toxic for the environment. Not just to divert the productfrom the landfill, which is critical, but also making it not as deadly or harmful to the environment. Heidi K. McAuliffe, Vice President for Government Affairs of the American Coatings Association, gave a few online presentations regarding PaintCare on May 18-20, 2021, and Mr. Hayducsko presented the same PowerPoint presentation for the Commissioners. We are very interested in this program in the State of Hawaii, and obviously it would help the County here. So currently there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have a PaintCare program. Washington State started its program on May 1; New York has just passed legislation to enable it. With PaintCare there is model legislation consistent with all of the states, so it has to be statewide. The State of Hawaii would be a good candidate for this. It’s a level playing field for all manufacturers, who have to participate in some fashion. You also need sustainable financing, and the financing comes from the users. The manufacturers pay PaintCare to do the program. So the manufacturers are charging slightly higher to make this program work. The County would not have to touch any funding.It’s consistentacross the states. It’s consistent and an easy program with a clause for anti-trust protection. All retailers, all manufacturers are being treated all the same. Among the key elements of the paint stewardship law: Everyone is being treated equally. All leftover paint would able to be taken back to a drop-off site. There is an annual reporting requirement. Education and outreach are critical. The State and the counties would be made whole financially. There is State oversight and enforcement. The consumer 7 would be paying for all that upfront. There are no taxpayer dollars in this program onceit is implemented. The oversight agency would review plans, financial reports, and financial structure, annual reports, and enforcement activities, and post it on the agency’s website. Retailers are critical to the program. PPG Paints, Ace Hardware, Sherwin-Williams, are some of the smaller operations compared to the “big box stores,” such as Home Depot or Lowe’s, but they also participate. PaintCare believes retailersare interested in this,especially the small ones, because they are the entities that work with the community, and the extra traffic that comes in will help their businesses. That is not the only mechanism for collection. Organizations such as Habitat for Humanity would also collect. And even in rural areas where there might not be these stores, they do have events, if needed, in a community. This is also for businesses, they would do a “milk run” to pick up the material if it’s necessary. Financially, you have to have a mechanism that is long-term. And you can see the structure that is being used. Being in the middle of the Pacific our fee might be higher, but these are areas too that have a high cost of living. There is no fee for half a pint or smaller; 35 cents if larger than a half pint but smaller than a gallon. The 1-2 gallon fee is between 75 cents and 99 cents, and the 5-gallon fee is less than $2. They do not handle the large 55-gallon drums. Their maximum ability is to take the 5-gallon containers, and it’s just easier to manage that type of product. They have a lot of experience, and almost 98 percent of the population is within 15 miles of a dropoff. There were almost 5,000 “large volume” pickups. Mr. Hayducsko reviewed the specific challenges for Hawaii. We do not have a processor in the State, so the latex paint would most likely need to go out of the State. Oil-based paint could be used at a waste-to-energy facility in the State . Solvent-based and oil-based paint make up a small portion of the paint that is being used; most of it is water-based, latex-based. The cost of transportation has been identified. We know it’s doable, it will cost something to get it done. They are going to learn more about the retail environment before moving forward. And as for the potential savings to counties: If PaintCare paid for transportation, how much would our County save? In talking with the other counties, there is a significant amount of savings in our program. We also believe that we would be capturing much more of the paint going into the landfill. Heidi McAuliffe has been willing to talk to any of us, and has devoted a lot of time trying to get us educated. Contact: (202) 719-3686; hmcauliffe@paint.org. Chair Adams referenced the link to the suggested readings in agenda item 6(a)(i). There are pluses and minuses in different ways to structure these programs. They can give money to a county or to a municipality to defray the cost of waste management, and rely on whatever pickup disposal facilities, recycling facilities exist in a location, or they can run it on their own. That is the PaintCare model, where the organization is a nonprofit, it’s set up by the manufacturers of paint, and it tries to get voluntary participation from the retail end, and they manage it all. They manage where you can drop, where you pick it up, they will pay for the 8 transportation and the disposal. It is a turnkey operation that would not burden our County operations. It mayhoweverinterfere with some of the good thingsthat arehappening. You can take latex paint now to six or seven reuse centers at transfer stations. You can take it to Habitat for Humanity. So how do we maintain, or not, all of these operations? In Minnesota, which had PaintCare, it’s really easy. If you are done with your paint, no matter who made the paint, you can take the paint back to a single store that is participating in this program. So it’s very easy and simple for the consumer, and all the costs are managed by PaintCare, and funded by the manufacturers that are upping the price of paint to cover that cost. The Chair’s concern, if she had to name one, is she would hate to see us lessen the amount of reuse of paint that we have going on now. Their focus is less on reusing the paint than on safely disposing the paint. That is something we can negotiate. A big part of their education program is, only buy as much as you need. Don’t buy gallons and gallons when you only need a pint and a half. And here is an