HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda VII.5.1 - Info Briefing background and final recommendations - Hawaii County CouncilCESSPOOL CONVERSION WORKING
GROUP INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING
Tuesday, February 21, 2023
AGENDA
Background and Overview
Technology Study
Data and Prioritization
Finance Study
Final Report Recommendations
2
BACKGROUND AND
OVERVIEW
•The Cesspool Conversion Working Group (CCWG)
issued their Final Report to the Legislature
recommending ways to facilitate the upgrading of
83,000+ cesspools in Hawaii.
•The Department of Health established the CCWG
as authorized by the Legislature based on Act 132 of
Session Law Hawaii 2018.
•Purpose of the CCWG was to develop a long-range
comprehensive plan for cesspool conversion
statewide for all cesspools by 2050.
•The CCWG spent four (4) years working to tackle
this challenging issue with the first meeting held on
September 3, 2018.
3
CCWG MEMBERS
1 Dr.Elizabeth Char,Chair Director, Department of Health
2 Edward (Ted)Bohlen Representative of the public
3 Stuart Coleman Formerly Surfrider Foundation, WAI
4 Charlene Lani Fernandez Bank of Hawai‘i
5 Ken Hiraki Hawai’i REALTORS
6 Troy Tanigawa Wastewater Division, County of Kaua‘i
7 Dr.Roger Babcock Director, City and County of Honolulu, Department of Environmental
Services
8 Ramzi Mansour Director, County of Hawai‘i, Department of Environmental
Management
9 Dr.Darren T.Lerner Director, University of Hawai‘i Sea Grant College Program and the
Pacific Islands Climate Science Center
10 Representative Nicole Lowen State of Hawai‘i House of Representatives
11 Kenneth Wysocki USEPA Region 9
12 Eric Nakagawa Director, County of Maui, Department of Environmental Management
13 Erica Perez Coral Reef Alliance
14 Sina Pruder Wastewater Branch,Department of Health
15 Dr.Kawika Winter Manager,He‘eia National Estuarine Research Reserve,Hawai‘i Institute
for Marine Biology
16 Michael Mezzacapo University of Hawai‘i Water Resources Research Center 4
ACT 132
OBJECTIVES
•Act 132 had 15 objectives that had to be evaluated by
the CCWG.
•The CCWG reviewed the objectives and placed them
in three categories: Finance, Technology, and
Data Prioritization.
•The CCWG contracted Carollo Engineers to study
and provide reports on the Finance and Technology
related to the objectives.
•The CCWG contracted the University of Hawaii to
evaluate the 2017 data prioritization report and
develop a new data prioritization method and tool to
prioritize the risk of cesspools to human health and
the environment.
5
Filename.ppt/6Hawaii County Council Briefing for the
February 21, 2023
Cesspool Conversion Technologies Research
Filename.ppt/702 Findings and Recommendations
04
03
//Agenda
01 Conversion Options
7
Filename.ppt/8Conversion Options
Filename.ppt/9//Most likely conversion options for Hawaii County
•Expansion of centralized sewer service
areas
▪Evaluated in Facilities Plans
•Decentralized systems
▪Potential conversion option for clustered systems
that cannot be feasibly connected to centralized
systems
•Individual wastewater systems
▪Conversion technology is dependent onsite
conditions
9
Filename.ppt/10//Conversion considerations
Centralized sewers
•Proximity to existing
collection system
•Feasibility of extending the
collection system
•Available capacity at the
wastewater treatment plant
•Cost of upgrades and sewer
fees
10
Filename.ppt/11//Benefits and challenges of centralized systems
11
Benefits
•Increase customer base and revenues
•Reduce use of potable water and increase
recycled water use
•Meet design requirements of existing WWTPs
•Better environmental protection
•Achieve environmental justice goals
•Potential for rapid conversions
•Homeowners will not have to operate and
maintain an individual system
•Potential to reduce the burden of conversions
by limiting scope to sewer lateral only
Challenges
•County would need to expand
sewer system
•Cost to the County could be
significant, but can be
financed/recovered over time
•County requires staff/support to
implement projects
Filename.ppt/12//Conversion considerations
Decentralized systems
•Number of cesspools and
density
•Feasibility of constructing a
collection system
•Effluent disposal options
