Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0756.017 2016-2018�Ntr of y� Harry Kim 4°' �,y�•y Mayor ;. Wilfred M. Okabe ; .... E os w+' Managing Director Caunt of funs `l DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 345 Kekuanao`a Street, Suite 41 . Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Ph: (808) 961-8083 - Fax: (808) 961-8086 cohdem@co.hawaii.hi.us '`��:t;r/'_:4�?,t`:�`.f';t?',ak�C;ij.__`1i--;.YcCtIr_�z;_r.`.'tF•.��i(:%i`2�.��.��-• ,t+n,:..9 17 May 21, 2018 Via U.S. Mail and Email: re- ,t,tv Ca ol, Honorable Richard Creagan, M.D. State Representative, 5`1' District House of Representatives State Capitol Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Re: Proposed Na`alehu Wastewater Treatment Facility Dear Representative Creagan: William A. Kucharski Director Diane A. Noda Deputy Director I have received a copy of your May 11, 201,8, letter to Jonathan Nagato of the Hawaii State Department of Health from Mayor Harry Kim, and he instructed me to respond to you directly. I fully understand the emotional reaction many of the Na`alehu residents had during the "talk story" sessions for the planned wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) that is required to close large capacity cesspools (LCCs), as mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As you may be aware, the County of Hawaii signed an Administrative Order of Consent (AOC) on June 221 2017. The AOC requires the communities of Pahala and Na`alehu to have their LCCs closed by 2021 (Pahala) and 2022 (Na`alehu) and appropriate WWTF(s) constructed. Under federal rules, the LLCs were to have been closed and replaced by the year 2005. I will respond to each of the concerns. articulated in your letter. I have also provided a discussion of background information that may not have been made available to you when the letter was written. I am writing in opposition to the proposed sewage treatment plant in .Na`alehu which would be located essentially immediately adjacent and up wind from a non-airconditioned public elementary schoob My grounds for protest are primarily the totally insensitive, dangerous, and unnecessary choice of a location unanimously opposed by the affected community. The proposed location of the wastewater treatment facility close to the elementary school at Na`alehu is far from ideal. The site is small, and the location being in close proximity to the No. 1 S-& I I I County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Cv Ref® To: Ref. Date 2 _, Honorable Richard Creagan, M.D. May 21, 2018 Page 2 school is not anyone's first choice. It must be reiterated that there has been no final decision on the location of a treatment facility for Nd'dlehu. Preliminary designs for this potential site (Souza property) were prepared to elicit comment, commence dialog, and satisfy obligations found in the AOC. As required by the County Code, no property may be purchased before an Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Study has been fully completed. The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) has reviewed and analyzed over 30 separate locations, attempting to locate a viable WWTF site in the Na`alehu community. While DEM continues to search, it was necessary to engage the community and start the discussion as to what would be an acceptable location for the WWTF. The County chose a public open forum where it could receive input from the community. It is difficult to understand how a location could be deemed "unanimously opposed" without a public discussion. Other grounds for my objection are lack of consideration or provision for public comment, the lack of an alternative, the ridiculous cost compared to potential other options, and the failure to comply with established procedures. The County of Hawaii took over the old C. Brewer plantation sewer system in 2010 as per the 2006 agreement with C. Brewer and had a plan to commence closing these open cesspools. The history that follows is from the April 21, 2017, Revised Workplan for the Na`alehu LCC Replacement Project: In 2003, C. Brewer requested assistance from the County to close their LCCs. Subsequently, the County held a community meeting to present sewer system replacement alternatives. Voting took place to choose the preferred sewer improvement alternative resulting in 87% of returned ballots in favor of the installation of a new sewer collection, treatment and disposal system to be operated and maintained by the County. In 2006, C. Brewer asked the County, who agreed by way of a County Council Resolution, to construct and maintain a new and improved community sewer system. In anticipation of C. Brewer's dissolution, C. Brewer proposed, and the County agreed, to enter into a formal agreement to not only construct and maintain a new and improved community sewer system but to assume ownership of the existing system including the LCCs by April 30, 2010. In 2007, the proposed wastewater improvements. were large capacity septic tanks and reuse of the LCCs as seepage pits. This was based upon available land area to the County in the immediate vicinity of the Nd `dlehu Community. The County issued a FONSI and finalized the EA for the proposed LCC replacement project which included: new collection system within County right-of-way; construction of large capacity septic tanks LCSS); and conversion of LCC(s) to seepage pit(s). However field studies including percolation tests concluded that septic/seepage pit system was not the best 'Honorable Richard Creagan, M.D. May 21, 2018 Page 3 wastewater treatment system. Also, reuse of the LCCs as seepage pits was determined to not be the best choice as they were found to be in poor and failing condition. The County began to look for new land where conditions would allow a seepage pit or leach field. The County also looked beyond this at possible land to construct a secondary treatment system to fulfill a longer term vision of better treatment and possible growth of the community. Thirteen site options were evaluated in terms of land size, proximity to residential areas and potable water wells, flood zones, lava tubes, cultural and archaeological sites, etc. The preliminary selection was narrowed down to a property owned by the State of Hawai `i Department of Land and Natural Resources -('DLNR) as the best viable solution for siting the facility. The County had initiated several cultural and archaeological surveys resulting in the documentation of several cultural and archaeological items. A flora and fauna survey was also conducted. A petroglyph was found within this property area and a mitigation measure