easy place to take what’s left over, if you don’t have a way to do it. But, how we can preserve and enhance reuse possibilities has got to be an important part of that. A lot of this trying to keep whomever is handling waste from the retail side to be a small quantity. So we have these pickups after the store gets enough cans. They will come by and pick it up, so you don’t have these waste storage facilities accumulating. So it’s very good in that respect, which means also the big box stores don’t participate, because they would get too much stuff, and they would be sucked into a whole new regulatory regime. There are advantages; PaintCare is one example where they have worked up a pretty good system. We just have to see if they are going to charge twice as much for the paint just to pay for the transportation. But maybe there are opportunities to process some of the paint instead of shipping it out. It is an alternative and the Chair is very happy to see the Recycling Program is working on it. Commissioner Robinson asked what are the roadblocks in Hawaii to getting it off the ground. Mr. Hayducsko said the challenge was the process of educating the community and the policymakers – the County Council, and the Legislature. PaintCare would hire a local lobbyist to work with those entities and educate them. The legislation, they were pretty clear about this, has to be close to or identical to what they have in the other states. We have to make sure everybody understands what PaintCare is, and the counties, not just our County, have to be willing to do that also. We would like to see the EMC become educated on this, support this type of program, then the County Councils, all of them in the state, review it, understand it, and support, and then we pass it on to the state level. So is there a possibility for this actually to be passed next session? That would be wonderful. In reality, what they have seen in multiple states is that it takes multiple years. It usually doesn’t happen in one year. But the EMC is very aware of this type of program, and our legislators are also aware of these types of programs. So maybe it could happen one year. The other side of it is making sure that the retailers, the business community, understand the program, that they are not going to be burdened with the cost of this. But they will be a part of the solution, part of the program. It will be a net positive. They will be seeing their customers more often, coming in with the leftover paint. He sees these as the steps that we have to take to make this happen. 9 Commissioner Cardwell hasa similar concern as the Chair. She had bought used paint plenty of times from Habitat for Humanity. It seems just a little bit wasteful if it’s paint that is still usable. It’s just extra paint that someone doesn’t need. So we are sending it back to somewhere on the mainland and they are just disposing of it. Something about that doesn’t sit well with her. Mr. Hayducsko said that with the water-based paint they do recycle what is recyclable. On the mainland they have the freeze-thaw thing where frozen paint is no good, or the paint dries and they can’t use it. Some places like Habitat for Humanity would still be used for a dropoff. They may take off what they believe they could use locally. Anything they believe they couldn’t use locally would go to PaintCare. A majority of it does end up getting reused. That is not true with solvent-based paints. It is going mostly to waste-to-energy facilities. Commissioner Cardwell said that clarification is helpful and it does make sense, that if there’s still the possibility to take paint that could be reused, that Habitat for Humanity or some similar nonprofit organization would do so. And the question popped up in her mind, there are a lot of barges that go back empty. So she wondered, as far as transporting paint back to mainland is concerned, if it is possible to take advantage of those empty barges. Mr. Hayducsko said the Legislature could help us with that in the future. Up to this point we have not been getting any benefit from the recycling going back. Maybe this legislation is a good time to bring that up, as we would like some help. Vice Chair Gaffney asked if any members of the Hawaii Island delegation have seen the PaintCare presentation and are thinking about this. Recycling Specialist Sanne Berrig said staff from the offices of Sen. Mike Gabbard, Rep. Nicole Lowen, Council Member Tim Richards, and one other elected official participated. They had expressed interest right away. Ms. Berrig added that in her conversations with Ms. McAuliffe that an important part of the discussion is education. The normal reaction when you are buying something is when it’s a bigger container, you buy more. You might buy a gallon when you really don’t need a gallon. So a component of PaintCare is about educating people about that, and the reuse component. Chair Adams wondered if we need a motion. She asked for support to continue the conversation and see if we can come up with an approach that would work for the County and the State. 10 Deputy Corporation Counsel Diana Mellon-Lacey advised that a motionwould be in order to show the Commission’s continued support on the record, in the minutes, for PaintCare, and what this group wants to see happen. Commissioner Cardwell asked if writing a letter to the Council would be helpful. Mr. Hayducsko said thatwould be excellent to have a motion on the record. Motion:Commissioner Cardwell said perhaps we could have a motion to write a letter to the County Council in support of this program. (Themotion was not seconded, but discussion continued) Chair Adams added she would like to add more flexibility to the motion. She would like to see how it works out on this island, and whether there are enormous barriers that would, say, triple the cost of paint. She has no problem with continuing to explore what kind of PaintCare program we can establish on the island. (This discussion was tabled to allow Mr. Hayducsko to conclude his presentation. Following the presentation on agenda items 6-a(ii) and 6-a(iii)in pages 13-15, the discussion continued). Mr.Hayducsko said a letter to the Council to support EPRcould be helpful to support the Department in