The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About21-08-25 EMC minutes ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, August 25, 2021 9:07 a.m. to 11:33a.m. (Online meeting via Zoom videoconferencing) Commissioners present: Georjean Adams, Chair Melissa Cardwell Dee Fulton Carrie Hoopii Lee McIntosh Jon Olson (Audio only) Elyse Robinson County staff present: Sanne Berrig, Recycling Specialist Konrad Kaipo, Sewer Maintenance Working Supervisor Peter Sur, Secretary Malia Hall, Deputy Corporation Counsel Holeka Inaba, Council Member, District 8 Cherie Griffore, Council Aide, District 7 Others present: Sandra Demoruelle, Joy Gold, Cory Harden, Kristine Kubat, Nicole Larson, Rep. Nicole Lowen, 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 9:09a.m. 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MEETING ON JULY 28, 2021 Motion and second: Commissioner Robinsonmoved to approve the minutes, and Commissioner Hoopii seconded the motion. Discussion: No discussion. 1 Vote: The minutes were approved as presented by a raising of hands. Ayes: 6 (Adams, Cardwell, Fulton, Hoopii, McIntosh, Robinson); Nays 0; Absent 3 (Burns, Gaffney, Olson). Motion carried. 3. STATEMENT FROM THE CHAIR Chair Adams said she wanted to acknowledge it’s a challenge to get people and agenda items lined up. But she is thrilled that we canhave Representative Nicole Lowen. She will be talking about our continued discussion on how we fund our solid waste management program, and about some of her efforts around extended producer responsibility. We are also going to do the postponed training on how the Commission is responsible for and conducts administrative hearings that may challenge the Director’s orders. And we will talk a little bit about how we might look for funding or cost saving opportunities with the transfer stations. Her understanding is that the Director is unable to attend the meeting, nor is he able to prepare the Director’s informational report in time. If he shows up during the meeting we will ask him to provide any updates. But otherwise it may just be us. Hopefully we’ve got enough time and interest in talking about topics of interest. 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA Jennifer Navarra, Zero Waste Hawai‘i Island:I have been following these meetings for maybe about two years now and it’s nice to see the topic of funding finally coming up because that has been kind of the complaint. Oh, we want to do all thesethings but we don’t have the funding. But something interesting from your presentation last meeting, Georjean, is that we are spending a lot of money on the landfilling of waste, and it would, not only as we move forward, to try to get more secured, reliable funding for the Department, it would be great to see the funding structure change as well, to put more money into actually diverting waste. And in regards to the extended producer responsibility, it’s good to see Rep. Lowen on the meeting today. We do have a working group going totry to get a bill going, to introduce in this (next) legislative session. I don’t know with all the Sunshine Law rules if it’s appropriate for the Commission to participate in those meetings but if anyone is interested, it is allowable, you can reach out to me at zerowastebigisland@gmail.com. And another discussion that has come up in the community, Mr. K’s Recycling is going to start taking batteries, and we were thinking that collecting a fee at the point of purchase, this is something that comes up at these meetings regularly. You guys talked about it last time. I’m curious to know, can we do a point of purchase collection fee at the County level rather than at the State level because I know we have seen a lot of problems with how the money flows from the State to the County. I think that maybe that’s something you can talk about in the discussion.Maybe we can do some of these point of purchase fees at the County level, that is just food for thought. 2 And going back to the last meeting, there was a lot of discussion of education of the public and the need for that. And I do agree there is a need for education to the public but I wouldn’t put too much of an emphasis on that because I think there is a lot of need in terms of how we structure our waste systems. The fact that we create so much waste on the first place. As a person who has been working in community here, with individuals who want to reduce their waste, it’s really hard. It requires a lot of sacrifices,and we really need to change our systems to not create waste in the first place, and to start diverting our important resources that we are putting into the landfills. And also the Director made some comments to me that were upsetting in the last meeting, to be honest, like restricting transfer station hours, and that going out one day a week to the transfer station is like putting your garbage out to be picked up one day a week. That’s not really true for me, a person who is transitioning away from working full-time. But I don’t have time during the work week, during the business hours of the transfer station, to go there. So my only times are to go are on the weekends. And also the burden to people who do not have vehicles. I’ve done property management on the island and have hauled so much trash to the transfer stations. So I would love to see us move in a direction where we do have some residential pickup because it is a burden to people that don’t have vehicles to go to the transfer station. Sandra Demoruelle: I’m addressing agenda item 7, which is the deferred correspondence. What upsets me with this deferment of correspondence is it makes it feel like DEM is hiding important things. And what you don’t know can hurt you, or can hurt us as taxpayers. For example the notice of noncompliance for the Phala AOC was sent to Mayor Roth, and isn’t that something that is worth mentioning to you Commissioners? After all, noncompliance brings penalties. And I guess there’s no one from DEM to answer my question of what is a design-build performance-driven criteria that is going to be bid out for Phala, because they are not able to build the sewer system they initially designed. But if you can find out what a design- build performance-driven criteria is, maybe we could help the County move the EPA to accept something. But if you don’t understand what they are asking for, it is very hard to get onboard. So with that said, I thank you commissioners. Jerome Warren: Speaking on agenda item 3, Statements from the Chair, referencing the minutes in the previous meeting: I do not like censorship. Last year, statements from the public were under attack by Chair Bennett. Please remember that citizens have constitutional rights, which the Chair is sworn to uphold. I spent two years in combat boots upholding these freedoms. That was during the Vietnam War. So please do not speak. This violates my freedom of speech. This is called censorship, and it violates my First Amendment rights. Chair Bennett was the most malfeasant person to try this. Please do not follow his footsteps. Free speech is what America is all about. Now here’s the letter that you would not allow. It’s a short one. And I sent it to the newspapers, and I sent it to you. Here’s the letter: “The court ruled against me for not paying my gang sewer cesspool bill. Two judges said that I do not have standing in my own trial. Any law professor can study the evidence that I provided in my defense. Law students may learn what standing means, and how judges can decide that a County Code supersedes state 3 and federal statutes. I am still perplexed.” Final sentence: “There is a lesson here to be learned by all Hawai‘i County citizens. This is a real head scratcher.” The testifier also spoke on agenda item 5(a): The N‘lehu sewer project is still a boondoggle. It must be audited. It is still costing taxpayers, and I don’t know how many thousands of dollars a year in outside consulting fees, but my neighbor here can tell you if you ask us. You’re spending that. These paid consultants are being paid by the Director for providing false information to his monthly report. Now we have no report this month, and we have no report next month. What is going on? Have you commissioners lost control? Transparency is turning into opaqueness. I read the Director’s statements in the July minutes. Some of his sentences about N‘lehu were gobbledygook. We learned “gobbledygook” in freshman English. Please help blue-collar workers in Ka‘ understand what you are doing. Mansour must speak plain English. He is talking over our heads. This is obfuscation and it casts a dim light on all of you. The $80 million sewer project in N‘lehu is impossible. $80 million! It’s impossible. So we are still on an illegal gang cesspool. The County sued me twice for not paying, and I lost both times. We could have been legal 10 years ago and I would have been paying my bill. Let me add, 10 years ago Obama would have paid for this. And then I would be paying my bill because I would be on a legal system. Please take this item up before I have to go home and be there to get my weekly Meals on Wheels. I’m 74 years old. I get weekly Meals on Wheels. They come on Wednesday now. Following the expiration of the last testifier’s allotted time, Chair Adams ruled that his comments were not pertinent to the agenda. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Status report on 2021 EMC Priorities – Each lead commissioner to provide brief update on assigned priorities, as needed (priorities are listed in the draft May 2021 meeting minutes). No new updates were made. b. Continued discussion of solid waste division funding needs and options. 1. Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility for funding or cost-shifting waste management. Discussion of Extended Producer Responsibility legislation HB 1316 (Rep. Nicole Lowen) and recommendations by the Plastics Source Reduction Work Group. See References folder at http://records.hawaiicounty.gov/weblink/Browse.aspx?dbid=1&startid=112093 Chair Adams introduced Rep. Lowen, Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection, as part of a continued discussion of how we can fund solid waste management, including recycling, and in particular we had begun a conversation in the last meeting or so about options for funding through extended producer responsibility. The suggestion was made at last meeting that we get Rep. Lowen to talk about the bills and activities that she has been working on related to EPR. The Chair asked if Rep. Lowen could give some background on the issues she is trying to deal with, and the bills that she worked on during the last session, and during future sessions, and help to educate the Commission on the question of funding. How can we use EPR to reduce our costs or to gain funds that could support recycling operations, or help with our underfunded solid waste management program. 4 Rep. Lowen thanked the Commission for inviting her and started with a bill she introduced in 1 . This grew out of work that she has been doing with legislators in the 2021session, HB 1316 other states that work on environmental issues as well. When she introduced the bill, she knew it was unlikely to pass this session and establish an EPR program in the State of Hawai‘i because it’s a big change and there are a lot of unanswered questions about cost, and it would require additional staffing, and oversight from the Department of Health that we would need to fund. There’s a lot of questions, and a lot of times with big new ideas, there is a period of introducing a bill and educating the public and others at the Legislature about it before it gains enough support to be able to pass. Essentially, that was the main goal introducing the bill last session. EPR can be structured in different ways. The idea of EPR, to boil it down and sum it up, and simplify it, is just that producers should be responsible for end of life management for the waste that they produce. The bill that she introduced was related to packaging waste, which included plastic waste, but also things like cardboard, aluminum, glass, et cetera. But you could have an EPR regime for potentially any kind of product. It was mentioned earlier you could have an EPR for paint products and household hazardous waste products. You could have an EPR for a producer take-back program for prescription drugs or large household appliances, or all kinds of things. So it’s really the idea of a circular economy. This is as a concern that groups such as Zero Waste Hawai‘i Island often raised. An EPR program does have to be designed in such a way that you are also incentivizingsource reduction, because we all recognize with the waste stream the end solution has to do with source reduction of the waste that we produce and not just with making sure that more of it gets recycled, or that we have just operational waste management systems, which the County is struggling with right now, just to get it away from where people see it or experience it, which might still involve it going to the landfill, which is not an ultimate solution. There are different ways things that can work. We have an e-waste program already existing, and that is supposed to give funds to the County. It’s kind of an EPR regime where manufacturers pay fees to the State Department of Health and then those funds get distributed to the counties. With the EPR program, or at least the model we introduced, it’s more about holding the producers responsible for ensuring that certain percentages – and those percentages increase over time – of the waste that they are responsible for producing gets recycled or taken back. And the result of that could be that they come back and be responsible for setting up their own programs for waste reduction, including collection of recycling, which would take some of that off the hands of the County. Whether or not it’s structured to have a direct funding stream that goes to the County that the County gets to utilize, she is not quite sure. It would depend on how the policy is structured. She did meet with all the counties’ departments of environmental management and the Department of Health, and when we introduced it we did have support. But from the Department of Health we had more of a “we support the intent.” They were recommending that we do a study first to see what the cost would be, whether there would be end costs that would be pushed to consumers. The 1 HB 1316 HD1: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1316&year=2021 5 manufacturers always have the option of raising the cost of their goods to pay for this additional responsibility that we might be imposing on them. From everything she has researched and heard, Hawai‘i already as a small state might be challenged in being the first in doing EPR, although Maine passed a bill this year they are a small state, so it is interesting to see how that plays out. There have been efforts in states such as Washington and California. And the ongoing conversation has always been surrounding the idea that it would be a lot easier for Hawaii to follow the larger states and kind of piggyback on those efforts. Because a lot of the work on the manufacturer and producer side would be the same in each state. They would not have to create a different system in each state. Some of these efforts would be joint and so the ideaof doing it just at the County level, she wasn’t sure if the idea was the County should pass legislation to have a County EPR. From her understanding it probably wouldn’t be feasible to do it at such a small scale. You are basically looking at putting a requirement for just Hawai‘i County on multinational manufacturers. Their response would be questionable, and it would be a lot for the County to have oversight and manage, and require resources. Chair Adams said they were going with the idea of it being a State program, but also recognizing that being on a Neighbor Island, the costs are even higher to incorporate us. It isn’t just a state program or something run out of Honolulu, which is kind of where the e-waste has devolved to. It’s yeah, you can manage it for a big city, but the rest of us are kind of bits and pieces, and funding is hurting. It was in the context of it being a State program, and what was involved, and also with the difficulty of our spread-out County. Rep. Lowen agreed. Rep. Lowen said she was planning to reintroduce legislation in the 2022 session. It will be interesting to see the work that has been done and the conversation that has been done in the interim and in other states, and the effort that was made last year. To backtrack, when she introduced HB 1316 in the 2021 session, we had this plastic waste working group with different legislators from a bunch of different states. And we came up with the idea that regardless of how many bills we thought had a real chance of passing, we were going to get as many legislators and as many states as possible to introduce EPR bills, just to elevate this conversation nationally and to put manufacturers and producers on notice that this is a problem that we are not going to allow to be swept under the rug, essentially. She feels that we had a lot of success with that and there has been a lot of elevated conversation on this topic, so there are some new approaches going into next session. We do plan to reintroduce the bill and we are working on other bills, she said. The Department of Health’s testimony on HB 1316 is we should do a study first, that was the recommendation of the Plastic Source Reduction Working Group as well. She is not sure that a study will reveal any earth-shattering revelations of which she is unaware, but sometimes it will be important to study the economics of it. And sometimes, if there are people who oppose this kind of legislation, one of their rallying cries is, we should study it first. So to move forward with that would at least take it off the table. We could say, we have done the study and looked at it. That’s what happened with our bill last year. She introduced the original sweeping EPR program that didn’t have resounding support either in testimony or among even her EEP committee members. So the bill was amended to take it down to a study, and then added in the different measures, which were kind of new proposals, which were to do a “by request only” law statewide, which is what the City and 6 County of Honolulu has right now. This is for takeout plastic utensils and straws to be provided only upon request. To do something like that is just a small measure but it is a source reduction. There was also a requirement for a minimum of post-consumer content in plastic beverage 2 containers and other plastic containers. So Washington State passed this bill last year. The idea is it incentivizes manufacturers to use more recycled content, and also to have a motivation to take back more of the recycled themselves, because they have a requirement to use recycled content. So we are redrafting those bills to introduce both as separate measures, she said. For next year, we will have a bill for the electronic waste recycling program. That has not been touched in a long time so there is room to increase the fees and increase the accountability on that. And then we will see what the conversation is for other types of products. One that could be a good idea would be a producer takeback of prescription drugs, which would be also good for the environment. We definitely will have a whole slate of bills on this topic, she said, and was open to answering questions. Commissioner Olson said he was very appreciative of her refusal to let this go. We have been talking a great deal about how this would work out, and our consensus seemed to be that assessing the fee at the point of purchase or through the distributer would probably be a lot more successful than trying to go back to the manufacturer particularly for the outer islands, because it goes through so many different hands. Rep. Lowen was not sure about what authority the counties have to impose fees on certain types of products. Essentially with the deposit beverage