Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-27 Meeting Minutes (EMC) ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIʻI MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, June 27, 2018 9:07 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Aupuni Center Conference Room 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 1 Hilo, Hawaiʻi 96720 Commissioners present: Richard Bennett, Ph.D., Chair Jon Olson, Vice Chair James Fritz Rick Gaffney Susie Osborne Luana Neff Justin Pequeno Staff present: William Kucharski, Director Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary Fujio, Secretary Also present: Several members of the public and Councilmember Eileen O'Hara 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bennett called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m. He welcomed new commissioner Justin Pequeño and asked him to tell them about himself. Commissioner Pequeño initially introduced himself in the Hawaiian language. In English, he said he grew up in Texas and now lives in Waiākea in Council District 2. His educational background is in psychology, American studies, and educational policy. He recently completed the GoFarm Beginning Farmer Training Program. He works at Kamehameha Schools as a project manager, and his kuleana includes a little of everything done off campus, from community programs to the school’s agriculture and conservation work on the island. His EMC term ends in December 2020, so in the time he has on it, he is hoping to work with the team and the department on issues such as a smooth transition for the closing of the South Hilo Landfill, wastewater treatment plant modernization, and helping to the public to become more conscious about limiting the stress on the ʻaina. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2018 Motion and vote: Vice Chair Olson moved to approve the minutes as drafted, Commissioner Gaffney seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Chair Bennett noted that two people had signed up to testify. The first is Jerome Warren, who would be speaking on agenda items 4a and 7a. Mr. Warren spoke about the County’s budget shortfall due to the lava disaster and said all departments must cut back on expenses. The Department of Environmental Management is top heavy with bureaucrats. The recycling program educates people on how to identify plastics. This is not a vital service, and everyone has learned it all before. The recycling people do not educate, they indoctrinate. The general public has heard their rhetoric and dogma ad nauseam. Pretty soon, people are going to do the opposite just to show they have free will. Regarding the Nāālehu sewer plant, ʻMr. Warren said the County is in a budget shortfall and does not need to build this unnecessary plant. Doc Buyers took over the plantation years ago and ran it into the ground. Harry Kim did Doc Buyers a huge favor by taking over C. Brewer’s obligation to operate Nāālehu’ʻs old gang cesspool, and at a tremendous cost to the County. Now there is a new development plan for Nāālehu, and ʻ Harry Kim is doing the plantation-connected developers a tremendous favor by installing their wastewater infrastructure. Kaū Royal Coffee and Tea developers have a ʻ plan for Nāālehu was ālehu, but the public is not informed. Backtracking to April, Nāʻʻ supposed to be informed about the treatment plant, but there was a lot of false information given. The County’s consultants didn’t answer individual cesspool questions, and there was a dude in the audience who started answering the questions with false information. The meeting was non-productive. All this started with Dora Beck a long time ago, when Harry Kim first took office. She should be at these meetings, answering questions. He would encourage a councilmember to request that this Nāālehu boondoggle be audited, because it is giving people ʻa lot of grief. Chair Bennett called up the next speaker, Sandra Demoruelle. Ms. Demoruelle spoke about the proposed treatment plants for Kaūʻ and asked why the people of Kaū don’t know what is happening. ʻThere is a 2007 FEA that has never been withdrawn, and yet the County is moving from having one LCC replacement project to having two wastewater treatment systems. There has never been an examination. There has been no EIS to date for these two new-build water treatment systems. Every new-build water treatment system is supposed to have an EIS done. Therefore, she has filed a lawsuit against the EPA, because the EPA has oversight of the project. The community expects openness and a publication of notice in TEN. There has been no documentation as to why the project was changed from doing the LCC conversion. The EA for that was approved by everyone. Ms. Demoruelle read from Title 11, Chapter 200, of the Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules, regarding environmental impact statements, wherein it states that EAs and EISs are meaningless without the conscientious application of the environmental review process as a whole, and are not to be a self-serving recitation of benefits and a rationalization of the proposed action. She said projects are a rationalization of the proposed action. The County is not looking at the basic need for wastewater treatment, but at a siting decision. How can a project be sited if it hasn’t passed an environmental assessment? In addition, the County is withholding information. She requested the draft EA be placed in the public library in Kaū, and her request was denied. ʻ 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Continued discussion on recommending that the Department of Environmental Management include education components in its contracts. Chair Bennett turned this item over to Commissioner Osborne. Commissioner Osborne said the intent of this item is not to take money from the County’s very limited budget that already exists. As commissioners, they should continue to try to find ways to support the County in having the needed operational funds. However, education is key and fundamental to the success of important initiatives such as the ten-year organics contract that was considered and is being redone. The proposal is to have it built into contracts so that there is a percentage of funds a contractor is mandated to use towards education, and that the funds do not come out of the County budget. That is the spirit and intent—to ensure the community is uplifted and given the education to understand whatever new innovations in waste management may occur, and this happens through education, which the County budget does not have the funds for. Chair Bennett asked if Commissioner Olson would like to introduce a motion. Motion and second: Commissioner Osborne moved that the EMC recommend to DEM that for any contracts with outside organizations that will manage recyclable material and organics on behalf of the County, the contracts require the contractor to include an educational component directed to the public so the public may be aware and informed about what materials are recyclable and how best to accomplish recycling as a normal activity with household waste management. Commissioner Gaffney seconded the motion. Commissioner Osborne said she wanted to try to simplify the motion and make it broader. She questioned whether organics is considered recycling, and Director Kucharski said yes, it is not only recycling but also waste reduction. She wondered if using the term “waste reduction” should be user, as it is broader. She asked for the director’s thoughts. Director Kucharski said he essentially is hearing that any contracts that are entered into by DEM should have an education component as part of that contract. Contracts are only entered into with outside entities, so it may be redundant to have “outside organizations” in the motion. He believes the motion has a solid point and would be a good step. Vice Chair Olson questioned whether they were in discussion, and Chair Bennett said he thought an amended motion had been made. He asked Commissioner Osborne to restate her amended motion. Discussion was held back and forth on how the motion should be worded and what it should contain. Amended motion and second: Commissioner Osborne moved that any contracts entered into with DEM contain a percentage of the contract dedicated to education and outreach component for waste reduction. Commissioner Gaffney seconded the motion. Vice Chair Olson said he thought the component already existed, but setting a minimum would be an appropriate thing. There’s a problem with so many moving parts, and the cost of achieving a meaningful outcome becomes tricky. If it is cast into stone, then even the best intentioned may not be able to achieve the outcome being sought, but it would be better than nothing. He would like to see it move forward, but perhaps later it could be defined better by the scope of what the agency is capable of doing and setting some other goals. Director Kucharski said he was running numbers in his head, and if they set it at 1%, it would be $1,000 for a $100,000 contract. You would not get a whole lot of education for that. If the amount is set too high, it would bump the budget up by that amount. Some contracts, such as those for recycling and composting, have a much more important education aspect. If DEM gets into a true litter program, the education necessary will be significantly higher than on compost. He believes it will allow for more flexibility if it has to be contained in every proposal and every bid. If it is a fixed amount, it will be difficult to go above that. Chair Bennett said there may be some value to build into the motion a request that as RFPs are being developed, the education component come back to the commission for advice. If it would have a significant public involvement, the EMC could say it needs to be more significant. Commissioner Osborne that may cause the EMC to overstep their role as commissioners, which does not include day-to-day management. She asked Director Kucharski to speak to that. Director Kucharski said EMC review would cause his six-month procurement process to become an eight-month procurement process. Also, procurement is not public until it is issued for everyone to see at the same time. What he could do is when they have a contract, he can bring the education component—once it’s released for review and advice—to the EMC for their edification, so that EMC comments could be utilized when DEM is reviewing the proposals that come in. Commissioner Osborne wanted to make sure DEM’s budget was not tapped but that the community gets uplifted in education the way it needs to be. She said the EMC could trust in the director’s discretion, as he has the same intent they do. DEM won’t be successful with a ten-year organics contract unless the community has the proper educational support. She believes they’re on the same page and should leave it broad and to the director’s discretion. Chair Bennett asked whether there would be sufficient guidance down the road a few years, when there is a different director, and whether they will be relying on good faith. Commissioner Pequeño suggested that the percentage or weight of the education component could be part of the selection process. When a contract goes out for bid, language could be included stating that, when the selection is being done, the education component would have a weight on par with other components such as the proposed expense, demonstrated ability, and background history in accomplishing these types of projects. Commissioner Osborne said that was a great idea, and Director Kucharski said making it explicit rather than implicit is an appropriate tool, in his opinion. It becomes one of the grading criteria, and he thinks it is a great idea. Discussion was held on whether the motion should go forward now or whether more time was needed to wordsmith it. Ms. Wong said this is what she has down for the amended motion: Any contracts entered into by DEM contain an education and outreach component for waste reduction. Director Kucharski asked for clarification on whether the education component was to be for all contracts or for waste reduction and recycling contracts, and the response was that it was just to be for waste reduction and recycling contracts. Commissioner Gaffney asked Director Kucharski if he envisioned getting the contract process started between now and the next EMC meeting, or whether the EMC should wait a month or so. Director Kucharski said he was not aware of any recycling contracts going out this month, except for possibly an automobile disposal contract. A month would not hurt, but if he should see a contract caught in the middle, he will ensure the component is in it. Commissioner Gaffney suggested the commissioners work together on getting the language finalized, and they could revisit the issue at the next meeting. Director Kucharski explained that generally, each contract has its own evaluation criteria. For recycling contracts, they could include an education component as points and add it to the contract review and evaluation criteria. DEM would need to let everyone know what the evaluation will involve. The education components would be listed in the RFP that goes out. Commissioner Osborne said she’d like Director Kucharski to help with the language, and they can bring it forward at the next meeting. Chair Bennett clarified that a motion is on the table, and the discussion on it is being continued to the next meeting. At that time there will be succinct language to put forward. Commissioner Osborne thanked the commissioners for their support, as this matter has laid heavily on her heart for quite some time, and she thanked the administration for being open to it. b. Status report by subcommittee pursuant to its investigation on how to address implementing the Commission’s resolution approved and adopted on March 28, 2018, to adopt a proactive pollution elimination program consistent with the goals of the Clean Water Act. Chair Bennett reported the subcommittee has learned that the County’s wastewater disposal is a relatively small piece of the whole pie. The island’s 59,000 cesspools comprise a larger slice, and this fact has caused the subcommittee to step back and look at the issue of wastewater disposal, and nutrient movement into the ocean, in a larger context. They plan to look at federal law, including the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act, and review the state’s implementation of these as well as any state laws about water quality and coastal zone management. They will also look at what policies and programs the County as a whole has. The idea is to bring all the divergent, discordant policies into one document and then make recommendations on how the County can attempt to fill some of the voids. The State chooses at times to ignore federal law and not do what the CWA says. At the government level the laws can be ignored, and there are no consequences other than continued degradation of our receiving water. People he has spoken with are interested in this and recognize the discordancy and holes that exist. He hopes to have a draft in a month to provide to the EMC for comments. Commissioner Gaffney said the project is overwhelmingly huge. Other nations have tackled this issue in unique ways, and there may be value in studying what they have done for the EMC’s suggestions to the County. All the results of the Obama Ocean Commission have been eliminated by an executive order of the current president, which is very problematic. It is worthy of taking a broader look to see if Australia or New Zealand have come up with some appropriate technologies and/or management options that may be worthy of recommending at the County level. Chair Bennett asked Commissioner Gaffney if he could research this. Vice Chair Olson said ocean issues in the County have not been resolved, and the damage continues. The island is not going to get any outside help on this. Funding mechanisms are going to have to be found. It is ours and we’ve got to deal with it. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion on Bill 154, which was referred by the County Council to the Commission for comment and recommendation. Bill 154 proposes to extend the authority of the Department of Environmental Management to remove abandoned vehicles from certain private roadways in the interest of public health and safety. Chair Bennett stated they need to act on this bill today, as failure to respond to the County Council’s referral will be interpreted as disapproval of the bill. Motion: Vice Chair Olson moved to approve Bill 154, and Commissioner Osborne seconded the motion. Director Kucharski provided background on the bill. DEM’s abandoned vehicle program is based on the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, and the HRS de?inition limits the ability of an entity to act unless the vehicle is on a public road or an abutment to a public road. In the County of Hawaiʻi there are communities such as Ocean View and Paradise Park which are comprised of private roads. Because DEM had accepted the HRS definition by default, it did not have the authority to tow vehicles from private roadways. Bill 154 would remedy this and allow access to private roads and the towing of vehicles listed as abandoned or derelict. This authority to remove does not extend to private property. It is the County’s stance that what is on private property is private, and it is the owner’s obligation to maintain the property and make efforts to not allow it to be used as an illegal disposal area. DEM had been towing vehicles from private roads over the years but were informed by Corporation Counsel that they did not have the authority to do that, which is why Bill 154 came about. Commissioner Osborne asked whether Councilmember Eileen O’Hara could comment, as she was present at the meeting. Councilmember O’Hara said she worked closely with Director Kucharski in drafting the bill. Because of changes being made to state law this year on abandoned vehicles, DEM and Corporation Counsel reviewed what was in the County Code. The County had been removing abandoned vehicles from private roads since about 2003. She had been the recycling coordinator with DEM back then, and the director (Barbara Bell), with the assistance of—if she recalls correctly—then Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida, interpreted the state law to read they could apply it to private roads as a discretionary policy. So Barbara Bell issued the policy, and they removed abandoned vehicles from private roads. In March 2018 she received notice from Director Kucharski that the current Corporation Counsel had determined it needs to be codified, that it could not be at the director’s discretion. Director Kucharski pointed out that if the bill passes, Hawaiʻi County will be the only one with the authority to tow from private roadways. Hawaiʻi County also has more unincorporated areas than any other island. DEM is happy with the bill but not happy about the length of time it takes to identify and designate a vehicle as abandoned. Abandonment does not occur when a vehicle is left somewhere. A vehicle needs to be cited, 24 hours need to pass, and then it has to be re-certified as abandoned. This is when abandonment starts. The bill does not change any of that. Commissioner Neff asked how long the process takes, and Director Kucharski said it depends on the availability of the police. Only the police have the authority to cite, and it depends on their ability and time to get to the vehicle and then come back in 24 hours to cite it. Discussion is taking place on whether it is possible for DEM to take over from HPD the ability to cite, or if the authority could be delegated to DEM. The process could then be shortened. He pointed out that their primary AV coordinator has taken another position with the County, and the second coordinator just delivered a baby, so DEM currently has two employees on temporary assignment handling abandoned vehicles. They are not moving as rapidly as they would like right now, but this is due to personnel issues over which there is little control. Probably 60% of the angry calls DEM receives are regarding abandoned vehicles, so they would like to expedite the process. Chair Bennett stated there is a question on the floor about whether to approve the bill or provide a recommendation, and Ms. Wong said that if the EMC wants to make any recommendations regarding the bill, now is the opportunity. The recommendations could be included in the EMC’s letter to the County Council approving of the bill. Vice Chair Olson said he had a recommendation. The bill came as a surprise to him because he thought DEM already had the authority to tow vehicles in private roadways. The problem is that many of the private roadways are open to the public and are one-lane roads. An abandoned vehicle can be sitting in the middle of a one-lane road, blocking the way. The vehicle becomes a public nuisance at best and a safety issue at worst. A method is needed to address such a situation, when a vehicle must be removed immediately. Director Kucharski said his thoughts on this are that private roadways are in private associations. There is nothing to stop the association that owns the private roadway from towing the illegally parked vehicle. Part of the responsibility of having a private roadway is the ability to maintain it, and towing a vehicle is within the purview of the association. Vice Chair Olson said the problem is that in some areas, the roads were created without an association, and the lot owners hold the road lot in common. The owners have no legitimate legal authority to tow a vehicle. They don’t even have legal authority to maintain the roads. It’s a unique situation. Councilmember O’Hara said she agreed, and over 50% of the Puna roadways are private. But as Director Kucharski explained, the hold-up is mainly with the police, and many times it is not the fault of the police because nobody has called them to report a vehicle. Unless someone calls in an abandoned vehicle, it won’t get moved. There is a number to call the police to report an abandoned vehicle, but it seems much of the public doesn’t know about it. There is an educational component here, as most people don’t know the first step to get the process moving is to report the abandoned vehicle to the police. Discussion went back and forth regarding the procedure to get the ball rolling on an abandoned vehicle. Director Kucharski said regarding Bill 154, in Section 20- 38(c)(3), where DEM is to promulgate rules and procedures for the removal of the vehicles, he would recommend the rules have some educational component. Commissioner Gaffney asked Director Kucharski if he understood correctly that DEM would like to have the right to declare a vehicle abandoned, and Director Kucharski said he would like to have the police delegate citation authority to DEM. He is not certain of the intricacies of this, but if the police could delegate or deputize DEM’s abandoned vehicle people to cite, the process would move much faster. Commissioner Gaffney said it would be a logical addition to the EMC’s recommendation to Council. Councilmember O’Hara also said that was a great recommendation, but it would probably need to go into a separate section of the Code rather than be a part of Bill 154. However, the EMC could include it in their letter regarding the bill. Chair Bennett pointed out that another concern with abandoned vehicles is that they are environmental hazards because of the gas, oil, and battery acid they leak. The longer they sit abandoned, the more leakage will occur, so there is some urgency to have them removed. It appears the onus is on the public to report the abandoned vehicles. He agrees with Director Kucharski that education needs to happen. Director Kucharski said the information is on their web page, but if people don’t know to look it up, it doesn’t help. Chair Bennett said there is a motion before them to support Bill 154, and Commissioner Gaffney called for the question. Vote: All commissioners voted aye in support of Bill 154. Director Kucharski thanked Councilmember O’Hara for pushing for the bill. b. Discussion on the planning process to be used to find customers for the upcoming R-1 water system. Director Kucharski reported that he was in Honolulu yesterday for the first meeting of the Water Reuse Task Force, which was recently created to look at water reuse opportunities in order to provide guidance, and recommendations for the state. One of its goals is to increase water reuse by 100 million gallons by 2030—30 million gallons is reuse, 30 million gallons is aquifer recharge, and 40 million gallons is in conservation increases in the next 12 years. The group went over a lot of basic issues and looked at what is being done. Hawaiʻi recycles and reuses about 14% of its wastewater, which places it at number 3 in the nation per capita. This makes it look like Hawaiʻi is doing well, but the bar is low. For Hawaiʻi County, the biggest reuse is for golf courses. There is no groundwater recharge in the state of treated/recycled water. The group is looking for additional interested people, and Director Kucharski gave them Chair Bennett’s name. In the upcoming meetings they will be dealing with best practices and barriers to reuse, and in October they will be putting together strategies to propose for the 2019 legislature. There was a request to get demonstration projects together, and both Puakō and Kealakehe were discussed. The County is looking at how the R-1 will be distributed and what the rules will be, and what uses of R-1 will be allowed and not allowed. Director Kucharski said if any of the commissioners have ideas about reuse or can think of a demonstration project, let him know. He would love to do R-1 in Hilo, but he doesn’t know what they would do with the water as Hilo does not need excess irrigation water. It would be a few hundred million in piping to get it to somewhere where they could use the water. How to handle water reuse in a wet climate is an issue to be looked at. Commissioner Gaffney said the power plants are an idea, as they use huge amounts of water. It potentially would be a public-private partnership. Director Kucharski said that was a good suggestion. Vice Chair Olson said the ornamental fresh cut flower industry will be looking for a place to relocate, as they were in Kapoho, and they will need a lot of water. Director Kucharski said it would be a win-win situation due to the nutrient rich R-1 water. Commissioner Gaffney said another idea is to move the R-1 water to Keahole, where the state has a huge amount of property designated for an ag park. There is a power plant, and the ag park is largely in production of turf grass, landscaping plants, and ornamentals. If the state moves forward with grading the rest of the land, the R-1 could be moved to that area and the displaced farmers could be accommodated. Moving the R-1 water there would solve a lot of issues. It would require a public- private partnership for the power plant and for the state to spend money to finish the park, and it would require moving the water from where it is currently discharged. It is possible to do, though, as the continuation of Ane Keohokalole Highway is to go to the top of the ag park. The pipes could be above ground for now. The commissioners further discussed the R-1 water and how the plumbing of it will work. Chair Bennett suggested speaking with Greg Barbour of NELHA about providing water, as NELHA is fresh water limited and has a problem with disposing of aquacultural waste. It has been suggested they take the enriched material and grow algae with it, and then make a fertilizer product from the algae. This would reduce the need of farmers to buy chemical fertilizers from off-island, which adds to the nutrient budget of the island. If existing wastewater nutrients could be used to grow algae, which would then be dried and sold as fertilizer, it would solve a couple of problems. Director Kucharski thanked the commissioners for their ideas, which he will bring to the Water Reuse Task Force as suggested demonstration projects. Commissioner Gaffney said Greg Barbour could also be contacted about a solar power demonstration project that failed and was abandoned, leaving large half-round reflectors. They have federal funding to do a reverse osmosis project using seawater, but part of that project could use the water that comes out of the wastewater treatment plant. Vice Chair Olson said fish farming is another idea. There were preliminary tests being done years ago involving Peter Boucher, who used to be with the County. c. Design and performance questions and concerns about the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant R-1 Upgrade Project and the soil aquifer treatment ponds, also known as SAT ponds, and what will and will not be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. Chair Bennett said he has a lot of questions on this, and Director Kucharski has informed him there is some information available about the design of the ponds, and there are some lab scale tests slated. He asked for an update. Director Kucharski explained they are essentially going through the final designs for the R-1 system, which includes the SAT ponds. There are other R-1 elements going in. The design still needs to be completed, put out to bid, and then constructed. The system is supposed to be up and running in about two years. Regarding the SAT ponds, there are studies regarding the phosphorus removal capability of the blue rock. From the testing done so far, he is not aware of anything that precludes or changes the anticipated removal (which is somewhat in excess of 90%) of the phosphorus. Right now the distribution system for the SAT is being designed—how the wastewater will be gotten into the SAT in such a way that there isn’t oversaturation or channel flow. The geology needs to be looked at, and at some point in the future the blue rock will need to be removed and replaced. The designers are looking at about a 30-year saturation time before replacement of the blue rock will be necessary. They will also be able to monitor what comes through the SAT. There will be wells going down so they can sample any flow of the wastewater through the SAT material. Once it’s down in the lava, it is really unknown where it will go other than eventually downhill. All of these elements are being studied. However, there has not been any indication that the ability of the blue rock to absorb the phosphorus has changed. The preliminary design will be coming out, and if there is something he can share with the EMC in executive session, he will. Chair Bennett explained to the commissioners what Soil Aquifer Treatment ponds are. The design Director Kucharski was talking about actually isn’t the pond. It is soil treatment, where the reclaimed water is put in contact with the soil. As he understands it, it is a required design feature for the R-1 upgrade should there not be sufficient reuse. The R-1 would be disposed of in settling basins. They’ll be along the highway and just south of Kealakehe Parkway. Director Kucharski said they will be at the base of where the County regional park is supposed to be. Chair Bennett said the standing water in the ponds creates a bird attraction, which is not desired by the airport. The philosophy is that the phosphorus, which is difficult to remove in the wetlands, can be absorbed by the blue rock, which is high in iron and manganese. The phosphate is to be bound and prevented from leaching into the groundwater. He is concerned that the groundwater is shallow and brackish seawater, not fresh. The groundwater rises and falls with the tide every day, so it is intimately connected to the ocean. The ocean is already nitrogen enriched, and its productivity is limited by low levels of phosphorus. The nitrogen is very soluble and flows with the water. Phosphorus is not very soluble and does not leach through the soil because the soil will bind it. However, the capacity is not infinite, so he questions how well the matrix will work. It may be efficient in the beginning but will start to drop off. At what point does the efficiency drop from 90% to 50%? That information is not known. Director Kucharski said that is why they will be testing and having sampling wells. An issue is where they should be located to get good data. Chair Bennett said that leaves him a little uncomfortable, because the project might not perform as well as hoped. He wanted to see some laboratory scale. Director Kucharski said the tests are being done, but the results are not available at this point. Once they have the final design, all of the data will be included in the basis for the design. Chair Bennett had another question regarding the laboratory scale model to determine the absorbent capacity of the blue rock. He asked whether they are going to use fresh water that has been dosed with phosphorus or actual wastewater from the treatment plant, and Director Kucharski said that since the wastewater in the treatment plant will have other materials and will not have gone through a wetlands or filtration or UV, he can’t say it will be like the plant. It will probably be dosed freshwater (with phosphorus). Chair Bennett said that concerned him, because literature suggests that the salinity of the water influences the absorption of the phosphorus. The pH of the water alters, and the microbial overgrowth that occurs in the matrix of the blue rock can obscure the absorption. Director Kucharski said that is true with any adsorption system. The designers are aware of those limitations, and he will trust that their design is adequate. It will be tested, and they will have opportunity to modify or change out. If the blue rock needs to be changed out every 10 years instead of every 30 years, that is an additional operational cost. If it turns out that it does not pull out the phosphorus for some reason, that will be another issue to deal with. He cannot answer the number of “what ifs” on failure. He can only assume it will be successful, which is his job. He needs to be able to say he is confident it will work. The design firm has done this before, and it is not an overly difficult process or design parameter, other than distribution. It either will work with that distribution system or not. Commissioner Fritz said this is a huge waste of time on something that seems doomed to imminent failure. Blue rock is blue rock. It doesn’t absorb. A mat will be created from all the waste put on top, and it will negate contact with the blue rock. He asked who is paying for this, and Director Kucharski said DEM is. The R-1 system is about a $54 million cost and is budgeted. The SAT is a proven technology. SAT systems have been used all over the country, though not necessarily with blue rock. A lot of places have soil. It’s also been done in crushed rock. The SAT is an accepted treatment system by the EPA and by wastewater people across the country. It is not a new technology, but Hawaiʻi County will be the ?irst to use blue rock for the phosphorus. That is the only difference. The technology is basic and has been around for years and years. Commissioner Fritz said it just doesn’t make sense to him. Chair Bennett said the chemistry is easy to conceptualize, but a realistic model needs to be tested. Director Kucharski said that is what is being done. Chair Bennett said he is a little frustrated. He has been asking about this for over a year and has been assured they’re doing it, but he still hasn’t seen the data. Director Kucharski said preliminary data is not released until it has gone through a whole review process. The design and all the parameters for the experimentation are being checked, validated, and peer reviewed. Until that process has been completed, the designers are not willing to release preliminary data. He just asks for patience. Chair Bennett said he hopes that at some point the data will come before the EMC, and that they won’t have to wait to read it in the EIS. Director Kucharski said once the design is completed and all the data, analysis, and process for the design parameters have been gone through, he can provide it to the EMC for their review. He cannot provide anything until it is peer reviewed and the designers are comfortable with what they’re saying. Chair Bennett said he would just like to know that at some point, the EMC will see the information. Director Kucharski said he will provide the design parameters and the test results and data for their review. 6. REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE a. Director’s Report Director Kucharski started off with saying that his heart goes out to the commissioners (Jon Olson and Susie Osborne) and their neighbors who have lost their homes and are suffering in the ongoing lava disaster. He thanked them for being here, and he handed out FEMA information so they could pass it on to anyone who may need it. FEMA staff has been very helpful and supportive. They have indicated this is one of the best organized efforts with the most support received from the local governments in their memory. The fact that lives have not been lost is an absolute credit to the people of the county. There has been great loss, but it could have been so much worse. He provided brief updates: • The Asset Management Plan for the Wastewater Division has been ongoing. The team hired by the EPA will be looking at all of DEM’s wastewater operations, including doing a sewer rate study. He will be pushing forward on a sewer rate increase. If the current rate is doubled, Hawaiʻi County will still be the cheapest in the state. • He met with septic haulers in May because there was dissatisfaction with the process of disposal at Kealakehe. DEM made several changes, but the biggest and simplest change involved purchasing a cell phone for the haulers to call when they need to schedule a disposal. The land line that was used was not efficient because the County employees were usually out in the field. Now that there is a cell number, haulers can call or leave text messages at, and much of the aggravation has been resolved. He will be meeting with the haulers again in July, as there are issues on how the waste is received. DEM is looking at machines used in other facilities to remove some of the grease, rocks, and other debris so that discharge time can be cut from 40 minutes to 20 minutes. • Bill 154 regarding abandoned vehicles was spoken about earlier. • Transfer station issues. The Solid Waste Division gets about $19 million per year from the General Fund. The transfer stations account for almost 50% of all the waste that is disposed of in the landfill, and it is done 100% at County cost. DEM will be looking at this, as they are spending a lot of their money here. They know there are commercial businesses that are illegally using the transfer stations. There is a law they are not supposed to utilize transfer stations, but there is no penalty other than a misdemeanor citation. So DEM is looking at modifying or coming up with programs that will allow them to control the use and reduce the County’s cost for these services. The County Council has a special session on the GET on Friday, and if it does not pass DEM will be making cuts. There is at least a $5 million shortfall, and DEM will be making a contribution in coming up with money to fix the hole. Chair Bennett said a question came to him by way of a constituent, who asked how much of the mixed recycling is getting sorted and recycled. Director Kucharski said they have contracts to take the mixed bin waste. The material goes to the contractors, and he does not have data on what is done with it. The recycling program is a waste diversion program for DEM. Now with China not taking certain things, it will be expensive because people will have to sort through. DEM currently pays about $150 per ton to deal with the recyclable materials. The recycling companies ship the material to Honolulu, and from there it goes to the mainland or China. It is difficult to say what happens with the material, since the state does not have recycling facilities. Chair Bennett said the constituent had looked at Table 7 of the Director’s Informational Report, where it says “total tons diverted, 0.” She had interpreted that to mean none of it is getting recycled. Director Kucharski said the sort station is not a transfer station. It is the station at the Hilo landfill where people come in and dump material rather than going on to the landfill face. Anything that would be diverted would be C&D material that is too big to be transported up to the landfill face. The table simply shows what comes in at the Hilo landfill, and the material is transported from there to the landfill face. He can get the numbers for the diversion and will bring them to the next meeting. The sort station is misnamed. Historically a transfer station is where you take small loads and you make a big load. Here, the transfer station is used as a place to offload material and to sort recyclables from non-recyclables. The transfer stations are where the sorting occurs, and it is voluntary public sorting. The sort station is simply taking the loads from small truckers and putting it in big trucks for the landfill. Chair Bennett asked if the material in the 3-bin system was taken off-island, and Director Kucharski said it is processed and prepared for off-island transportation, and what is done with it by the receiving recycling operations is not part of DEM’s contract. The contract is to collect the recyclables, which has to go off island since nobody on the island processes it. It is being diverted and used. Commissioner Fritz asked whether there was any checking of the transfer station attendants and what their purpose was, as they haven’t been telling general contractors and gardeners not to dump there. They haven’t been directing people. Director Kucharski said it is a DOH permit requirement that a transfer station have an attendant present whenever it is open. The attendant’s job is to ensure that material going down the chutes and being disposed of is appropriate material. However, it is a visual process for them. All of the recycling is voluntary, none is mandatory, so if someone chooses to put their cardboard down the chute, they can. Commercial operators are not supposed to use the chutes, but if someone comes in with non- commercial plates, it is difficult for an attendant to know it’s a commercial operator. DEM is trying to figure out a process by which, for example, registered businesses can get a permit to use the transfer station. He does not want everyone to go to the landfill, but he needs a mechanism to ensure the County is not giving businesses an economic advantage by letting them dump their trash at a transfer station rather than paying to dispose of it at Puʻuanahulu. It is difficult for attendants to be friendly and at the same time have to tell people no. Commissioner Fritz said there should be a method to stop the illegal dumping, whether it is taking a picture or writing down license plates. He estimates that 2 out of 5 users in Puakō are dumping commercial waste. Director Kucharski said he agrees the system is being abused, and they are looking into having a steeper penalty in the law, such as a $500 fine for commercial operators, rather than it being a petty misdemeanor which requires the person to be cited by the police. Another problem is that attendants can see it, but can’t prove it (that the waste is from a business). There needs to be a modified standard, such as preponderance of the evidence, for them to proceed. Commissioner Gaffney asked whether the attendants are County employees or contracted, and Director Kucharski said it depends on the time. Right now they are open for 12 hours. The employees work 10-hour days, so from 6:00 to 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., they have private security personnel open the facilities so they can be open for 12 hours. If a budget crunch happens, things may change. The majority of the employees are County employees. Chair Bennett said that several years ago when there were reduced hours, there was a significant increase in the trash being disposed of along the roads. This will likely happen again if the hours are cut. Director Kucharski said that for him, subsidizing bad behavior is bad policy. Something needs to be done about people who care nothing about what they are doing do the island. The focus should not be on reduced hours but on bad behavior, which is why DEM will be pushing forward an anti-litter program, which will give them some teeth and provide penalties. Corporation Counsel has done a good review of what the other counties are doing about litter and some of the standards they have for prosecution. DEM will be moving forward with this. Chair Bennett said it does not seem that HPD has been citing people for obvious litter violations. There are no consequences. Director Kucharski said they need teeth to stop the bad behavior. A lot of it lies in education. People need to have the mindset that littering is not appropriate behavior, and that mindset does not now exist. A major part of a County anti-litter bill will be education and getting it into people’s minds that you don’t do this to your home. It is not right. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION With reference to the agenda item listed below, an executive session is anticipated. In particular, the Commission anticipates consulting with the Commission’s attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the Commission’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities. Therefore, pursuant to Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes Chapters 92-4 and 92-5(a)(4), the following item may be considered in executive session: a. Discussion on the process, timeline, and status of the proposed Nāālehu Wastewater Treatment Plant. (Minutes in italics are verbatim) Chair Bennett: Commissioner Fritz, I believe it was you at the last meeting who wanted to go into executive session. Secretary: It was Jon Olson. Chair Bennett: It was Jon? Vice Chair Olson: It was me. We had some discussion about that. As long as we don’t get into the legal minutiae of it, we’re free to discuss it. We had a little sidebar here going in. Ms. Wong: Yeah, I spoke to Mr. Olson before we started. The agenda item was put forth before—we had two recent developments since the lawsuit was filed. It’s public information now with respect to the EPA consent decree and the timelines being extended. So I proposed that if you have specific questions about the actual lawsuit that’s been filed- -although the County is not a party to it, we could be brought in at some point, so I just want to preserve the County’s position with respect to any allegations of the lawsuit. If you want to talk about that specifically, then I recommend we convene in executive session. But with respect to the process and the timelines and the status of the treatment plant, a lot of that is public information, so I don’t think it’s appropriate to go into executive session. But I’ll just be listening closely, and if I feel like we’re king of getting— Chair Bennett: --There was a comment made that because there is a lawsuit filed, we should not be talking about the waste treatment plant in Nāālehu at all.ʻ Ms. Wong: Well, we’re not a party to that lawsuit. There’s a fine line—but that’s why I say, if you have specific questions about the lawsuit and the allegations and the County’s involvement, I want to be able to preserve our position should we be brought into that lawsuit, so then we could go into executive session. But I think what the intent of the discussion was to have an update about the status, the timeline, which is public information now. So it would not be appropriate for us to go into executive session for that. Commissioner Fritz: It was me that brought this up, because this woman has come here many, many times. This man has been coming here for years. And then to see that it’s gone so far as to show pictures of it next to an elementary school, it makes it seem like it’s already been approved and it’s a done deal. I feel sorry for these people that live there and have been told so many things that haven’t been true. So I just wanted to get the truth out here of what’s going on there, and that’s my reason for wanting to discuss this. I didn’t think it would be in executive session. I thought it would just be an agenda item that we discussed amongst ourselves, because again, these citizens have taken time, and this woman here has expended a lot of money on ink and paper. I think we owe it to them to say, hey yeah, we hear your problems, we feel your pain, and we want to help you. At least that’s my feeling. I don’t know how everyone else feels. But where are we going with this? Chair Bennett: Ok, I was concerned, from the information I got, that we can’t discuss it at all because it’s in litigation. But the County is not a litigant, so we are free to discuss it. Commissioner Osborne: So can we discuss it? Ms. Wong: Yes, but if you have specific questions about what’s alleged in the lawsuit, should the County be brought in, I want to be able to preserve our position in that respect. So you all have copies of the complaint that’s been filed, so if you have specific questions about that part, then I want to go into executive session to be able to answer those questions. But as Commissioner Fritz stated, the intent was just to figure out where we’re at and where we’re going forward, that’s appropriate to be in open session. Chair Bennett: Let’s bifurcate the question. Is there any commissioner here that wants to understand the lawsuit? Commissioner Osborne: If we can keep the agenda item on the agenda for the future, in case that comes up, in case there’s a shift in the County’s involvement. Ms. Wong: The only reason why it’s agendized as an executive session is because we have to give the public notice that we may go into it. That’s why. We don’t have to go into it. It’s up to you guys, so that’s why it’s on there. Chair Bennett: So I’m not hearing any interest of the commissioners to discuss the details of the lawsuit, so I think we’ll pass on the executive session. And then let’s handle this as an agenda item. Commissioner Fritz: That’s what I had intended. Chair Bennett: Okay. And so Commissioner Fritz, why don’t you take the lead? Commissioner Fritz: Okay, there’s just page after page of data here, and if I may ask this woman, Ms. Demoruelle— Ms. Demoruelle: Yes, I’m Sandra Demoruelle. You may call me Sandra, Sandy. Commissioner Fritz: It’s a good name. So what’s happening down there now? Ms. Demoruelle: Well, may I include Jerry too, because he really has the history of what’s happened. Commissioner Fritz: We’ve kind of heard from Jerry. Ms. Demoruelle: Okay, well what just happened is, when I first came into it—it was in April when I showed up at a meeting, thinking that somehow we might be involved. My husband has property in town and so we were worried about it. When I walked into the room and saw that picture that was there of the wastewater treatment plant, a full- size wastewater treatment plant beside the school, it really bothered me. And we were unable to find out anything at the meeting. Berna kept the meeting really straight on kind of an airy fairy, how-do-you-envision-your-future, never talking about why this was there or what happened. So that’s when I got involved, found out that there had been an FEA in 2007 for the specific treatment—the conversion from the LCCs to the septic. And if you read that, it’s a well thought out, well researched document. And it found that the septic, they have a variance from the DOH to use septics for the conversion. And it was told that it would save money. Then, what apparently has happened, because I just went back to the CIP and found, on that list that you see there, that suddenly in 2012 that FEA was no longer valid. They had now a new—two wastewater treatment facilities where there was one. Not even a wastewater treatment. So to me there should have been an EIS. So I went looking for it. I went all through the TEN, and there’s no withdrawal of the other one and no EIS for these. So what we’re faced with in Nāālehu is where are we going ʻto put this? So it struck me from the very beginning that what we had here was a baby switch. Why would you put—I mean who in their right mind would put—it’s obvious there’s something going on here. To me, I mean, in my opinion, my very very humble opinion—I’m just a little country bumpkin who really is not up on these things. So I asked for documents. I asked for all the documents. I went to the library and looked for them, and they are not in the library. So, I’m a friend of the library--president of the library branch. I asked that these documents be placed in our library, what they have, what minor little environmental documents they have, supporting the decisions they’ve made, and those were denied. Apparently there’s a DEA, a draft environmental assessment done, that has never shown up in any books, never shown up. So we do not know. But what—the latest thing that came out of Mr. Kucharski’s office was a letter to the EPA asking for the extension. And that’s what you see the page 6 of. And there, once again, the EIS is bottom of the list to justify things, not at the top of the list to inform the decision-making. It’s at the bottom of the list to justify why they selected the site. And now the new maps that they have put out have—ta dah!—a new site. What a surprise. It happens to be the Kaū Royal Hawaiian ʻ Coffee and Tea Company, with John Cross as their land manager. John was with C. Brewer back in the days when they transferred. John was with Ed Olson’s Trust Fund for awhile. And now he’s with, since June 2017 according to stuff I pulled up online, has worked with these folks. So it seems to me that what we’re looking at here is a proposition to put big wastewater treatment facilities on 1,600 acres of land that a developer owns, somehow to not get rid of the LCCs but to provide them with a $20 million facility. That’s what’s showing up in the paperwork that Mr. Kucharski sent. Commissioner Fritz: Can I stop you here for a second? Is this still next to the school? I’m not really familiar with the geography. Ms. Demoruelle: Well, the new sites will not be next to the school. It will be uphill, so they’ll have to pump everything uphill. If you know Nāālehu, it’s up from the Punaluʻʻu Bakery, up that way. I think they’re taking over—have you heard the rumors that they’re taking over the Masters Garage, John Masters Garage, because this is part of that property, that ______ acres. That’s a rumor, we’ve just got rumors down in Kaū, you know ʻ how it is. And the rumor is that these folks are going to benefit from this. So it’s not really apparent to us what’s really happening here. There’s nothing in the TEN, nothing that we can look up, no—that’s the whole point of transparency. I mean, that’s the whole point of this environmental review, is to provide transparency for this project so that you and I and everyone else can know what they’re planning. What we’re getting here is simply justification EIS, something that will justify their site selection, justify these plants. We’re not getting a hard look up front. That’s what we’re complaining about. And what Jerry has been talking about is that the people in Nāālehu have since whatʻ—2010?—been paying for the sewer system because it was transferred over to the County from C. Brewer. So now they’re faced with going to jail if they don’t pay their fees and don’t—well in his case, he didn’t provide information the court wanted for his bank account so that they could seize his bank account—so that’s why he was facing jail. But other people in the town—we’re such a tiny little town. We have no money. I do not understand why anyone would want to put a $20 million facility there. That’s what’s really got me puzzled. And that’s what we want to hear. We have had nobody come down to town to talk to us. According to the law—and that’s why I filed the lawsuit, because I happen to have some expertise in environmental law—and we have had none of the, none of the triggers have triggered an EIS. Commissioner Fritz: When did they plan to put this out to bid? Has it gone that far, Mr. Director? Director Kucharski: No. Commissioner Fritz: No. So it’s just really kind of a rumor— Ms. Demoruelle: There are contracts out on it, though, for development of it. You haven’t done anything—you’re still moving forward. As far as what I can understand from the EPA and from what your letters say, you’re moving forward with two wastewater treatment plants and then the one conversion. That’s what was in your—I can get it, I have your— Director Kucharski: That’s correct. Commissioner Osborne: So is the school off the table, then, is the school site off the table or it still being considered? Director Kucharski: When you do an EIS or an EA, you need to provide alternative sites for the process, whatever it is you’re looking to do. So until the EA, the EIS, has started for this final location, completed, and a draft is put out, nothing is off the table. I’m not going to say this would not happen. Alternatives are being looked at still, and so until we have alternative sites that are sufficient to do an EA, we’re not doing it. The first part of the EA is the opening of getting comments and soliciting comments from the community. That has taken place. Ms. Demoruelle: No sir, it has not. You have to file notice. Commissioner Osborne: So I’d just like to make a comment to that, that being with the consideration next to the school in Nāālehu. ʻI did speak to Superintendent Chad Farias, the complex superintendent for the Kaū Distʻrict, ________, and he was aware of this but very upset and concerned about it. So I guess I’m very concerned about this initial part of soliciting comments that has been communicated, because based on what was expressed to us at the last meeting, what we’ve heard from the public, and my research, because obviously this is like probably the first time I’ve gotten really upset about an issue in all these years, in being by a school, it doesn’t sit right. So I did go out and do some investigation and discussions, and the fact that the complex superintendent is absolutely—he just felt like he didn’t understand the process to communicate, he was vehemently opposed to this project, and I see here that it sounds like there’s a recent press release, so there’s going to be other opportunity. Maybe you could outline this, a second round of community outreach. Director Kucharski: The EA process has many different legs. The first is to communicate with the local affected community and solicit comments from them as to what is on the table as a real preliminary draft issue. What are the thoughts? That’s what occurred. I will say that the AOC, the public notice of the AOC, including the school location, was placed out for review and comment over a year ago. Comments were received from the community, addressed from the EPA, and the EPA said one thing that is very clear, that the location that was in the AOC is a preliminary thing that cannot be approved until an EA is completed. We have not started to write the EA. Therefore, we cannot come in and say that any site is chosen. Sites are being reviewed. That is the process. Commissioner Neff: Is that why there is no EIS? It’s part of that process? Director Kucharski: This is part of the process. And if you do an EA or EIS, you need to come in and say this is what we’re going to put in, this is the facility. The facility design is going to be essentially the same wherever it’s located. And that’s part of the process, that we identify what kind of treatment we’re proposing. Where it goes is to be determined, and it cannot be determined—the County can’t purchase property, they can’t lease property, until such time as an EA is completed that justifies the use of that property for the intended purpose. That has not occurred, and so we’re sitting here in the start of the process. Why are we doing this? Because the EPA has come in and said we need to close the large capacity cesspools. That is not an option, it is a law. We are in the process of doing that. How we do that is left to us by EPA. The original large capacity septic tank alternative would just barely cover the amount of people that were in there, and the initial site location was subsequently determined to be technically not feasible. In the initial stages, the option was thought to be acceptable, however when they did their final testing, the technical evaluation determined that this is not an acceptable site. We cannot construct this facility here. So we are left with an initial okay, let’s try and do this. But then technically, it doesn’t work. Okay? And so we are back to the drawing board. We’re in that situation now. We know the technology. Where we’re going to put it is not yet determined. We’ve looked at over 30 sites in Nāālehu aloʻne. Pāhala, once again, there was always going to be a separate treatment system for Pāhala. There was never going to be one that would take both communities. Ms. Demoruelle: There has never been—what he’s talking about is site selection from something that has never been reviewed. There has never been an EIS on the treatment system. He said—it’s like me when I said to my daughter when she was little, do you want to wear the blue dress or the red dress? He’s saying do you want the sewage system treatment plant beside your school, or do you want it somewhere else? He’s not allowing us a review of the sewage treatment system. They went from the LCC conversion to septic, and then all of a sudden, with no—just because they said it’s not suitable for the site that they were going to put the septic—they just suddenly went to two new, new build wastewater treatment plants. And that’s what Mr. Kucharski hasn’t addressed, is when are you going to do the EIS on these projects themselves? Not the siting of the project, but the project itself? Commissioner Fritz: If I could say, government doesn’t move fast. You have to have some patience. Ms. Demoruelle: Well, we have a lawsuit that will be having—the lawsuit is moving along. There will be a motion for summary judgment filed. On the 16 of July we have a scheduling conference, which means that I get to talk to the judge and the judge will tell us when we’ll be having hearings. In the meantime, I will move in with a motion for summary judgment on July 17th, filing it. So then within 60 days there will be a hearing on it. And the judge will either say Sandy’s right, you do need to do an EIS on this project, or the judge will say no, she’s not right, and they can continue moving along as they are. You don’t do EAs after the thing. I can cite you the law. EISs are done early in the process, early. And the decision not to do an EIS on these two projects was made in the wastewater treatment department. Dora Beck, who is not here to discuss this with us today, as to why she changed from having the simple project, the sewage septic conversion, which may or may not, because they will not—they will not share with me the actual results of their studies. They won’t give us the studies, put them in our library so we can review them ourselves. He’s just saying trust me, we really do need two sewage treatment plants in Kaū. And I’m saying I really do not trust that. I have an FEA in front of me that shows ʻ that the sewage, septic, was going to be fine. So why—somewhere show me the paperwork that shows that we do need two sewage treatment plants. Chair Bennett: Do any commissioners have any further questions? Commissioner Osborne: My further question is how does somebody like the complex superintendent of the Department of Education provide comment to Caldwell or whoever these guys are? Is it too late, they’ve done their public input and— Ms. Demoruelle: There has never been a public announcement. In order to do an EA, you have to have public announcements-- Chair Bennett: Okay, excuse me— Vice Chair Olson: Let me, let me— Ms. Demoruelle: I will go. Thank you so much. Vice Chair Olson: Let me help you just a little bit, because like I say, I started with this with Bob Jacobson when he was a councilperson in the mid-90s, right, and you have the dissolution of the sugar companies and the lands being purchased by various different people, property—I don’t know—when did you get the deed to your property? (to Jerome Warren). Mr. Warren: I got my deed in 1997. And in the deed it says that the company will be responsible. Vice Chair Olson: Yeah, well, but of course they created—then the company dissolved under you. These were all sugar plantation dwellings that in the dissolution of their, as entities— Mr. Warren: It’s the company or their successors. Vice Chair Olson: Successors, yeah. See, they only recently received deeds to the individual properties, and then of course the reason that these companies did that was to get away from their responsibility to have to provide this infrastructure. That’s what it is. C. Brewer, Doc Buyers—I was in the back room on this one, so— Mr. Warren: I researched my deed. I did the title search-- Vice Chair Olson: --I know how you got your deed, but— Mr. Warren: --No, I researched it. It’s the company or their successors— Vice Chair Olson: --But there is no company because they went bankrupt. Mr. Warren: No, no— Chair Bennett: What is the point? Vice Chair Olson: The point is that the whole process is totally—it’s start over. He’s basically the new guy on the block, and everybody who was working on this— anybody who has much history on it, most of them are dead and gone. And they’re just trying to unscramble the mess at this point. He got his deed in 1997, tells you about all you need to know. Chair Bennett (to Mr. Warren): No, no further comments. This is for the commissioners, please. Any commissioners have questions of the director? Commissioner Osborne: Yeah, my question that didn’t get answered was how does somebody provide input to—what was it, Caldwell, or who’s doing the— Director Kucharski: Brown and Caldwell is the contractor that was hired to complete the environmental assessment, or the EA, either HR 343 or NEPA. And they— once we have a document to review and accept comments on, public hearings and things will be held. An EIS requires scoping meetings, which will be held in Pāhala. 343, this opening meeting of just telling us what you think needs to be studied, that’s like a scoping meeting. Where you come in a scoping meeting, you do not—the agency having that does not make comment. They simply receive comment. The function is to hear what people want to say about your proposed project, not to tell them—give them the information, but it’s not there to tell them. It’s to hear from them. And so once a document has been prepared and submitted—a draft EA is prepared—it will be put out for public notice, for public comment, and there will be public hearings on the document. However, if any comment is wished to be made, it can be made to Brown and Caldwell, to either Berna or to Michelle, who held that meeting. They’ll be happy to take those comments as additional input into the tell-us-what-you-think process. Commissioner Osborne: Thank you. Chair Bennett: I have a question for the director. Can you give us a time frame for this process? Director Kucharski: Yes. The AOC, which is the Administrative Order of Consent, has specific deadlines in there for when things had to occur. When we put this together, we were corrected after the fact that the EA has to be done before purchase. And we had purchase and then EA. And what we’ve done in this is switch those dates so that the EA is completed, and once the EA is completed we go in to the purchase. So that’s what—that has been changed. We have a 2020 EA time for Pāhala, because that will be done prior to Nāālehu. ālehu, and then a 2021 for Nāʻʻ Chair Bennett: And what happens in 2021? Director Kucharski: That’s when the EA will be out and finalized—the EIS or EA will be out for public notice, go through the review process, to be— Chair Bennett: --So 2021, the public will be able to begin to comment. Director Kucharski: No, the EA will have been published and—that’s when the EA is expected to be done. There’s nothing to comment on until the full environmental studies are done. What do you comment on, other than the EA is to describe all of those things that are going to happen, what the anticipated impacts are, what mitigation would occur, and then come in and say we’ve determined this needs to go to another level or not. And that’s what people comment on, and that’s when the EA is due to be completed. So we have another year and a half, two years, in Nāālehu.ʻ Chair Bennett: So the public doesn’t comment on the EA? Director Kucharski: Yes, they do. Chair Bennett: They do. Then they can comment again on the EIS? Director Kucharski: Well, they’re different. The EIS is being done in Pāhala, and an EA is being done in Nāālehu. So it’s essentially the same document. Both of them will ʻ have the archeological, the 106, placed on its—the primary difference between the EIS and the EA. So that’s imposed—the federal cultural resource review is imposed on both. Chair Bennett: So in the EA, will there be a discussion about alternative sites? Director Kucharski: Yes, and alternative technologies that were reviewed for that facility. Yes. Chair Bennett: And then the decision on the site is made - ? Director Kucharski: In an EA you come up with a preferred alternative, and that preferred alternative is what all of the environmental studies and impacts are centered around. And you have to go through a justification as to how you got to that preferred site. And that is the process. Chair Bennett: And when those documents are available, they’ll be made available to the commission? Director Kucharski: They’ll be made available to everyone in the public and the commission—you get notice of every published EA that comes out on the 343 cite, yes. Chair Bennett: How’s that work? Commissioner Fritz: Sounds good. It’s just going to take some patience. Commissioner Olson: I’d like to just request that this be kept on the agenda item for review and any update information. Director Kucharski: I have no objection to that whatsoever. Chair Bennett: We think we have a better sense of the process. I also acknowledge, from my experience with this conundrum, that it’s been a bit like a dog chasing its tail. And I can certainly appreciate the frustration—I’ve had people calling me now for five or six years, trying to find out what’s going on, and you inherited it. But it looks to me like the process is fairly straightforward now. Perhaps it wasn’t in the past. And I just want the commissioners to be comfortable that the processes of information sharing and opportunities for the public to comment are before us yet. Any other discussion on this item? Okay, moving forward. 8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS As no one brought up any items, Chair Bennett asked them to contact him over the next couple of weeks if they wanted something placed on the agenda. Commissioner Osborne said she wanted the Nāālehu mʻatter on the agenda, but it is sufficient if it is part of the Director’s Report. She is concerned about it and wants ongoing communication and transparency. Director Kucharski said he can provide the updated deadlines at the next meeting. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Bennett announced the next meeting: July 26, 2018, in Kona at the County Council’s conference room. He alerted the commissioners that the next meeting is on a Thursday rather than a Wednesday. 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion and vote: Commissioner Gaffney moved to adjourn, Vice Chair Olson seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Fujio, Secretary (with her signature)