movingforward,and for the Council to consider in the future. We need to consider the cost, and what the cost is going to be. And before we jump into pushing this too far, we should have an idea of what that is going to be. Commissioner Cardwell said it is useful to see that this is already happening on the island, and it looks like the cost isn’t too high when it comes to glass and whatnot. Because there is nothing the potential cost would be? Mr. Hayducsko said the PaintCare representatives would be the ones to whom we would go to start working on that. So when they start getting serious about this and get a lobbyist to start working with us, they would be looking at all of these questions that need to be answered, and would provide those answers to our community and to the Legislature. Commissioner Cardwell said it seems to her that based on these examples it is likely that the cost of paint would not rise that much. Maybe it would slightly higher than the prices quoted in something out with the empty barges, the cost could be about the same. So $2 extra for a 5- gallon bucket is not much. 11 Vice Chair Gaffney mentionedand becausethe legislation must be similar to laws passed in other states, the body that is going to make the final decision is the Legislature, not the Council. He was not sure there is value in reaching out to the Council now other than to say that we would like you to be aware of this program, and we can get this presented to you at a Council meeting. But what needs to happen is we need to sociation of Counties, and they reach out to the legislators. We had enough interest that Rep. Lowen and Sen. Gabbard attended these things, so they are the obvious people to contact. They work together very closely – Sen. Gabbard can introducea bill in the Senate and Rep. Lowen can introduce it in the House – they have done this collectively in this last session. That is the way to do it, rather than directly into the Council, because that is going to take another year. If HSAC agrees to move it as legislation, that would ensure that it would be heard next session. Mr. Hayducsko said that is an excellent point. The reason for moving that way is that staff would have the authority to take it to the Legislature. That was our reasoning. And all the staff on each county would also have that authority to speak for the county in moving this forward. But having HSAC on board is excellent, and the place that we would want to go to, and make them aware of it, and move forward. Having staff move forward with it is the reason we were looking at the Council, he said. Vice Chair Gaffney asked whether there has been previous outreach to the Council on having staff talk to the Legislature. Mr. Hayducsko said he was not aware. Vice Chair Gaffney said if we want to ask the Council to enable staff to continue this process toward the Legislature, that is what our letter to the Council needs to ask. The other way, he carry this for us. Deputy Corporation Counsel Diana Mellon-Lacey said it would seem to be something that Director Mansour would discuss with the Mayor first, and then go from there. Ms. Berrig noted that the Director had alreadysent a memo to the Mayor’s office and received approval to explore this further. Mr. Hayducsko said the Department asked for permission to reach out to the Council and to legislators for the PowerPoint presentation. We took the lead on that statewide, and we wanted approval from the Mayor to do that. We didn’t want to take that action without the 12 Mayor giving us the approval to reach out to legislators on this particular item, for the presentation. Deputy Counsel Mellon-Lacey said maybe the next step would be a resolution, if that is the direction they want to go. Chair Adams suggested commissioners could come up with a proposal for a letter that they could send, to clarify the specific request. Commissioner Olson recommended writing a letter to the Mayor’s office, to say in effect “we would like to move forward on this and we would like to have the Council’s concurrence on it.” Commissioner McIntosh said it sounds like staff are working on the issue. Maybe they should identify what they want to do next, and what they would like the Commission to help them do next, and then come back to the next meeting. Commissioner Fulton said we can independently speak to our council members, and support the PaintCare program, and maybe look further into what we do as a body. She does support the idea of a letter, but she also recognizes the need to do some preliminary research to identify obstacles, and do some of the work for the County before we pass it off. Mr. Hayducsko, in response to a question from Commissioner Olson about the volume of paint that would be handled, said we have not received any data from the manufacturers. We can generate numbers from household hazardous waste collections, but that would be a small fraction of what is out there. Currently we do not have that number. That is something PaintCare would be looking into when we develop the fee structure. And they get that data directly from the manufacturer, so they will know how much is being sold. He is hoping the data would be broken out for each County. Commissioner Olson said he would be surprised if the volume was all that high. Building contractors tend to share resources, so they would be checking with each other before sending anything back. Chair Adams asked commissioner to study on their own what would be the best approach we should take. She volunteered herself to talk with Mr. Hayducsko, Ms. Berrig, and Deputy Corporation Counsel Mellon-Lacey on what kind of approach we should take next. ii. Mr. Hayducsko said he was asked to give an overview of the Extended Producer Responsibility programs that we have. They include HI-5, the beverage advance disposal fee, and electronic waste. Manufacturers are doing a great job in the City and County of Honolulu, but they are 13 getting all the pounds that they need from that County. And then we are left behind with minimum fundingfor electronic waste. We were expecting to get more than $250,000 for our program, but because of COVID-19, it was cut back to $99,950, and this coming fiscal year it is being cut again, down to $95,000. So we are having to