program, we essentially have a point of sale additional fee that incents the consumer to recycle, even though now for some there is not a recycling program, unfortunately. That is one policy approach. EPR is a different policy approach because it does loop in the manufacturer, the producer. For both types of policy proposals, there is always the question of equity. Any kinds of flat rate fees that are imposed are going to be more punitive toward lower-income families. When the question comes up, that would be a concern. Commissioner Olson said the tradeoff there is you are also trying to educate people to the cost that they are paying for Product X, as opposed to Product Y, and obviously the products with the lower fee have less environmental impact. Chair Adams said we have raised it a couple times at meetings, and perhaps what we can do is try to explore trying to find that answer about can the county try to institute any kind of fee like that? She said she would put that on her “to do” list. Commissioner Olson said it was a question of “can we now” versus “can we later.” Just because we cannot do it today doesn’t mean that we cannot get legislation to put us in a position to deal with it. Because each of the islands has a separate set of problems to deal with once you are confronted with having to deal with it. 2 WA Chapter 313 (2021): https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5022&Year=2021 7 Rep. Lowen said that the idea behind EPR is that when a large multi-national producer makes a product, the producer makes a profit and externalizes the cost to the environment on to taxpayers at the end of the waste stream. The idea of EPR is to internalize those costs to producers, and if the programs are structured right, to have a system where it’s less costly to them not to create so many harmful environmental impacts. You also have look at how policies play out in the real world. As far as EPR goes, it’s a different thing than what Commissioner Olson was talking about. But they are both, certainly, types of things that can be considered. Chair Adams said she had put together a couple of slides from the Plastic Source Reduction Working Group, and started a presentation. The study, which is basically the same kind of information that was in the House Draft 1 version of HB 1316, pointed out these kinds of things to look for study. Both were looking at: can Hawai‘i do EPR as a state, or in conjunction with other states, and/or federal packaging of EPR, what kinds of science is available, the costs and benefits to everybody (the environment, consumers, taxpayers, government, and businesses), looking at the pros and cons, and the technical and economic feasibility. So the idea is really trying to pace through the logistics and the ability to have influence on international companies. It’s just too easy to say, “Let’s not ship to Hawai‘i” to solve those problems. She likes the idea of knowing up front what the issues are that are different for our situation. The same thing is being looked at for the PaintCare program. They have models, they have it in different states, but we still need to look at what is going to be different in this state and in our County to be able to implement that, just the scale of what we have got. She would also like to comment that yes, on e-waste, going back and figuring how to make that work. We definitely have issues with that. It’s something that is in a way already in place, so expanding it and further strengthening that program rather than diving in on all packaging. It’s something that needs to be thought through well and watch other people fail and learn, rather than us doing all the failing. Commissioner Cardwell said the idea of EPR is pretty brilliant. As she sees it, it’s a way to turn off the tap of the waste stream because as it is right now we are just dealing with the end packaging. If we are holding companies responsible for the end of life product, it might change the way they create packaging and the way they create their product. But it is going to require a massive collective effort if every state required companies to do that. Then they couldn’t refuse to ship to Hawai‘i because every state would be requiring it. Hopefully we are moving in that direction. The fact that a lot of legislators got together and have made this an issue, that is where the work needs to be done. Her question was about the study that the Department of Health had asked for. She was wondering that that study would cost and how long it would take, and what the process is of getting that study done. That might be the first step. 8 3 Rep. Lowen said she could pull up the HD1 of the bill. The typical cost of a contracted study would be between $100,000 to $200,000. If we pass a bill in the 2022 session it would become law in July 2022. The study normally could not be completed by the start of the following session because of the time it takes to produce a scope of work, come to agreement on contracts, put it out for bid, and go through the procurement process, unless DOH decides to do it internally. If the Legislature passes a bill in 2022, it would be to ask for a study to come back before the 2024 session. It’s a year and a half to complete, which doesn’t always meet the sense of urgency that we all have, but this of is the pace of government. Chair Adams asked whether, as other states try to implement EPR, there would be some base information, and then we could look at what is different here, so we are not starting from zero. Rep. Lowen said the most important thing we could get out of the study are the Hawai‘i-specific questions. What would the cost be to the State and the taxpayers, as well as taxes that get 4 passed on to consumers? Washington State did a studyin advance of introducing legislation, so there is a lot of information out there about this, and we can learn from what is going on in Maine. We can see what happens. That information is out there that will behelpful. It would be more senseeconomically to have a nationalpolicy, to have legislation at a federal level that applied equally for every state. A carbon tax is a completely different topic, but as an example of an issue that is being discussed, wecould do it in Hawai‘i, butit would impact Hawai‘i disproportionally. It would make a lot more sense from an economic sense to have something federally or even internationally, even. So it’s kind of the same with this kind of legislation. But we need to keep moving forward. She absolutely supports doing something at the State level for this. Commissioner Robinson asked Rep. Lowen to speak more about the bill in Washington regarding the requirement of the use of recycled materials. Rep. Lowen said the Washington bill has a requirement for the manufacturers to show they are taking back X percent. Say we pass a bill and have the program start in 2024. Then it might be X amount in 2025, with percentages that increase over time. We basically modeled our bill after the bill that Washington had introduced, in large part. The Washington bill might have put in specific percentages, and what we did, rather than putting those specifics in was to say that DOH could make rules. And we also added requirements for post-consumer recycled content. Because that is kind of the piece where do not want EPR legislation to be designed in such a way that it makes it allowable for production to continue at the same rate, as long as things are being collected and taken back, and then maybe disposed of elsewhere in another country. But we would design it where there is some kind of incentive for source reduction designed into the policy. 3 HB 1316 HD1 does not appropriate specific funding amounts. This would have been agreed upon in later drafts, had the bill advanced further in committee. 4 Link to study: https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/planning/documents/task-force- EPR-policy-framework.ashx 9 Chair Adams said she had also references tracking all the different legislation in the different 56 There are interesting studies that talk about the pros and the states, and some of the policies. cons. There are a bazillion issues around EPR. It is having an impact on a growing number of companiesthat is having an impact on how do we incorporate recycled content, how do we do source reduction in the packaging and in the way we provide our products. Change is happening; it’s just not real fast. It’s also not going to be in the way of, well, we’ll just give everybody a bunch of money and you can run your own programs. It’s not necessarily going to happen. But progress is being made and the effort to say we really all need to get to source reduction is critical. Recycling Specialist Sanne Berrig reiterated that EPR is a huge new concept that is really important. We have the electronic waste and the advance disposal fee for glass where the wholesaler collects 1.5 cents, and that money comes back to us in the County to continue working, she said. While we are looking at the bigger future of EPR, she if we could continue to tweak the existing ones, because we really rely on that money. For example, the ADF for glass had been 1.5 cents for 21 years now. There was a bill introduced in the last session (that did not advance). That’s something that is an existing program, it’s not ideal but it would be great to have support on those. All of the counties heavily rely on those funds. Commissioner McIntosh asked whether EPR requires the manufacturer to take back their products that are not reused, rather than the County or the State being responsible for disposing it. Because even if we collected money, there really aren’t that many programs set up in Hawaii to take recycled material and take care of it. That would be the main difference between Hawai‘i and the U.S. mainland. Maine can ship it to California with no problem. We have a big problem shipping because we only have our boats. Rep. Lowen said that is the fundamental idea. It’s not prescriptive exactly how they would get there, but these producers or manufacturers