has been proposed. In 2011, the County obtained approval from DLNR for approximately 20 acres of land to install a wastewater treatment and disposal facility. Coordination with SHPO, OHA and FWS was initiated. In November 2013, the County updated the previously final version of the EA by drafting an amendment that presents options for the wastewater treatment and disposal facility. However, during 2013 and 2014, local native community leaders/members voiced concerns/objections over the proposed location for the future wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The revised draft EA has not been issued for public review and comment until an informational community outreach has been conducted. Clearly, multiple sites were examined in and around Nd`alehu, so a statement that there is a lack of an alternative is factually incorrect. In addition, the AOC was open for public review and comment. EPA Region 9 maintained a 30 -day comment period on the Plan which commenced on April 27, 2017, and continued until May 30, 2017. The EPA received 5 comments and published its reply to each. All comments were reviewed and considered by the EPA before the AOC was signed by the EPA and the mayor of the County of Hawaii. One comment from the public review process is shown below.l A. G. A.G. is a resident of Na `alehu and provided her comments to EPA via e-mail dated Tuesday, May 30, 2017. Comment I Commenter states that the new proposed Nd `alehu Wastewater Treatment Plant will impact the community by dispersing odors, aerosols, and 1 From EPA's Responses to Public Comments, page 2. Honorable Richard Creagan, M.D. May 21, 2018 Page 4 contaminants directly into town and the school as a result of the treatment process. Response 1 Federal law required the closure of all LCCs by April 5, 2005. In order to close the three LCCs currently serving the Nd `dlehu Community, the Proposed Order requires Respondent to design and construct a new treatment plant in accordance with applicable requirements and engineering standards that are approved by the Hawai `i Department of Health ("HDOH'). The Proposed Order does not specify any particular treatment process or system design, so generalized comments about concerns from unknown and speculative contaminants do not demonstrate that any particular requirement of the Proposed Order is inappropriate. The Proposed Order will also require the Respondent to conduct an Environmental Assessment that meets the requirements of Hawai `i " Revised Statutes Chapter 343 for the property that Respondent proposes to utilize for a new wastewater treatment plant. The purpose of the Environmental Assessment is to assess the environmental consequences of the project prior to the decision to move forward with the project in the proposed location, including any impacts on the surrounding community. The Proposed Order also requires Respondent to engage in multiple community outreach efforts to allow the public to provide input. At that time, the public will have an opportunity to raise issues regarding the impact of aerosols and contaminants from the new treatment plant. Outreach efforts will include consultation with appropriate public officials, public meetings, and a site visit to the Honoka `a Wastewater Treatment Plant. Therefore, the commenter may raise these concerns during the public outreach periods set forth in the Proposed Order and during the Environmental Assessment process. Since no siting decisions can be finalized before an EA or EIS is completed, stating that there is a "lack of consideration or provision for public comment" is simply incorrect. The meetings held for the community were designed, as noted above, to make sure that the EA process was not hidden; and contrary to the allegation that the public was ignored, quite the opposite occurred. The EA process has multiple opportunities for public input. No procedures that we are aware of have been ignored. In relation to the "ridiculous cost" reference, DEM disagrees with this characterization and would welcome receipt of a professional, regulatory approved alternative design with a competent cost analysis to compare with the design proposed by the County. To put the estimated cost for the Nd'dlehu WWTF into perspective, the Lono Kona LCC closure contains only sewers and does not require the construction or operation of a treatment system. Less than two miles of new sewer is required, and the construction cost for this activity is.now over $8 million. Honorable Richard Creagan, M.D. May 21, 2018 Page 5 I beg you to reconsider this hostile and unconsidered project that will make the public - school environment potentially unpleasant and hazardous and cause great stress to the school staff, the students and to their very unhappy families. The facts are such that no decision as to location has been finalized; and more to the point, the EA process requires an independent review and analysis of multiple locations for a new facility be completed prior to a final site being selected. As far as a "hostile and unconsidered project," the facts do not support that statement. It is obvious that a wastewater facility requires significant effort to determine a location that is acceptable. What cannot occur is to continue to allow the Na`dlehu community to discharge untreated sewage into the environment and not connect to an appropriate wastewater treatment system. We do not know where the final location for a new WWTF for Na`dlehu will be; however, a new facility must be constructed. Wherever a new WWTF is constructed, I am certain someone will object. Once a draft environmental assessment has been published and comments on the selected treatment system and location are solicited, all interested persons are encouraged to provide comments on the document. In summary, the County of Hawaii is responding to a signed AOC. A new WWTF is required by that order, and one will be constructed. The process of public review and comment concerning potential WWTF locations has been going on since 2006, including the solicitation of comments in 2017 by the EPA. Statements that the public is being shut out of the process are, in my opinion, untrue and misleading. The County of Hawaii will continue following the rules and laws of the State of Hawaii. Sincerely, Y illi a A. Kucharski Director WK:mef cc (via email only): Jonathan Nagato, DOH The Honorable David Y. Ige, Governor The. Honorable Harry Kim, Hawaii County Mayor The Honorable Maile David, District 6 Hawaii County Council Member Joseph K. Kamelamela, Deputy Corporation Counsel Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel