Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-05 Enviromental Management Commission Minutes Minutes for Wednesday, September 5, 2001Page 1 of 5 Return to: Home Page | Table of Contents | Commission Page ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Wednesday, September 5, 2001 9:11 a.m. Waimea Community Center (Park) Building 65-1260 Kawaihae Road, Kamuela, Hawai`i 96743 PRESENTALSO PRESENT :Barbara Bell:Peter Boucher, WWD Riley SmithLarry Capellas, SWD Mack AsatoGalen Kuba, Acting Director for EM Hugh OnoGerald Takase, Corporation Counsel Carolyn WitcherDominic Yagong, Councilman Peter MartinCurtis Tyler, III, Councilman Sam KawamuraJon Olson John Ray EXCUSED: David FrankelJames Isa, Abandoned Vehicle Coordinator Frederick Brunner ABSENT: Luana JonesSteve Cassulo Jay West STAFF :Kristen GriffithsJim Flood CALL TO ORDER Barbara Bell called the meeting to order at 9:11 a.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 2001 MEETING Hugh Ono motioned to approve the Minutes of the August 8, 2001 meeting. Sam Kawamura seconded. Motion was unanimously carried. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS LISTED ON AGENDA There were no public statements. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM AND/OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA Hugh Ono motioned that members of the Environmental Management Commission be designated as ex- officio members on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Carolyn Witcher seconded. Motion was unanimously carried. Curtis Tyler, III, Councilman, was very anxious for the Commission to follow the mandate of the people and to take the lead in environmental management. There are many interesting programs, including the Gasification Technology. He commended Peter Boucher for his work with the Bureau of Reclamation. He was quite concerned after the last Solid Waste Advisory Committee meeting. The Environmental Management Commission is the vehicle in which a recommendation comes for addressing solid waste needs. Some of the options presented by the consultants were really not options at all. There are much better and more viable systems available than the long haul from East Hawai‘i to West Hawai‘i. file://C:\Test1\minutes090501.htm6/22/2011 Minutes for Wednesday, September 5, 2001Page 2 of 5 Hugh Ono expressed his concern with duplication of services between the Environmental Management Commission and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. To some degree, he can see this is true. We review and provide recommendations on certain matters. After we are done with it, it goes to County Council. There seems to be a redundancy. Hopefully, the County can, to some degree, address that. We are adding more time to everything that we do and time is important. Curtis Tyler agreed with this. Part of the redundancy is because this is a brand new committee. The makeup of this committee is to have a wide range of professional expertise, which is perhaps different from other commissions. The government grinds pretty slowly. There is tremendous potential and liability involved in issues of the EPA. He envisions, as the charter provides, that the Environmental Management Commission might have decision-making abilities by ordinance. Dominic Yagong, Councilman, spoke on the process. Bill 57 should not have been sent to the Environmental Management Commission. That is something that Council should review since the final decision will happen at Council. He would hate to put the Commission’s energy into areas that we don’t know anything about. We need to determine what we want people to consider or do we consider everything? It takes too much time to address everything. The closure of the Hilo Landfill is the biggest thing we will have to deal with right now. There is a time frame as to the closure of the landfill. The best thing for the Council is if, as soon as possible, they had alternatives or options to look at. The Commission’s recommendations will go a long way as far as Council is concerned. We must have a clear direction. Carolyn Witcher expressed her frustration at being a member of the Commission and not being a member of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. She is only allowed to speak as a member of the public. Another committee should not have been formed. It should have been handled right here. Requested again to be on the mailing list. Larry Capellas acknowledged her request and committed to including her on all future mailings. She would like everyone on Commission to officially be a member of the Advisory Committee. Peter Martin was astounded that another body would duplicate Commission. He doesn't want to be second- guessed by others when dealing with the same issues. Larry Capellas, Solid Waste Division Chief, shared his thoughts as to ensuring a more productive meeting. He was going to ask that committee members listen to the consultants first, and then give their input. There are five general areas that the Consultants are studying. They are going to follow the time allotted for each section. If interruptions continue, individuals will be asked to leave. The contract with the Consultants includes four SWAC meetings and then the Committee disbands. The discussions will then be between the Consultants, the Commission, and the Solid Waste Division. Peter Martin made a motion that the independent body of the SWAC should be disbanded and appended to this commission as a committee of this commission and that the people who have done the research should report directly to the Commission. Carolyn Witcher seconds. Peter rescinded the motion. Carolyn withdrew the second. Hugh Ono feels it is not necessary for every single member to be on the SWAC. Legislators cannot participate in every single thing. They rely on the reports that are written. They have opportunities to question the people who have put together the reports and make recommendations. He would hate to see something totally amended. There is a purpose for having the SWAC. Gerald Takase notes that this is not on the agenda. You can put it on the agenda and by the next meeting, we could probably research the relation of the SWAC to the EMC and advise you properly if it is within your right to dismiss them or not. Certainly, all of you can attend the meetings as members of this commission, but to cut them off here and now would be a little premature. He suggested that members of file://C:\Test1\minutes090501.htm6/22/2011 Minutes for Wednesday, September 5, 2001Page 3 of 5 this commission become ex-officio members of the SWAC. They will have notice of the meetings. They may not have a vote on that committee, but they would at least be able to ask questions which members of the public may not be able to ask. Jon Olson, a member of the subcommittee, believes that it is up to the Commission to hear directly from the contractors because it is your official obligation to make a decision. DRAFT RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC SEWER AT KAUMANA GARDENS SUBDIVISION, AINAKO AINA-NANI, PUUEO, KOMOHANA HEIGHTS, AND KALANIANAOLE PHASE II Carolyn Witcher moves that we add to the agenda discussion of the draft resolutions concerning sewerline extensions. Mack Asato seconds. Motion is unanimously carried. Galen Kuba, Acting Director for the Department of Environmental Management, deferred for further information and clarification with Mayor Harry Kim. Carolyn withdrew her motion. Mack withdrew his second. LETTER TO THOMAS ARIZUMI OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PeterBoucher stated that this is a letter responding to an operation and maintenance inspection of the Hilo Wastewater Treatment Plant. The main reason for getting an unacceptable rating was because of the non- compliance with the Pretreatment Program requirements. The federal regulations detail how you control the quality of the influent sewage at our treatment plant with regards to your waste. Our argument is that we don’t think we fall under those requirements because we don’t have any significant industrial users. Essentially, the Department of Health agrees with us and we are no longer required to go through that program. This issue should go away. However, because of this, we have started having discussions with the consultants for implementing a program which would require rewriting the sewer code. There are so many issues and regulations overlapping. It is too messy. It is better to throw out the entire sewer code and rewrite the sewer code based on the pretreatment regulations. Several years ago, we were 75% through that process, but it was never completed. Basically, our presentation to the Council will include the old, the new, and an explanation on handling the issue. The O&M Report should be considered a report card. It is not actually a notice of violation. Carolyn Witcher questions why so many consultants are required to do what she considers the Department’s job coming up with the appropriate sewer code. Why is everything out to consultants? Peter responded that there is only one engineer to design projects, project planning phases, regulatory requirements, the permits, reports, etc. They are just very understaffed. This is too much work to be placed on one engineer. Peter Martin stated that Peter Boucher may be in compliance with the spirit of the law and may have other issues that impact this. Why doesn’t the Department of Health just respond to Peter’s explanation for the things that are unacceptable? Riley puts perspective on how the Department of Health operates. DOH administers the EPA rules. The EPA delegates to the State DOH to monitor the NPDES permits which dictates what you can put in the ocean. In that permit, there are certain parameters that you have to follow. One of them is the 85% removal and the other one is what Peter talked about the 30 mg per liter BOD and suspended solids. The more critical one of the two is the 30/30 requirement. The 85% removal is more a requirement because EPA is concerned about people diluting their sewage so that it is weaker. An indication of your infiltration is how much fresh water enters your system. There are two things you have to do. One is that you have to meet the NPDES permit when you discharge into the ocean, which Peter is saying they do, except that there are some problems periodically with the 85% removal. The other part is the DOH report which is more like an file://C:\Test1\minutes090501.htm6/22/2011 Minutes for Wednesday, September 5, 2001Page 4 of 5 operations and maintenance overview of what your facility looks like. One way for us to understand the difference and the importance between the two, is if we could have someone from DOH come to one of our meetings to explain what they feel is the more critical criteria. DOH does not issue a response letter and it puts you in a bind because you don’t have official documentation that everything is okay. As a commission, that is what we want to see. Peter stated that if DOH disagrees with his explanation, then they will respond. The real issue that there is an unacceptable rating is because of the pretreatment program. This is not the first year. It has been going on for years. Riley Smith requested a copy of Operation & Maintenance/Compliance Evaluation Inspection dated September 20, 2000 to be distributed to Commission members before the next meeting. Kristen to prepare invitation to Dennis Tulang of the State Department of Health to answer the following questions: 1.What is your role, procedures, NPDES permit process, and annual inspections? 2.What is the difference between an advisory thing and a violation? 3.What is the impact of these ratings and bearing it might have on future federal grants or existing facilities that were provided by federal grants? UPDATE FROM WASTEWATER DIVISION DISCUSSION ON HAWAI‘I COUNTY COUNCIL BILL NO. 57 REGARDING CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES In discussions with the Consultant, they are in the process of revising that Bill. DISCUSSION ON HAWAI‘I COUNTY COUNCIL BILL NO. 58 REGARDING BUILDING SEWER CONNECTION LOAN PROGRAM Peter Boucher indicated that once revisions to the Bill on capacity assessments are completed, then he intends to hold public hearings on both bills at the same time. He will hold off on any more action on the loan programs, until the public hearings. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE KEALAKEHE DEMONSTRATION WETLANDS PLANNING AND RESEARCH AGREEMENT WITH THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Peter Boucher stated that in order for the Mayor to enter into the Agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation, according to Corporation Counsel, it requires Council Resolution 20 days before authorizing Mayor Kim to sign. Basically, that is what this resolution is. It authorizes the Mayor and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Agreement is a formal document. The Bureau of Reclamation is preparing a preliminary engineering report for construction of Lagoon No. 4, subsurface wetlands in existing Lagoon 6, and a series of free water surface wetlands that surround the treatment plant. They have been doing the design. As part of the agreement, the County is responsible for the construction. However, there is a clause in the agreement that states that we can cancel the agreement at any time. We are not really bound by the construction clause. The Bureau of Reclamation can even fund the construction later under a separate contract. Riley Smith stated his concern that major issues should be discussed on both sides of the island so people from both sides are given the opportunity to provide input. Requested that a discussion take place in Waimea and also in East Hawai‘i. Carolyn Witcher mentioned that this was discussed at the previous meeting in Kona. Hugh Ono stated that he does not feel that this is a controversial issue. Carolyn Witcher moves that the Commission recommend that Council approve and go forward with this resolution for the wetlands. Peter Martin seconds. Motion was unanimously carried. file://C:\Test1\minutes090501.htm6/22/2011 Minutes for Wednesday, September 5, 2001Page 5 of 5 DISCUSSION RELATING TO PROPOSED WASTEWATER RATE INCREASE Peter Boucher hasn’t had the opportunity to go any further on this topic. It is part of the budget process. Deferred to the next meeting. DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS Riley Smith stated that our next meeting on September 26, 2001 at the State Office Building is going to be a public hearing on our rules between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. When that meeting is completed, we will have our follow-up Environmental Management Commission meeting. Our goal is to have a public hearing on our rules, formally adopt the rules and then have official meetings and we will know what procedures we need to follow. Hugh Ono questions what happens at public hearing. Gerald Takase stated that you are inviting the public to come in and comment on the rules, whether they think anything should be changed or if they see any problems with it. Assuming that there are no changes, you can go ahead and adopt the rules. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION’S RULES AND REGULATIONS No discussion. SCHEDULING OF NEXT MEETING DATES, TIMES AND LOCATIONS Wednesday, September 26, 2001, 9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m., Public Hearing at the State Office Building, Conference Rooms A & B, 75 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai`i 96720. Wednesday, September 26, 2001, 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., at the State Office Building, Conference Rooms A & B, 75 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai`i 96720. Wednesday, October 24, 2001, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., at the Kona Police Department Conference Room, 74-5221 Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai`i 96740. Wednesday, November 28, 2001, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., at the Waimea Community Center (Park) Building, 65-1260 Kawaihae Road, Kamuela, Hawai`i 96743 ADJOURNMENT Hugh Ono motioned to adjourn the meeting. Carolyn Witcher seconded. Motion was carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:31 a.m. Minutes Respectfully Submitted by: ___________________________________ KRISTEN GRIFFITHS Interim Environmental Management Secretary Return to: Home Page | Table of Contents | Commission Page ©Copyright 2001 County of Hawaii, Hawaii file://C:\Test1\minutes090501.htm6/22/2011