would be responsible for ensuring that these increasing percentages of their product did get recycled. That would include making sure that there were programs, collections, recycling capability at a local level. Would the bill, Commissioner McIntosh asked, differentiate between large corporations such as Coca-Cola, and a small startup in how they are treated? A small company run out of a garage would not have that ability to follow the law. Rep. Lowen said that is a good question and would depend on what our definitions are for producers and manufacturers. She wasn’t sure if, for example, a local company creating a cosmetic product would be responsible or rather it would be whatever company is importing those containers into Hawai‘i. If a local startup were using a plastic container, is that what he is 5 “Guide to EPR Proposals” https://epr-frontend.vercel.app/ 6 “In my Opinion: Comparing the nation’s first packaging EPR laws” https://resource- recycling.com/recycling/2021/08/24/in-my-opinion-comparing-the-nations-first-packaging-epr-laws/ 10 thinking? She didn’t think the way the definitions were set up that it would fall on a small business owner in that way, but she would have to double check. That is an important point, she said. Chair Adams said from her reading there are several levels of exclusions and exemptions based on size. The intent of the law was not to bury small companies, but to deal with the larger companies that can afford to incorporate those costs into their operations. Commissioner Olson commented on the importance of engaging the consumer in coming to understand the differentials in cost of packaging, and products in general in terms of their end life disposal. And when you go out and talk to people about it, they really don’t have any idea of the large range for products that seem, when they purchase them, to all be the same. That’s one of those things we are still having discussion about. How do we fully engage the consumer, because there really is no method currently to do that. Rep. Lowen said we want consumers to be aware, and we want people to take individual action to do what they can, but it’s not expected to be a successful approach to assume that individual action is going to solve this problem. We need system reform. The idea that if everyone just recycles, we’re going to solve this waste management problem. Obviously the vast majority of what ends up in our landfill isn’t just what people put in their trash can anyway. So it’s a much bigger question. Individual action to educate is important, but we have to move past thinking of this as a problem that always only falls on the shoulders of people at the very end of the chain of all of this, and rather as the built-in responsibility of the people who are manufacturing products and profiting from selling them. Commissioner Olson said he concurred with all of the above. Commissioner Cardwell thanked Rep. Lowen her comments. This is way beyond individual actions. We can all play a little part in this, but the change has to happen at the top. The change has to happen with the corporations that are making all this stuff that ends up in the landfill, and that is where we are going to see real change. On the topic of the ADF fee being 1.5 cents for the last 27 years, Commissioner Cardwell asked if that is enough money. That needs to be changed, so how does that happen? At what level would that change need to happen for a price increase? 7 Ms. Berrig said there was a bill to increase the amount to 5 cents, but there was something else that piggybackedabout part of the money that had to go to reusable bottle washing, and not just deposit and redemption, which kind of clouded the issue. It could have been a much sweeter, simpler bill, saying hey, it has been 1.5 cents for 27 years, may we at least have a cost of living increase to get it back. Because every quarter,we submit documentation for our recycling to DOH for the full cycle of hauling and recycling, and we are given money back 7 SB 1298 SD1: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=1298&year=2021 11 through granting. She had heard there were issues with there being a pot of money being left over for ADF glass that is sitting there, maybe it’s unclaimed. It would require an extra person or half position, because they are understaffed in their waste diversion programs anyway. So they had not collected money for a couple of years or so. She said she would look at the bill and send it out to the Chair or Commissioner Cardwell. While that bill didn’t pass, it sounds like another bill could be introduced that is a simpler bill, Commissioner Cardwell said. Rep. Lowen said it was interesting when the County reduced the types of things that could be recycled and the services at the recycling centers, she received responses from constituents because people are used to recycling and they are very upset when services get taken away. Even if you explain that recycling is not the silver bullet, she still thinks it’s a positive to do it. We spent decades building that behavior. So if there’s a current lapse and we figure out what to do with those plastic containers, and are ending up in the landfill when they shouldn’t –it’s still positive to have services available for people to recycle. If you erase that you undo years of work that you have created getting people to participate in these programs. Chair Adams said she would try to get Business Services Hawai‘i, the recycling services contractor for the County, to come to our next meeting and talk about where they are and where they see things going. It is a real pain not to recycle things, even if, in the grand scheme of things we are not talking about huge volumes, it is still the practice and the thought of, how do I source reduce, how do I keep this stuff out of the landfill? Ms. Berrig added we are just now embarking on the life cycle analysis of our programs. Getting back to thereduce and the reuse, that got left behind a lot of years ago. It’s a lot easier, especiallyon the mainland,for recycling. Here it’s more of a challenge, the cost effectiveness, but also looking at the carbon footprint. What is the impact of shipping old corrugated cardboard 3,000 or 4,000 miles away? We are just getting started on that now. Hopefully within the next month we will begin that project. Hopefully it’s going to only be about six months. It will look at the different programs using different models, enter all these variables, and then hopefully spit out some information. It gets to be a huge policy issue. What if it has a much higher negative impact to be recycling something than it would be to landfill it? It is an unanswered question because we are out here in the middle of the Pacific. That starts soon. Chair Adams said she would have Ms. Berrig on the agenda when she was ready to start presenting some of those findings. With no more questions for Rep. Lowen, Chair Adams excused her, saying the representative would continue to be available for discussions on the side. We are all about the same goal of how do we try to get less waste on this island, and what is the most cost-effective way to get that done. She thanked Rep. Lowen for her participation in the commission meeting. 12 8 Rep. Lowen thanked the Commission and left her email addressin the chat before logging off. 2. General discussion on transfer station actions to reduce costs/increase revenue and identify additional information to be provided by DEM. (Burns/Adams) Chair Adams began the discussion regarding transfer stations and finding ways to save money. We already heard discussion about reducing the number of days. One of the concerns is that we are spending a lot of money on moving trash around our County. We have transfer stations all over the place. We have now closed our East Hawai‘i Sanitary Landfill so now everything is being trucked over to the West Hawai‘i Sanitary Landfill, and how can we do it? One of the things the Solid Waste Advisory Commission did in terms of looking at how you can make the transfer stations more efficient, and how they work. Unfortunately what we recommended was you ought to do an operational efficiency analysis to see where the opportunities are. But it takes money and it takes staff to be able to do that. But the things that we think are opportunities to reduce costs would be to do education. But we do have issues with education. Recycling is available for some things, and the reuse centers exist, so you can put materials there. And then perhaps most importantly is to reduce the amount of contamination that is occurring in the recycle bins, as it is. Another recommendation was to look at how we could get more compactors, so we can squish the recyclables in the containers, which means fewer trips for the trucks to pick up those containers. We’ve got a few compactorsscattered around at transfer stations, but not a lot, and they break all the time. One of the things that we recommended is weshould allow small businesses to recycle at transfer stations. Officially we want to reduce the amount of waste going to the landfill. One way to look at a potential revenue source could be to collect a fee from the small businesses, especially when they are dumping trash, but mostly to encourage them to do recycling. And frankly it will save time and money if we can reduce the operating hours or close some of the stations, or change when you can use atransfer station.Itmay not necessarily be going to one day a week. It may be five days instead of a whole week that a transfer station is open. But we’ve got issues with labor costs and that is one way to better staff the transfer stations, and also to allow some of the staff to get involved in education and making sure people are throwing things in the right bins. And again, using the Reuse Centers more, making sure that they can hold more and are easily accessible and known out there that the Reuse Centers exist, but also not giving them your trash that you really shouldn’t donate for reuse. Those are some ways that we think we could reuse costs and generate some revenue, but it is going to be waiting, and it means somebody has got to pay for a study. One of the other options that we mentioned is that idea of Pay As You Throw. This is where you charge a fee for waste that is higher than the fee you give for recycling. Right now at the transfer stations, it’s free and it’s not going to be easy to establish a pay for operations at the transfer stations, because somebody has to collect the fee, or make sure you paid a fee. For example, one of the ideas is we would sell recycle bags, at the grocery stores or wherever, and 8 replowen@capitol.hawaii.gov 13 you would pay for a certain amount, and you could only throw away things that you paid for in the recycle bin, and if it’s going to the trash, it’s a different cost to it. A lot of people are concernedabout Pay As You Throw, that it would make people litter or throwit in aditch somewhere. That is an initial issue but we do have a fairly good track record in several places that shows it is not an issue, but it requires education and enforcement, making sure people are at the transfer stations or the collection points, and are catching the people who are littering or are dumping their trash. PAYT programs should encourage source reduction and recycling. We could get some money. And it would be a heck of a lot easier with curbside collection, and we know it’s not possible to do curbside everywhere on this island, but there are some places where it would probably make sense. And how do we get that to happen? It would basically be looking hard a PAYT as an option. If there are questions we can send off to DEM, dealing with opportunities to reduce costs or to get revenue at transfer stations, she would like to collect them for next time. Commissioner Cardwell said she had a concern with limiting transfer or reducing station hours for the reason that lines are already super long, at Kea‘au Transfer Station in particular, it’s the one where she goes most of the time. She had an experience with something she wanted to take to the Reuse Center, and she had a pretty nasty experience with the person who was working there. And she gets it, they are totally overwhelmed at the Reuse Centers. And what is happening is a lot of people don’t want to wait in those long lines, so they end up dumping their stuff at the Reuse Center, and a lot of it is not necessarily things that – a lot of it is trash. And people end up dealing with trash. So if we reduce the transfer station hours even more, that’s going to happen even more for the Reuse Centers. Chair Adams was saying, let’s take better use of Reuse Centers, but that will backfire. The Reuse Centers are already understaffed and overwhelmed. There was the concern about the PAYT increasing littering, but the littering is already happening. She drives from Kalapana to Hilo and there’ so much trash along the roadside, especially the closer you get to the Kea‘au Transfer Station. That’s another concern of hers. She doesn’t know if PAYT would increase littering, but she thinks reducing the transfer station hours could definitely increase littering. As it is, people don’t want to wait in that line, and if the hours are reduced that much more, then there’s a higher likelihood that people will just dump it wherever they can dump it. She doesn’t think that is a good solution. Chair Adams said one of the issues and the reason we were recommending an operational study is, why are the lines so long? Is it because they don’t we have enough chutes or they don’t have the transportation circle set up? Do we need a larger transfer station at large locations? The Reuse Centers are tucked inside the Transfer Stations, but if they are being understaffed, that’s a contract issue with the County. It is, what are the causes and what can we do about it? It isn’t necessarily, well, you need to have 49 people at every transfer station seven days a week, because we can’t afford that kind of staffing. Commissioner Cardwell asked whether it is possible to have a contract for a volunteer group. She is sure there are plenty of people willing to volunteer an hour or two at a transfer station or a Reuse Center to help out with this problem. Every time she talks to people or friends about this issue, people want to help, and they want to do the right thing. It’s kind of like what Rep. 14 Lowen said with the reduction in recycling. People want to recycle, and education is important to a certain degree, because a lot of people don’t even know that the Hilo landfill is closed. They don’t even know that the trash is going to Kona. They have no idea that we are spending all of this money and all of this gas getting our trash to the landfill in Kona. If people actually knew that basic information, it might actually change their habits as well. But going back to her question, is it possible, even though it might be a union issue, to have a volunteer group? Or could the County contract a volunteer group so that the County is not having to pay to staff more people? Because money is always an issue. She just wanted to throw that out there, is that a possibility? Chair Adams asked Ms. Berrig to address the Master Recycler Composter program. Ms. Berrig said this addresses the Reuse Centers more. Before COVID-19 we were just getting started working toward a Master Recycler Composter program, a mirror of many across the country. Essentially, volunteers get about 20 hours of training in anything waste diversion related. So after the training, then they would basically pay it forward through volunteering in the community, and then they become certified as a Master Recycler Composter. So COVID-19 comes in, and then it has just been a matter of staffing for us here to complete. Zoom seems to be a great reality that we have now, which is wonderful because it makes the trainings easier. The volunteer aspect gets a little more difficult with COVID-19 because with the perspective of it being a County program, the issue with supporting something where there’s close contact with people, so there is the liability issue, of course. There was a question about whether it is a union issue, and she kept saying it’s a volunteer program. They would not be competing. So it is something that is in the hopper. She would love just to work on that for a month, but unfortunately we have some big changes in our division. The people could easily volunteer at the Reuse Centers. And another issue that comes along with the long lines is people see there’s no line at the recycle bins, so they toss their rubbish there, which creates all the contamination and why the global situation happened in the first place with the movement of trash. So it’s on the table, it’s a staffing issue for the Department to get the program up and running. Commissioner Olson said that regard to the design of the transfer stations, for the ones in Puna, one of the major problems is they are pull-in as opposed to pull through. If the drop-off vehicle were in a line and moved in one direction, you could double or triple the number of vehicles that could move through the system. And the persons who did the designs for it didn’t want to hear it at the time, and we got what we got. Chair Adams said she would like to collect some questions that we should give to the Department, dealing with transfer stations and the issues, and the ability to find some cost savings there. One would be the simple question, why are the lines so long? Do you know? And see what they come back with. Commissioner Olson said for Puna that’s an easy answer, our population has exploded. You have to get out on the highway in order to get to the largest transfer station in the district. And instead of putting the transfer stations in the subdivisions, primarily the two largest 15 subdivisions that we have, the travel time, the design where they are pull-in as opposed to pull through, have caused the systems to be less and less efficient. Chair Adams said the Director has commented before, how do they rationalize where and how the transfer stations are designed in order to find more efficiencies. And we need to get an update on that. Where are you guys with it? I will let you know, unfortunately our solid waste group is going to be short two experts. Recycling Coordinator George Hayducsko is moving to Kaua‘i, and Greg Goodale is moving over to the Department of Water Supply. So two huge holes. How and when they’re going to be filled, she doesn’t know. Hopefully we will find out soon, because they are leaving their positions at the end of the month. So we’ll find out who we get to talk with afterward. Are there any questions that she should gin up for the Director for next meeting? Send them to the Chair and she will make sure we getthem on the agenda. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Presentation from the Office of the Corporation Counsel regarding the Commission’s authority to hear and determine appeals from decisions of the director, including orders and denials of variances, pursuant to Hawai‘i County Code Section 2-207(b), and matters relating to the Commission’s process of handling appeals. Chair Adams said we are going to do what we didnot do last time, which was a training on one of the functions of the Commission, that she does not know that we have ever done, but we can anticipate coming up, which is to hold administrative hearings when a citizen challenges an order made by the Director. There are several hoops to go through and they can go to court after us, but we are one of the review processes, and have responsibilities, potentially, for some controversial issues that may come up. Deputy Corporation Counsel Malia Hall would give us training so that we are prepared, the Chair said. Counsel Hall opened her PowerPoint presentation by stating that in Section 2-207 of the Hawai‘i County Code the Commission “shall hear and determine appeals from decisions of the director, including orders and denials of variances.” Section 2-204 of the County Code says that “If the director determines that any person has violated or is violating any provision of this article, chapter 21, or any rules adopted pursuant to these chapters, the director may do any one or more of the following.” If someone is dumping into a County right of way, that could be seen as a violation. Initially there would be a notice of violation sent to the person first and that person hopefully would comply and clean it up. If not, the next step would be for the Director to issue an order assessing administrative penalties, and that order would contain a few different things. The order could require compliance immediately or within a specified time, and could commence a civil action in the Circuit Court for appropriate relief. What are the possible penalties? The Code allows fines of up to $1,000 per day for each separate offense. They technically don’t have to be up to $1,000. If the order came down and it were $1,000 per day Commissioners could reduce it to a $500 penalty instead. It is up to their discretion. 16 Any order issued shall become final after 20 days. Once it is served, a person has 20 days to appeal to the Director and the Commission. A request for an appeal would create a hearing before the Commission. Whenever a hearing is requested on any penalty imposed, the penalty shall become due and payable only upon completion of all review proceedings and the issuance of a final order. So after everything is done and the Commission has made a decision, then that penalty would be the final and decisive penalty. Once the Commission issues a final decision and order, that could be appealed to the Circuit Court as well. All hearings before the Commission shall be conducted as a contested case hearing. A contested case hearing is a quasi-judicial proceeding, and the Commission sits as both judge and jury in these contested case hearings. Therefore, the Commission is not allowed to conduct independent fact finding. The applicant-appellant has the burden of proof, so it is that person’s burden to bring the information to show that the person has not violated the code. So you must base your decision on what is presented at the hearing, not on something that you have heard from outside. In a contested case hearing, DEM or the Directoris one party, and the individual or business opposing the violation order is the other. There also could be a party as an Intervenor. So let’s say a business illegally dumping trash between two properties, and one entity on the other side is another business or a homeowner, who wants to get in on this and say, hey, I also have standing to also be a party to this contested case, because this stuff is coming over to my property. And so the Commission would first hear a petition on whether that person really has standing to intervene in this contested case. If the Commission so decides that that person has standing to be an intervenor, then the Commission would allow that person to be a party. And so there would be the Director, the Applicant/Appellant, and the Intervenor. And each party would have rights too, to present evidence and/or rebuttal evidence. The Commission can find that a violation has occurred. You can then have penalties, which is up to $1,000 per day. You can affirm or modify the order that was previously issued, meaning that you will get a copy of the order that was sent, andyou can look at that order and say if there were conditions in there that you felt were fair or that needed to be modified in some way, that would be up to the Commission’s discretion on whether the order should be modified. With that said, if the Commission were to look at the order and said, this is too much to modify, let’s just rescind the whole thing and then we will issue our own order. And basically every decision you make, you have to issue an order with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Commissioner Cardwell asked about the maximum fine of $1,000 per day that could be reduced if the Commission so chose. Her question is, how would we decide on, for example, $500 per day? What would we base that on? How would we come to that determination? 17 Counsel Hall said the Commission would have to base it on the facts presented. If a homeowner admits to dumping just one or two bags, the Commission could decide that it seems a little harsh to impose $1,000 per day for two bags. But if it were someone who had been dumping for months, it might be different. It also comes by a case-by-casebasis and also is based on your full understanding of the facts, and what you believewould be a fair penalty. Commissioner Cardwell agreed and said that makes sense. Counsel Hall continued: When you conduct these contested case hearings, there will be a Presiding Officer. That officer could be the Chair, somebody else chosen from the Commission, or if the Commission chooses so, they could also have DEM hire a hearings officer to hear the case and recommend the findings to the Commission if they saw fit. Whenever you see “the Board may allow,” it typically means the Presiding Officer, but the Board also still has input. He or she could speak to whomever is running the meeting and say yeah, we want to give an opening statement, to weigh in. Basically, opening statements are a good way to get bearings and to see what is going on. You would be provided with the order and the appellant’s case in writing, basically up front. And then that time the Commission could request more briefings if they want, or a briefing on a specific issue, if you feel like you need more information prior to a hearing, that’s also available to you. But initially when we just open up the hearing, it’s a good thing to usually have opening statements to let everybody say their part and then get into the actual evidence production. The order of presentation would basically, the Appellant/Applicant be the person to whom an order has been issued, and would present first as the person bearing the burden of proof. So they would present their witnesses and evidence first, and then most likely the intervenor and the Director. Most likely those two, if you had an Intervenor and DEM, those two could decide in which order you would like to come in, but the Appellant is always first. All of this is in HRS Chapter 91, if you want to look at where these laws come from. Each party should be allowed cross-examination. And you will also have the right to question witnesses. After each party has questioned a witness, if there is still a question that have that you feel a party has not answered, the Commissioners will also have a chance to ask a question if you need clarification, or if you feel that a question was not addressed properly, you will have that opportunity. Then there will be rebuttal witnesses, if anybody so chooses. If some kind of evidence comes up and people feel that this is not true and I have a witness that can verify that, or whatever that witness said is incorrect, the parties will be allowed to question that. And after that would be closing arguments. Counsel suggests that with all of these things such as opening arguments and closing arguments, something that would be helpful is having a time limit, because sometimes it can take a really long time. And most representatives are used to having some sort of time limit, some reasonable amount of time to tell the Commission what the last points are before the Commission goes into deliberations and decisions. 18 So what is the burden of proof? Basically, it is the preponderance of evidence, and if you thought about it in terms of numbers it would be at least 51 percent, or something that’s more likely true than not true. That’s what they have to show to you. If you looked at all the facts put before you and you thought, that’s probably true, then that would be preponderance of evidence, and they have met their burden, and you would have to vote for the Appellant. But if you felt that, “hm, I’m still unsureand I don’t think that is actually true,” or if you feel that the person has not presented enough evidence to show that, then you would have to rule for the other party in the case. On the decision, the Board shall make the decision after the parties have completed making their case. Then the Board (meaning the Commission) would conduct deliberations in open session. You would have to have a motion first, and then you would deliberate. And then make sure that the decision that you make has been grounded in the evidence that has been presented, and in the applicable rules, so that it is not deemed to be arbitrary. Decisions and orders must be written. You will need to have a findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decision order, for which usually the Office of the Corporation Counsel assists. We just need the Commission’s help with what you want your findings to be. If we have a decision made, the Commission could ask the winning party to present a proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order, which they could adopt if they so choose. Sometimes that’s the quicker way, but it’s up to the Commission’s discretion on how they would like that done. Something we would like to stress is the importance of a clear record in the sense that all of your decisions will become then final decisions that are appealable to the Circuit Court. So you want it to be very clear to the Court that you made your decision based on the facts and evidence presented at the hearing, and that you can make it very clear for them that they can follow the train of thought. If the Court looks at something and goes, I don’t even know how they got here, and the start doesn’t match the end result, then that’s usually when courts will kick it back and say, no, go back, this is not supported by substantial evidence, and therefore it can be found arbitrary and capricious, and you need to re-look at the evidence, or even they might say, you need to reverse your decision, whatever they see fit, which happens at other boards and commissions. This is just a reminder to keep things clear, ask the questions that you want answered. And that way we can line it all up to be a very clear and concise findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order. Counsel Hall asked if anybody had any questions. Commissioner Robinson asked whether these hearings can still be conducted virtually, and whether they can be done in one sitting. Counsel said that as long as we have the emergency declaration we are allowed to have virtual meetings, and beginning Jan. 1, 2022, the new state law will be in effect that allows us to do virtual meetings. So yes, we will be allowed to do them virtually. As to the second question, if it 19 is a very complicated hearing, it could go for more than one day. The most complex cases are sent out to hearing officers, because those can be multi-day, even up to a week. If it’s a pretty simple issue, it can be done in one day. It could be during a regular meeting or in a special meeting that the Commission decides to have just for the hearing. Commissioner McIntosh asked whether a hearing like this has ever occurred in the past. Counsel said she did not have enough historical information to answer that question completely. Chair Adams asked whether there are any situations where there are limits in the law in how much variance or reduction change in the penalties or extensions that apply. She was thinking in the hypothetical case of someone failing to pay a sewer bill, and they are going to turn your water off. There are processes to go through, and the director can give extensions of up to two years. Can we say, no, three? Counsel said that would be within your limits. She did not see anything in the law thus far that you would be in your discretion, as long as it is a reasonable amount of time to fit the violation, and fit the time they need to come into compliance, if they were special circumstances. Payments are a little different because payments follow a collections track, and not an order or variance track. So that would usually be sent to a collections agency. Chair Adams said she assumed if we got one of these things Counsel would load us down with all the background elements that we would be considering. Counsel has had experience with the contested cases in the Planning Commissions and many times the commissions would go into executive session to walk through the procedural steps and make sure that they are understanding how everything goes. If we are at the hearing and everyone is going, wait, what’s going on right now? We can motion into an executive session and the Commission can ask, what are our duties right now, and what are we supposed to be looking at, and that kind of thing. b. Commission’s recommendations to Director Mansour’s query about new subdivisions and sewers: How will the unique characteristics of your district influence the future development of wastewater treatment in your area? Last meeting, Director Mansour had asked about getting input from Commissioners on what they should do for new developments and subdivisions, and whether they should be required to build a hookup for future connections to a sewer if one doesn’t exist. She asked if anyone had gleaned information to pass on or discuss. Receiving no comments, she said the matter would be deferred until next meeting. Chair Adams apologized for saying she would send out some kind of survey, and it got so complicated that she didn’t know how to do it. So we definitely need to have the Director involved in the conversation. 20 7. REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE – (Deferred) Chair Adams said we did not receive any report from DEM, and from previous communication from the Secretary, the Department would like to go to a quarterly report with interim monthly updates. She was all in favor of cutting down the amount of paper we need to look through, but there may be a balance, and what we want to see in terms of updates every month versus tracking all the stats and the deadlines and whatnot. Do people have a comment or an opinion about whether we want that full report every month, or some compromise? Commissioner Cardwellsaid she felt the same way the Chair did about reducing paperwork, but 9 her concern is similar to Mr. Warren’s about transparency. And the longer we go without hearing what’s going on, there’s something suspicious about that in her mind. It’s better to have a regular report. The fact that we aren’t getting a regular report until October, that doesn’t seem right. So her suggestion would be to have regular reports. Monthly would be great. She doesn’t know what the reasoning is for the quarterly report. Commissioner Olson said he concurred with that. Commissioner Fulton also concurred with Commissioner Cardwell. The Director’s Report is very important. She does understand that our Director has inherited a lot of work, probably twice as much as he figured on. But it’s a valuable function and, as perhaps as a compromise position she suggests the Commission gets a written report every month, but the Director can appear with us every other month to take care of our questions. She also pointed out that she had asked for a very simplerequest for the chlorides from the well pumps on Ali‘i Drive, and she has just been stonewalled in that request. The latest was a couple months back, when she received an email from Director Mansour that because of personnel loss thedata were not available. And she is sorry that the Director is not on this meeting right now because previously she had got that data from Alika DeMello at the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant, and he had that information at his fingertips. So it’s just a little frustrating when you ask for something very simple, and she doesn’t want to have to go through a Freedom of Information Act request, to get something that we the consumers and the taxpayers are entitled to. Because we are paying our employees to get this information. Just circling back, she would like to have that data that she had asked for. Our Director should show up at least every other month, and in the meantime every month is appropriate. Commissioner McIntosh said that from what he saw it looked like the report didn’t change that much between each month, and he didn’t notice that when we had specific questions for the Director that they were answered in the report, and that rather we would have to wait for him to answer it himself. He could see why DEM would want to space it out every three to four months, but maybe if it could be changed, at least the format could be in the beginning, put specific questions that the Commission has asked in the forefront. And for the rest, you can just throw on the bottom. And then you don’t have to sift through 18 pages of information that we 9 Agenda item 4, Public Testimony. 21 want to look for, and then find out it’s not even in the report. Maybe we should look at redesigning the report. Chair Adams said she had been trying to come up with some formats with an easier way to find things. And we have had the series of questions and who had asked them, and most of the time there were answers right under the question. Sometimes it says, “see report.” We can work on that, where it doesn’t change, or maybe there is a way to highlight when there is new information. She definitely wants to keep any questions we have before the next meeting up there and in front, and say we expect answers. And one thing would be the chloridesreport. And most of the time we are getting the answers to it, whether it’s staffing and crisis issues that have prevented it, she’s not sure. But she should see something every month, and she would like to have someone from DEM – thank you Ms. Berrig – who can speak on behalf of the Department or answer the questions we have that come up, to be at our meetings. The devil lives in the details, Commissioner Olson said. Commissioner Cardwell said the most important thing is accountability. That is the role of the EMC, which is to oversee the Department. If our interaction with them is dwindling, then that’s a problem. It’s important to have regular correspondence. She said Commissioner McIntosh had a good idea, maybe the format of the report needs to change. Maybe there needs to be a Question and Answers. Maybe put questions at the top and the report to follow. Chair Adams said the way the Secretary has been setting it up is that he would have the specific questions the Commission had come up with, and a reference to the full report, and a copy of the full report. So he has been putting the questions we have had up front. Commissioner Cardwell said we know the questions; we need the answers. Chair Adams said she would work with the Director and the Secretary on how they could inform us when the Commission needs to be informed, but not overwhelming us with repetitive information. We will work on it, and if Commissioners have any more ideas or examples, then shoot it over, and she will agree with the general consensus of, kind of disappointed that we didn’t get him here this time. Commissioner Fulton added the Chair asked the question and got the feedback. Generally, the feedback what she heard is that we would like to have more of that connection, and that showing up quarterly is not palatable. Is there a concurrence with that assessment? Chair Adams read it as concurrence. We want something every month. What the detail of that monthly report may entail, we can see what we can negotiate. Definitely, we expect a set of questions to be answered, that we will come up with, and maybe don’t all havea lot of questions every month. But whatever we do, we want to see them, and we want to see a section on updates, things that have changed that month, to have it there, and then it’s more 22 the issue of standardized reports and statistics for the month, and how do we need to see those? Commissioner Fulton asked if we could break the request out into the written report versus the attendance at the meetings. We would all agree that we would like to have that written report on a monthly basis anyway, and that there’s a suggestion to revise the format of the written report, is what she is hearing. So that’s one part of things, and she would assume the Chair would be the person to communicate with the Director and Secretary to get that suggestion across. Secondly, the attendance at the meeting – we haven’t fully addressed that. So her proposal at the meeting was that the Director attend our meetings every other month. Can we make that a concrete suggestion or is that subject to more discussion? Chair Adams said she would put out the request, subject to more discussion. She doesn’t know if it should be a motion, we don’t control his physical body. She personally would like somebody from the Department who can speak to issues that arise at every meeting. It doesn’t always have to be the Director. It could be the Deputy Director, it could be a Division Chief. For this meeting it came back to her that the Director had a conflict, he could do the next day, or Thursday or Friday. And then it became, are we going to reschedule around his schedule? I don’t think so. Commissioner Cardwell said she was having a serious issue with this. This is part of the responsibility of the director to be engaged with the Commission. We got that email from the Secretary saying he’s going to be here, and then he’s not going to be here, and there’s this back and forth, and a level of commitment that seems to be lacking a little bit. If the Director cannot be here, then somebody needs to be at the meeting to be representative of DEM. Maybe that could be the agreement. If the Directorcannot make it for whatever reason, then there is somebody who can fill that role. Commissioner Robinson asked if in that scenario it would be OK that we never see the Director, If he’s always got a conflict, he might never show up, and are we going to be OK with hearing somebody else from DEM? Commissioners Cardwell and Fulton agreed with Commissioner Robinson. Commissioner Fulton said we specifically need to ask the Director to be present at a certain interval, and it’s fine if he sends his substitute on the off months, and if we just leave it vague, she suspects we will not see the Director. Chair Adams said we still have the Secretary in the meeting. Is it reasonable to say this is a non- negotiable meeting you are coming to? The Mayor was the last one who dragged him away. It’s kind of hard to prioritize EMC before the Mayor. But we would like to see it’s a standing meeting, and he should make every attempt to be here that he can, and if he can’t, it’s a substitute, and that substitute should be rare, rather than common. Whether we could anything like, at least every other month, if I had my druthers it would be every month. 23 Commissioner Cardwell said he doesn’t have to be here for the entire meeting. We all know these meetings go on for quite some time. But even if he came for an hour, we could have a dedicated hour where we know he’s going to be at the meeting, and ask our questions then. That’s reasonable. And we can say, every other month, you have to be at the meeting for an hour. It sounds really funny to say it like that, but you know what she means, she said. Secretary Sur said to his understanding the Director would be at the next meeting, but it would be in order to make a motion. This is a one-time thing and he has been attending every meeting so far. In answering a question from Commissioner Olson about who is the No. 2 in the Department, the Secretary said that is Brenda Iokepa-Moses, who will be taking a stronger role in the Solid Waste Division once Chief Goodale leaves. Chair Adams asked if someone wanted to make a motion for a formal demand that we want to see the Director at least every other month, that we would like to see you every other month for at least an hour. Commissioner Hoopii agreed with Commissioner Cardwell. Having him added to the agenda for at least an hour, whether it be in the beginning or the middle, for us having that time with him to share with us. A small commitment of that. If he can stay on, he stays, but of course he’s probably busy. But as Commissioner Cardwell said, having him on the agenda for just an hour or part of his discussion to share (would be reasonable). Chair Adams asked if anyone wanted to make a motion, and Commissioner Olson said “so moved.” However, the motion was neither seconded nor recognized. Counsel Malia Hall said a motion may not be in order. The Commission can make a suggestion to the Director, but at the end of the day the Director still has authority to decide which meeting he comes to. But a letter suggesting he come is still probably in order. She didn’t know about a motion directing him to come. Chair Adams said she would send the Director a letter saying we really need him to come to our EMC meetings, preferably the whole thing, but at least an hour, and on those rare occasions when you cannot make it, then a senior director substitute for him. Commissioner Robinson asked to remove the part about attending for “at least an hour.” Let’s not suggest it, she said.. The Chair agreed. Commissioner Cardwell asked if we want to say anything about the report, because it seems decided that we were going to get a report once every three months or something. Chair Adams said that was kind of thrown out at her, that we are only going to do a quarterly report, and we were going to come back and say, no, we want to see something written each 24 meeting, and we can continue to negotiate format, to make sure you are addressing the things that we are involved in and want oversight, and we think quarterly is not going to be sufficient. Commissioner Fulton said including that in the letter as well is important, to which Chair Adams agreed. The Chair said there was a consensus to have her write up a letter to the Director that says, we want to see you at every meeting, and we want written information that we can review ahead of time, and we are going to keep sending you questions to address each month. 8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS a. Follow up on action items determined today. See discussion under agenda item 7. b. Other (Commissioners may suggest items they would like placed on the next agenda.) Chair Adams asked if there are any other issues that people have for agenda items. She was going to ask Business Services Hawai‘i to come, although they may not be available, to talk to us about what is the reality of recycling on this island now, and expected in the future. And she wanted to continue discussions about the transfer stations and funding recommendations, just to follow up and try to come up with specific recommendations, and motions that we could do for next meeting. Are there other agenda items that Commissioners would like to discuss? Commissioner Olson mentioned the level of service, particularly in Puna. In other words in Puna the population is exploding,and the infrastructure is suffering. The lines at the transfer stations are getting longer and longer, and there is no likelihood that it will decrease. So what are our options? What are you doing to deal with the level of service? Chair Adams said any specific questions can be sent to her or to the Secretary for the next report. What kinds of agenda items –are there different topics -- do we want to talk about or even right now? Do we want to make a motion? We would have to send it to the Department and the Council to say, we would like to see the glass ADF increased. I don’t know if we’re there to come up with specifics at this time, or if we can reserve for next meeting, where we would pin specific actions that we would recommend around solid waste funding, she said. Anyone who has thoughts about next agenda items were asked to send it to the Chair, and she would line it up. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS a. The Director’s Informational Report will return in October 2021. See discussion under item 7. We will change the item under 9a by asking for the Director’s informational report sooner than October. We would like to see one in September, Chair Adams said. 25 b. The next meeting is scheduled for September 22, 2021, online or at a location to be announced. Please contact the Department of Environmental Management or monitor the website for updates. The Secretary said that the date listed on the August agenda (September 27, 2021) is incorrect. (After a motion and second for adjournment, but prior to a vote to adjourn, Chair Adams made a closing statement.) Chair Adams thanked the Commission for participating. We talked about a lot of good things. And again the focus she would try to do for next meeting is, OK, are there some specific things that we want DEM to move forward on? So, think hard, and watch for your mail. Would Commissioners like to see other documents and articles about EPR? We could flood you with stuff. Commissioner Cardwell replied she would like to see more information, especially from states that are already doing it and how it is working for them. Chair Adams said that we have a version of EPR for e-waste, although it’s not working well in this County. We have EPR for glass, and our Hi-5 program is working well. So it’s in bits and pieces. She could send over a website that summarizes all the different activities going on in the different states, as far as legislation and policy moves are concerned, but not a lot of data. She did forward a message to look at some of the testimony that was given on the original HB 1316, that talked about some of the challenges and some of the opportunities as well for EPR, and the bill was 66 pages long. There are a lot of devils in the details in trying to make it work, but she is happy to send more information, as she comes across, it to the Commission. 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion, second, and vote: Commissioner Olsonmade a motion to adjourn, to which Commissioner Fulton seconded, and the motion was adopted. Ayes: 7(Adams, Cardwell, Fulton, Hoopii, McIntosh, Olson, Robinson); Nays 0; Absent 2 (Burns, Gaffney). Meeting adjourned at 11:33a.m. Respectfully submitted, Peter Sur, Secretary 26