•Biosolids handling options
•Cost of upgrades and sewer
fees
12
Filename.ppt/13//Benefits and challenges of decentralized systems
13
Benefits
•Potential for rapid conversions
•Reducing burden on
homeowners to hire engineers
and contractors independently
•Ensure proper operations and
ongoing maintenance by
licensed operators
•Broaden range of funding
opportunities
Challenges
•Need for neighborhood-level
coordination
•Need for licensed operators
•Land/space requirements
Filename.ppt/14//Conversion considerations
Individual wastewater systems
•Type of technology and
approval status
•Terrain
•Cost to owner can be
significant
•Owner is responsible for
ongoing maintenance and
operations
14
Filename.ppt/15//Examples of individual systems
“Temporary systems”
•Lower level of treatment: Septic tank and drain field
•Higher level of treatment: Aerobic treatment unit,
other nutrient removal technologies
15
Filename.ppt/16//Benefits and challenges of individual wastewater systems
16
Benefits
•Potentially a relatively simple
conversion if a high level of
treatment isn’t required (e.g.,
septic tank + drain field)
Challenges
•Owner must hire licensed engineer and
contractor
•Cost must be borne by homeowner and
financial support is required for many
•If higher level of treatment is needed, a
more complex system is required
•Owner must operate and maintain their
system
•Property constraints relative to effluent
disposal options
•May not achieve environmental justice
goals
Filename.ppt/17Findings and Recommendations
Filename.ppt/18//Summary of findings and recommendations
•Develop better understanding of onsite treatment
options
▪Allowable “density” of septic tank systems or numeric limits
for total nitrogen
•Develop a coordinated strategy for methods
of conversions
▪What cesspools can be easily connected to existing sewers?
▪What cesspools can be connected to extended or new
sewer systems?
▪Feasibility of decentralized treatment for high-density, high-
priority cesspool areas.
18
Filename.ppt/19// Summary of findings and recommendations (cont’d)
•Staffing/training/workforce development
▪Professional staff
▪Contractors
▪Operators
•Public outreach, education, and
homeowner tools
▪Develop educational resources
▪Educate on conversion options
▪Facilitate access to engineers, contractors,
and operators with applicable experience
▪Provide guidance on financial support or
funding options
19
Filename.ppt/20The 2022 Hawai‘i Cesspool Hazard Assessment & Prioritization Tool
Chris Shuler & Michael Mezzacapo
University of Hawaii at Manoa SeaGrant College Program & Water Resources Research center
20
Filename.ppt/21Objectives
1.Identify a comprehensive list of factors to inform the new
prioritization assessment;
2.Categorize previously uncategorized (Priority Level 4)
cesspools;
3.Provide DoH/CCWG recommendations based on new
findings where appropriate;
4.Develop a scientifically unbiased and objective framework to
rank all cesspools on the 4 main islands
5.Present results through a web-based tool to view
prioritization levels and input data
21
Filename.ppt/22Process
1) Updated statewide cesspool
inventory
2) Curated statewide risk-factor data
3) Developed reproducible, scientifically
objective code-based calculation
framework
4) Quantified ‘risk’ through geospatial
association with each factor
5) Workshops with a panel of experts to
help weight factors
6) Synthesized all data into single
prioritization score for each cesspool
1.Distance to coastline;
2.Distance to streams and
wetlands;
3.Distance to drinking water wells;
4.Well capture zones;
5.Sea level rise zones;
6.Precipitation;
7.Depth to groundwater;
8.Cesspool density;
9.Soil characteristics;
10.Groundwater flow paths;
11.Coral cover;
12.Fish biomass/recovery potential;
13.Beach user-days;
14.Proximity to lifeguarded beach;
15.Coastal ocean circulation
22
Filename.ppt/23Top 25%75 to 50%Bottom 50%
(1) Highest
Priority
Cesspools
(2) Medium
Priority
Cesspools
(3) Lower
Priority
Cesspools
13,821
units
12,367
units
55,237
units
Prioritization Results
Threshold based binning of all census tracts
into three simple categories
23
Filename.ppt/24Web Application Tools
DOH Input Data Tool Public Results Map
http://hawaiicesspooltool.org/24
Filename.ppt/25Hawaii IslandResults
Priority 1:
5,119 (11%)
Priority 2:
2,619 (6%)
Priority 3:
40,858 (84%)
25
Filename.ppt/26Hawaii IslandResults
Priority 1:
Kawaihae/Waikoloa
Holualoa
Priority 2:
Hilo
Kaumalumalu/Keahou
26
Filename.ppt/27Cesspool Conversion Working Group Informational Briefing for the
February 21, 2023
Cesspool Conversions Finance Research
Filename.ppt/2801 Affordability Analysis
03
02
//Agenda
Funding Options
Factors That Affect Cesspool
Conversion Programs
04 Findings and Recommendations
28
Filename.ppt/29Affordability Analysis
Filename.ppt/30//Affordability Analysis
Methodology •Geographic Information System
(GIS)/Cesspool locations
•Median Household Income (MHI)
for Census Block Groups (CBG)
•Priority Areas
Data
Sources
•Installation Costs
•Operations & Maintenance (O&M) CostsCosts
•Comparison to Average Sewer Bill
•Percent of MHI
•Federal Poverty Levels (FPL)
Affordability
Measures
30
Filename.ppt/31//Financial Impact of Cesspool Conversions
Cost Description Low Average High
Cesspool Conversion Construction Cost (total)(1)$10,000 $23,000 $38,000
Interest rate (percent)(2)4.0
Loan Term (years)(2)20
Cesspool Conversion Construction Cost (monthly)(2)$61 $139 $230
Estimated O&M Cost (monthly)(3)$33 $71 $108
Estimated Monthly Cost $94 $210 $339
Notes:
1.Installation costs are based on historical installation costs for septic tank and ATU treatment and disposal systems from DOH. The low-end cost represents
the 10th percentile, and the high-end cost represents the 90th percentile. All conversion costs are site specific and these installation costs may not be
representative for more complex sites/installations.
2.Installation costs are assumed to be financed over 20 years at 4 percent based on market rates for home equity loans as of July 2020.
3.Monthly operating costs are estimated with the low end representing septic tank operations costs. The high end represents a higher level of treatment with
ATU + UV disinfection + seepage pit. The median operations cost is the median of the low-and high-end operations costs.
31
Filename.ppt/32//Affordability Measures
•Federal Poverty Level
▪Annual income < $30,718
•Percent of Median Household Income
▪Financially burdened if conversion cost is greater than 2% of MHI
▪Annual income < $126,125
32
Filename.ppt/33//Statewide Cesspool Conversion Affordability Results
33
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Number of CesspoolsAnnual Household Income
County of Hawai'i City and County of Honolulu County of Kaua'i County of Maui
Filename.ppt/34//Statewide Results: FPL
34
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Number of CesspoolsAnnual Household Income
County of Hawai'i City and County of Honolulu County of Kaua'i County of Maui
Below Federal
Poverty Level
4,263
Cesspools
(~5%)
Filename.ppt/35//Statewide Results: FPL, MHI
35
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Number of CesspoolsAnnual Household Income
County of Hawai'i City and County of Honolulu County of Kaua'i County of Maui
Below Federal
Poverty Level
Cesspool upgrade costs
exceed 2% of income
82,424
Cesspools
(~94%)
Filename.ppt/36//Statewide Results: FPL, MHI, $10K Rebate
36
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Number of CesspoolsAnnual Household Income
County of Hawai'i City and County of Honolulu County of Kaua'i County of Maui
Below Federal
Poverty Level
Cesspool upgrade costs
exceed 2% of income after
$10,000 rebate
Cesspool upgrade costs
exceed 2% of income
71,799
Cesspools
(~82%)
Filename.ppt/37//Typical Monthly Sewer Bill Compared to Monthly
Cesspool Conversion Costs for Average Scenario
37
Monthly sewer
bills are not
representative
of total cost to
Counties of
sewer
Filename.ppt/38// Hawaiʻi County
38
•Greatest affordability
challenges (98%
financially burdened)
•Most cesspools of all
counties
•Least access to
centralized sewers,
71% without sewers
•Oahu:3% have
cesspools
•Maui: 22% have
cesspools
•Kauai:54%have
cesspools
Filename.ppt/39Funding Options
Filename.ppt/40// Cesspool conversion:Funding program challenges
40
Magnitude of the affordability issue
Homeowners need incentives to convert cesspools
•Identification/quantification of benefits (e.g., environmental, water
quality, etc.)
•Need for an extensive, sustainable public outreach program
Provide funding for upfront costs
•Program funding
•Homeowner funding
Filename.ppt/41// Cesspool conversion:Funding program challenges (cont’d)
41
Consider the funding recipient—Homeowner or other
entity
Potentially fund a variety of conversion options
Legislation/Governance Structure
Filename.ppt/42Funding Gap
Federal
Grants
and Loans
State CWSRFProperty
Assessments
Other:
Nonprofits,
Rebate
Program, On-
bill, etc.
Private
Financing
// Funding sources
42
Filename.ppt/43Assumptions:
•Total conversion cost: $2B
•State CWSRF: $150M
(@$5M/yr * 30 yrs)
•Federal grants/loans: $30M
(@$1M/yr * 30 yrs)
•Rebate program: $43M
($10K rebate for those below FPL)
•Private financing: $661M
•Funding gap: $1.1B
43
// Funding options:
Hypothetical scenario
What are the pieces of the
funding “pie”?
Filename.ppt/44Funding:
Key takeaways from other states
•Magnitude of the funding needed vs.
available funds
•Need for sustainable financing mechanisms to
cover program administration and other costs
•Other states with successful programs had:
•Suite/portfolio of funding options
•Early and extensive public outreach and
education
•State programs to help pay for conversions
•Low interest loans
•Conduit agencies/partnerships
44
Filename.ppt/45Factors That Affect Cesspool Conversion Programs
Filename.ppt/46//Factors that affect cesspool conversion programs
46
•Environmental benefits
•Methods of conversions
•Technical & financial resources
Public acceptance
and education
•Site-specific costs
•Conversion costs compared to sewer fees
Perception of
inequity
•Aggressive pace of conversions to meet
deadline(s)
•Focus on priority areas
Near-term
incentives to convert
•Professionals
•Contractors/materials
•O&M
Available workforce
and resources
•Single management entity
•Long-term
Responsible
management entity
•Support funding program
•Administrative costs
Stable source of
revenue
Filename.ppt/47Findings and Recommendations
Filename.ppt/48//Summary of Findings & Recommended Next Steps:
Finance & Program Development
48
Burden of affordability
The funding gap
Coordination of legislative efforts
Identify viable financing mechanisms
Identify and fund administrative resources
Coordinate with and leverage federal, state, and local entities
Determine distribution of financial aid
FINAL REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
•Prioritization and Timing
•Financial Support
•Technology Considerations
•Planning/Program
Administration
•Workforce Development
•Outreach
49
FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Prioritization and Timing
Replace the 2050 deadline, from Act 125 Session Laws of Hawaii (SLH) 2017, for
cesspool conversion as follows:
•Priority 1 (13,821 cesspools) converted by 2030, and
•Priority 2 (12,367 cesspools) converted by 2035.
•Priority 3 (55,237 cesspools) would continue to be converted by 2050.
Require a seller’s disclosure form for any property sold that has a cesspool.
50
FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Financial Support
Maximize federal funding options where available to offset the cost of conversion:
•Including grants, tax credits, and low interest loans, funds under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds,
Inflation Reduction Act, and American Rescue Plan Act.
Reallocate State and county resources or generate new revenue to supplement other financing programs
and homeowners’ dollars.
Facilitate financing options to assist low‐and moderate‐income homeowners in converting, as well as
incentives for cesspool conversion for all homeowners.
Enable nonprofits and community development financial institutions to help cesspool owners access
available funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Funds.
51
FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning/Program Administration
•Require each County to develop a comprehensive integrated wastewater management plan to include
where connections to centralized (public and private) treatment systems are planned, where individual
treatment systems will continue to be needed, and where smaller‐scale “cluster” treatment systems
might be utilized. Include financial strategies.
•Establish a cesspool section within the Hawaii Department of Health’s Wastewater Branch to include at
least three to four staff to work on cesspool conversions planning, implementation, permitting, and
regulatory framework.
•Increase administrative capacity as needed for cesspool conversion on State lands.
•Prioritize environmental justice principles for disadvantaged community needs to promote equitable
outcomes related to the entire cesspool conversion process.
52
FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Outreach
•Fund the development of a comprehensive outreach strategy for
cesspool conversions that educates homeowners on conversion
options and resources.
53
Filename.ppt/54End Presentation