manage the program with the limited funds that we have. Vehicle tires are one example of a product that put a lot of the burden on the distributor and retailers. If someone buys a new tire, it is required that the retailer charge for the recycling of a tire. It doesn’t matter if the customer leaves the tire behind or not. The intent is if a customer is already paying for the tire, the customer would not be taking it back home and stockpiling or dumping it. Lead-acid battery recycling also seems to be doing well, but Mr. Hayducsko is always surprised at household hazardous waste collection events byhow many lead acid batteries come in. Even though the customer is being charged for those batteries. Also, there is legislation out there to require that sales of oil of a certain quantity are assessed a fee to support oil recycling programs. The County used to get funds from the state to support those programs. Currently, we don’t get anything. We have been discussing that we should be getting some funds from the State, but we have not been successful. Two programs that should be discussed in further detail are the Hi-5 beverage container fee and the Advanced Disposal Fee for glass recycling. When you buy a Hi-5 eligible container, you are paying the 5 cents, which you can get back if you take it to a redemption center, but you are also paying a penny for the administration – for the State portion of the program, and also for the recyclers. The recyclers are being subsidized for providing a redemption center. As for the ADF glass program, if you buy anything that is in glass other than a Hi-5 product – there is a fee on that, to help support our program. The importer pays 1.5 cents per container to the State, which administers funds to the counties in a grant program which pays out based on on-island recycling. This fee has not increased in 27 years. There was legislation this year to increase that fee to help support our program, and there is a need to increase that. As an example, the money that we get from the State is paying for less than half of our program cost for recycling and materials. At our transfer stations, we have the roll-out bins for container glass and to do that program we are getting much less from the State to support that program. Unfortunately, if we cannot find funds for next fiscal year starting July 1, we are going to start cutting back on providing that service to our citizens. So you will see a cutback at our transfer stations where some of the transfer stations that have glass collection will no longer have glass collection because of our funding situation. iii. Other product categories that could be considered 14 Regarding the EPR, Mr. Hayducsko said he meetsmonthly with our counterparts in the other counties,and one of the high prioritiesisfiguring outhow we manage a lot of our products. What we have done is come up with a list of our high priorities. First, what we want to do is we want to improve our existing program, such as the ADF for glass. We would like to see that increase. That’s one example. He provided a list of what was identified as the high priorities, which the other counties are also willing to work on. We are all willing to work together to come up with EPR programs for the following: White goods and appliances: These are difficult to manage, very costly to manage, and some of them contain Freon. We would like to see all white goods managed under an EPR program. Photovoltaic system panels and batteries: We are getting more and more calls about these, and it’s going to be a much bigger problem in the future. We would like to see some kind of program. Electric vehicle batteries: We are seeing more and more electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles that we would like to see under an EPR program. Mattresses Carpets All other batteries Lighting: Including fluorescent and compact fluorescent bulbs; Medical sharps (needles et cetera) Pharmaceutical products Auto switches Junk mail Mercury thermostats Gas cylinders Pesticides Textiles The last six are considered lower priorities, but still a concern that the counties are trying to work together on. The goal is to get the burden off the taxpayers. 4a.PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA (deferred) Kristine Kubatestimony submitted to the Commission. To follow up on the previous discussion, the Council is the policy-making body of the County. They have already set policies in favor of zero waste and everything the Commission has discussed. So officially, there is no need to go to them. But there could be a potential ethics violation in asking them to support a particular nonprofit. It’s not clear that they would be a vendor. For instance you wouldn’t go to the Council to ask them to support 15 vendor that is working with the County. The reason why it is important to have the County involved is if this is state legislation, then in the different committees when there is testimony, all the state legislators will be looking to the counties to testify. Because the counties are the ones that actually handle the waste, not the State. Themain point to make is there’s a clear difference between models for extended producer responsibility and product stewardship. And it all has to do with who is going to take physical control of the materials. That is really the crux of the difference. This right here is a perfect example, talking about the paint. There are people, vendors, and entrepreneurs on this island who are already interested in collecting paint. One person with whom she had been talking had been working with Habitat for Humanity. So this excess paint in our community is a resource specifically for waste-to-wealth programs. For individuals who are underemployed, people coming out of the prisons, and off the streets. So we want to be very careful before we just jump in and make any kind of arrangements with these large scale operations or companies or businesses. She commends Chair Adams for raising those issues. It’s something we have to think about because this excess paint is a potential resource for our community. When it comes to extended producer responsibility and these different models, she doesn’t know if commissioners have read the legislation that