2018-04-05 Hearing Transcript - Hu Honua Bioenergy SMA 221 (Partial Remand)

Home

don't need to do anything. Well, you can believe a lot of things, but, of course, they have kind of a bias here. And, if Hu Honua is—are they replacing the Outfall with the injection wells? Would this be considered replacement? Oh, and also adding a new water and wastewater treatment building. Is that a replacement for the Outfall? It seems like it will maybe then, the water's gotta go someplace. Another question. Is there a need for a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit or an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement? Or, at least doing dye and leachate tests, adding that as a condition to see where the water goes. I mean, they believe it's not going to cause any problem, but how about doing some testing. There's some, you know, over 21 million gallons of water a day gonna be going someplace. The aquifer? The ocean? That's a lot of water. I've seen that there's going to be wastewater mixed with the cooling water and other water before it's injected. A new water and wastewater treatment building will be built. As you know, Sierra Club and others recently won a lawsuit against Maui County over injection wells that put in wastewater and it mixed with groundwater and eventually went to the ocean, and that was not a good thing and not legal. Will there be any impacts from water still going into the existing Outfall structures. I mean, some of the structures are still there. And, with the flume broken off, is water going to be eroding the face of the pall? So, thank you. ROHR: Claudia Rohr. Good morning, again. Condition 13 of SMA 221, 2011 version, the Applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State, and Federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements. It doesn't matter that they're not repairing or replacing the Outfall. They're using it. I have submitted the letter from the DLNR which states that if they're using it for storm water, they must get an easement over State land, and it triggers an EA. Right now, I think you have enough information to know that you can't proceed any further. An EA must be done before you make any further decisions. That's the law. It must be done before the decision-making. You have—they've known it from the beginning, because it's on their ALTA policy, that it was an encroachment. Then, in 2011, they did a shoreline survey and tried to get it certified, and the State surveyor wrote them a letter stating that there were encroachments that they had to resolve. The Planning Department needs to make them complete a shoreline survey and take care of the encroachment issues which would be to apply for an easement over State land and purchase it from the State. Right now, the decision about whether it has to be repaired or not, it's obviously eroding the face of the pall. I've sent in photographs to the Planning Department that I took maybe two months ago showing that it has shifted, and there has been erosion, and basically, they were cited last summer for violating their NPDS permit for construction activities, storm water associated with construction activities. They found sediment in the old Outfall pipe. They EXHIBIT C 16