was introduced this last session. The bill that was introduced by Rep. Lowen (HB 1316) was nearly 70 pages long. She read it, and it was very complex. The testimony from the Department of Health was that in the first year it would cost $750,000 to implement and regulate. It’s a very costly endeavor. So it’s important to look at models that will work for us. The direction that hing much simpler. It’s sort of like something happening with the e-waste program where you have manufacturers put money into a kitty, but then that’s about it. When we look at the e-waste program, it’s a perfect example of why you can’t entirely trust the manufacturers to handle it. They submit a plan, they put money into a fund, and then they run the program the way they want. So when you talk to people on the front lines of waste to wealth initiatives, they are concerned about this kind of model because it puts the producers in a position to round up all these resources and ship them off to an incinerator and put everybody in a position of consuming more and more and more and more. This is what we are trying not to do. Recycle Hawaii recommends an approach where we target the top manufacturers and producers of fast-moving consumer goods. There’s a rather short list that we could work with. There’s all kinds of methods for determining how much packaging waste they generate. This big discussion about extended producer responsibility versus product stewardship has quite a bit to do with packaging. And so we don’t need to target every last producer in the state. If you look at Rep. Lowen’s bill, she was targeting anyone who was doing at least $1 million of business in the State. That would include Big Island Candies, for example. The flood of testimony that came out against it was overwhelming. If we target the top producers and make them put money into fund, and we can decide between the solid waste management folks and the different counties on how it gets used, this is the approach that we are recommending. And in addition to that there is the Global Commitment for a New Plastics Economy. She has been preaching about this, trying to get people to look at their materials. It is a collaboration between the United Nations environmental program and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Out of the top 20 producers of fast-moving consumer goods, 16 of them are already signatories to this global commitment. Plastic is the crux of the problem. And when we 16 learn to deal with that, a lot of things will sort themselves out. By focusing on these fast-moving consumer goods producers who are already a part of this process, she thinks we can move toward the goals of extended producer responsibility. In that commitment, you see that they are already focused on those goals. Redesigning packaging. Eliminating excess plastic use. Keeping all plastic in the economy instead of out in the environment. It’s a voluntary program and can support that. She has spoken with Council Member Villegas, who is . She is working with Council Member Villegas to get a presentation from the United Nations Environmental Program and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation to tell the counties about this program. If the state were to become a signatory to this program, a lot of the things we are trying to accomplish with extended producer responsibility legislation could just happen voluntarily by these big corporations. The reason we need the big corporations we need new infrastructure. They are the ones with the money and the wherewithal to create that infrastructure. 7. REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE Director’s Informational Repor www.hawaiicounty.gov>Our County> County Calendar> (Meeting date). Director Mansour thanked meeting participants for their involvement. We have a lot of challenges; he asked commissioners to put the word out that we have four vacancies in engineering in the wastewater division with only one remaining. Please put the word out. If you know an engineer, let him or her apply. The positions have been posted and we are in need of these engineers so we can continue the work on the wastewater issues. He thanked Vice Chair Gaffney for his updates and he appreciates DLNR for taking the steps to move forward. We need to work very closely with him. As far as the R-1 water is concerned, here is a good update: As he was touring the Waikoloa wastewater treatment plant, he saw the five stainless steel containers for sand filters. He was able to work with the private company and they are going to donate the sand filters as a donation to the County, so we can dismantle it and reinstall it at Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. That will allow us to produce the filtered effluent to get us the R-1 water. So that’s great news. We are going to figure out a way to get the sand filter and put it back to reuse rather than have it sitting there. We’ll continue working on the details on how to dismantle, transport, and install it in the facility. Regarding the concerns about the wastewater and what the wastewater has and doesn’t have in it, that’s the reason for the pretreatment program. Hopefully it would be coming to youalso for that program for industrial dischargers. It’s a law under Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations. It requires every industrial user to pre-treat wastewater prior to disposal of their waste into a public municipality system. So with that hopefully we will be able to capture most of our pollutants before makes its way into our sewer system, so as we also start producing the 17 R-1, R-2 water it’s going to be free of pollutants because the dischargers need to be able to capture that at the point of service, where they’re going to be providing that service. Either it could be a hospital, it could be a restaurant, it could be an auto shop. So all of that is going to be specified in the program how to go about pretreatment prior to disposal. 1. Legislative update Chair Adamsasked about upcoming Resolution No. 143-21, introduced by Council Member Heather Kimball: “AResolution urging the County Department of Environmental Management to ensure that destinations to whichthe County of Hawaii transports its recyclable waste for out-of-state processing abide by the environmental standards outlined by the Basel Convention.” The resolution is similar to the House Concurrent Resolution 27, Senate Draft 1, which was adopted by the Legislature in the 2021 session, Chair Adams said. It’s the idea that whenever we are sending recyclable waste out, that they are going to be doing it in an environmentally sound way, according to the guidance from the Basel Convention, of which the United States is a signatory but has not ratified it yet. So there are some logistical issues but on a voluntary basis, when we are sending things to be recycled that they would be recycled properly and not left in the environment. So just check that out, Council Member Kimball is working on a draft, and the Department of Health has been very supportive at the State level. Chair Adams asked Director Mansour to comment. Director Mansour had seen an email from the Council Member directed at the Solid Waste Division Chief, who was currently out of the office. What the Council Member is asking is about the chain of command of the product, so we have to keep track of where the product is going to be ending up. It would be complicated trying to change that product because once it leaves the State it falls into different jurisdiction. So there’s a lot of details and legal maneuvering of that chain of control of the product to ensure it’s not being dumped in an irresponsible manner. Chair Adams commented that the Department of Health has the lead in trying to establish that we have recipients of our recyclables that are going to manage them properly. She recommended letting DOH at the State level figure out how they are going to organize it and not duplicate work at the County level. So we’ll see where it goes, she said, and added she encourage commissioners to look at HCR 27 SD1, which got adopted. 2. Requests for updates: The commissioners have requested informational updates on the following: a. Commissioner McIntosh) *See Page 20, Solid Waste Division Projects and Updates b. Commissioner McIntosh) 18 Director Mansour said that process continues as we continue working with the EPA. Because it could be a litigation issue, he said he is limited on what he could share but would take questions to the best of his ability. Commissioner McIntosh asked whether converting to a gang septic system is an option the County is considering, and if not, what other options are being considered because from previous comments it did not appear DEM was willing to proceed with the lagoons that were currently in the works. Director Mansour said moving from gang cesspools to gang septic systems would not be a change that would be entertained by the Department of Health or the EPA. The written administrative order on consent is for a secondary treatment sewer plant; unfortunately that train has passed the station a long time ago back in 2005. Commissioner Fulton asked Director Mansour if it were possible to make comment to a testifier’s comment about the Brown and Caldwell contract. Can he say anything to that? She also had a concern about the amount of money being spent on something that may not develop. Director Mansour said he had no idea where the testifier came up with the idea that we were going to spend $31 million. He did not know that DEM was going to spend that kind of money to that extent on that contract. He could not answer the question. Commissioner Olson asked about the timeline for “any forward movement.” Director Mansour said we are under certain deadlines based on the administrative order on consent. Deadlines are subject to negotiation and discussion; therefore he could not talk much about it. But, he added, we are in the route of doing something. However he could not talk about the details. Commissioner Olson asked if the testifier’s description of the cost was anywhere close. Director Mansour said it depends how future rulings go. The EPA does not look at costs; it looks at implementation of the rules. Commissioner Olson asked about considering the costs and benefits. He was just trying to figure it out, he said, to which Director Mansour agreed. Chair Adams summarized that the Director is stuck between a rock and a hard place to negotiate any changes to the consent order. The two of them had thrown out some ideas to brainstorm where we can go. It’s very frustrating, and we feel the pain, some of us more than others. If there’s something the Commission can do to help in that way we would be happy to consider it but at this time we cannot be part of the negotiation process, she said. 19 c. Implementing the goals and priorities of the ISWMP (Requested by Chair Adams) Director Mansour repeated that the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan is a living document that the County has to submit every decade to let the state know where we stand. As he was listening to Mr. Hayducsko’s presentation, he noted that staff are trying to take action items from the ISWMP, and trying to start on the implementation. There are certain things we need to start tackling as we move forward to show progress on the plan. Some things need to be moved forward and some need to be rethought for the bigger picture of the entire operational plan. He hopes to get an answer from solid waste staff sometime soon. Chair Adams pointed out there is a table as a standard part of the director’s report that will continue to be tweaked to show progress being made. She said she is happy to see that one of the top priorities of renegotiating th continue to be funded. 3. Solid Waste Division Projects and Updates Chair Adams asked Director Mansour to comment on the administrative rule prohibiting trailers at transfer stations, which was a topic of lively discussion at a recent virtual town hall hosted by the Waimea Community Association. Director Mansour said it’s an ongoing issue. He wanted to make clear we aren’t banning trailers; we are only banning trailers from transfer stations. People can still take trailers to the landfill. People can still use their trailers but they have to take it to the landfill, so you can get rid of your greenwaste or household waste. We are going to continue trying to figure out how we are going to continue providing the service. One of the challenges we get is related to closing the transfer stations when someone gets sick. We needto maneuver around that. We need to find solutions, because it is disappointing to constituents who drive to a transfer station to find out it is closed because somebody is sick and the Department cannot subsidize or augment the service. We are going to be working on that, and also finding out how to continue providing the service when someone calls in sick within our Department, he said. We need to figure out a way to continue with the service. We cannot hire a security contract because they must have certain credentials, and they cannot do any work that the solid waste facility attendants (SWFA) do. All they can do is open and close the gate. So we are looking into that. We are looking into planning a better solution that could allow us to augment staff to continue opening the gate and, if the SWFA is calling in sick, to perform those duties normally done by the SWFA. Commissioner Olson noted that Puna has limited resources in terms of transfer station availability and accessibility, and we are building out at a breakneck pace. It’s going to be about more than who opens the gate; it’s going to be about when we are going to add additional transfer stations. The ISWMP did not address population expansion in Puna. Director Mansour said that was one of the options he directed staff to look into. We need to look into the bigger picture, he said. Do we continue building transfer stations or do we shift to 20 And we need to look at growth. Do we need to continue trucking from east to west for the next 30 to 100 years? Is it environmentally reasonable to continue this? All these options are being considered. But Commissioner Olson is correct that with more people comes more need and more waste being generated. Service comes at a cost. Commissioner Olson said this is why he had been trying to start a discussion about collecting a disposal fee at the point of purchase, so we get the money out front. Director Mansour still wondered whether building more transfer stations was the best use of those funds. Commissioner Olson said the County is falling far behind and we are way behind on what should have been done. Simply allowing it to be paid through property tax is not sustainable, he said. Director Mansour said once we determine the option, we look at the cost of that option, and then identify the fee to be implemented to cover that option. Once the fee is recognized, we need to look at whether it is being collected at the point of service or is it being implemented as a fee for each parcel? That is a process and we need to select the easiest implementation. That is something that is not accomplished by legislation, as we already have the authority in the administrative rules in place. Once we start implementing that, then we can start telling constituents this is way past due and this is what we need to do. And we might start doing it with a pilot program. Commissioner Cardwell commented that with the massive population growth in Puna comes a huge increase in the amount of trash on the side of the roads, and also much illegal dumping. She doesn’t think that building a transfer station is going to help much. We need some kind of collection system because that will lessen the amount of trash on the road. It would take care of a lot of problems. Hawaiian Paradise Park would be a perfect place for collections. But she agreed this is something we need to move on and we are moving out of time. Director Mansour and Commissioner Olson briefly discussed issues involving the condition of private roads in Puna and historical land planning matters. Chair Adams asked Director Mansour about whether he had a timescale to consider proposals. The director replied he had just sent an email to the Solid Waste Division Chief that morning. When he gets back, the Director said the Division Chief will start doing timelines, which would be shared with the Commission. 4. Wastewater Division Projects and Updates Chair Adams addressed the topic of the Hilo Wastewater Treatment Plant. We heard a presentation at our last meeting from Dr. Rick Bennett, and she participated in another Zoom 21 meeting to look at creative options for our falling-to-pieces wastewater treatment plant, and this containerized membrane bioreactor concept was described by Dr. Bennett. At another meeting she heard about another company, Cambrian, where instead of paying them to run a wastewater treatment plant, we buy clean water from them and they pay for the modulesand operations, and they give you the water for a fee. But she brought up the topic to ask the question of, is that one of the set of options for the Hilo wastewater treatment plant, if only on a temporary basis, so nobody gets killed at the plant or we do not wipe out the bay. How are you looking at options and how broad might they be? Director Mansour appreciated getting input from Dr. Bennett. Every time we look at a plant on the island, usually we analyze it from an engineering point of view. First, how are we going to make it meet the regulatory requirement from the permitting aspect? We look at the latest technology to process the water. We also look at the geographic location – the east side is not like the west side because we get a lot of rain. If we upgrade to produce R-1 water, is it going to be used? All these questions come into play as we analyze any treatment plant during the design process. Our first action is to identify the items in the parts and in the components that are failing. We have a consultant onboard that staff secured about a year ago, and are in the process of finalizing that assessment. Once we finalize that, we have to sit down and tackle the process of how we are going to modify it. Is it better to restart again because we don’t have a redundant system, and we cannot take anything out of service? We would have to have a facility built nearby and do the transition at the end. The Cambrian products and others are good for a small amount of flow, but Hilo is 2.8 million gallons per day. So that’s a high flow and the plant is designed for 5 mgd. And as we implement the new design or the replacement of components, we also need to address the cesspools and the future connections. Because we cannot just ignore that. Eventually the tributary area within the Hilo facility treatment plant does have a majority of the homes on cesspools. So as we look at the replacement, we also need to look at the transition from cesspools to actual connections. All that is being looked at. These are complex processes, and we do entertain other technology out there. But we are going to challenge that technology, and see what they are able to provide and not able to provide. He has already had many conversations with Cambrian. We asked some questions, we are supposed to get some answers, and the process continues. Commissioner McIntosh asked if the plants can be repaired or if they need to be replaced. Director Mansour said some components need to be replaced because they are beyond repair; some other components are able to be repaired. We are getting to the point where as you do the repair, you cannot take it out of service because the system is not redundant. We will keep you posted, he said. That’s what is being identified. If we end up replacing in kind, it has to be built next to the old one because we cannot take the existing one out of service. It has to be newly constructed. Commissioner Olson asked about the practicality of rebuilding the plant given the tsunami zone implications, and whether it should be built on higher ground. Director Mansour replied that would be unfeasible (the Hilo plant is outside of the evacuation zone, but much of the collection system is within it), and it would be difficult to locate the plant elsewhere. 22 On the topic of hiring a financial consultant, Chair Adams said the Commission sent in a letter supporting hiring a financial consultant to work out what kinds of funding mechanisms would be applicable for wastewater treatment management. Are there any updates? Director Mansour said he had not heard anything, but he has a meeting with the Mayor the following day and could ask if he received the letter, and for his thoughts. Chair Adams said that’s part of the process, to say, “Let’s get somebody to lay out all the funding mechanisms for wastewater treatment, and get some arms around that, and then where the next steps go.” And hopefully that will be successful in coming up with a model on how we can fund this, and apply that as well to the solid waste program, and approaching things with an enterprise fund logic, looking at where it’s reasonable for fees, and dealing with the State diversions from County-dedicated funding. How do we maintain a sustainable funding program? The Director is trying to plan the big picture, she said, and the wall he keeps running into is funding. She appreciates the efforts. We are trying to figure out, how do we help support doing it right and making sure that we are looking at the broadest array of options possible, and not going through the old waysthat don’t find solutions on this island. Director Mansour hoped to have ongoing discussions with Commissioner Olson. He said he committed to a new Planner V position to assist the Puna district to lay out the planning for solid waste and wastewater. He knows Puna has a lot of challenges. Chair Adams said the Director is open if commissioners want to contact him and share ideas. Director Mansour closed by asking the Commission to put the word out that the Department has vacancies for wastewater engineers. Please have them apply because we do need them, he said. 8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS a. Follow up on action items determined today. Chair Adams said topics for future discussion might include: Getting clarification about what we want to ask Council or Mayor on moving forward on this PaintCare proposal. How we can set up a discussion on funding for solid waste. b. Other (Commissioners may suggest items they would like placed on the next agenda.) Chair Adams asked the Deputy Corporation Counsel to make a presentation for the June meeting on potential for hearings to appeal decisions of the Director. The Commission is authorized to hold hearings on those appeals. We will get a run-through of what that means and our function in that regard. 23 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS Next meeting is June 23, 2021, 9 a.m., and it will be virtual again. Chair Adamssaid Secretary Sur has set up a YouTube channel for recordings of these meetings Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLNxKmPKobKpXQINMHPPL5Q Commissioner Cardwell said there will be a Zero Waste summit on May 28, 2021. Zero Waste Hawaii is sponsoring it this year. It’s all online and free, and on Zoom from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Sen. Laura Acasio is sponsoring it. It’s going to feature panel discussions focused on building efficient reuse systems in Hawaii and creating pathways to community composting. Guest speakers include Lt. Gov. Josh Green, Rep. Nicole Lowen, and a keynote address by Kamana Maikalani Beamer. Chair Adams said there is a new round of USDA composting grants, and she asked Mr. Hayducsko, the Recycling Coordinator, to comment. Mr. Hayducsko said there are a lot of different directions we can go in, so we are still in discussion. We are meeting with Sarah Freeman, Food Access Coordinator with the Department of Research and Development, to discuss in more details a plan to capture a grant. Right now what we are looking at is developing an educational outreach program for backyard composting. And then try to get the funding for the backyard composting. If we look at the environmental impact of what we do on the island, it is much more effective if people do manage that product on their own property. But we need to make sure people are doing it correctly, hence the need for education. That’s what we are looking at right now. Chair Adams encouraged the County to continue seeking the money. 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion, second, and vote: Commissioner Olson made a motion to adjourn, to which Vice Chair Gaffney seconded, and the motion was adopted. Ayes: 7 (Adams, Cardwell, Fulton, Gaffney, Olson, McIntosh, Robinson); Nays 0; Absent 2(Hoopii, Burns). Meeting adjourned at 11:37 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Peter Sur, Secretary 24