COM 1062.020 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

To: Hawaii Council Members: Public meeting: 3/25/08. INCINERATOR I was a consultant and investor with SUDC Services Unlimited Corporation, an Australian company which builds Waste to Energy Plants wrapped around 3 stage recycling and sorting stations around the world. SUDC spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours over 3 years to build a 2,000/lbs/day incinerator for metro Manila, Philippines. We partnered with leaders such as Dillingham and First Balfour and secured funding through major banks for the project while bidding on other projects in Thailand, Tunisia, India, China, Jordan and the Dominican Republic. The plant was to be state of the art design for efficiency and emission controls and was a proven plant. The design for these plants administered 400 to 500 employees to help with cheap labor and high unemployment genreraly found in developing countries. The 28 million price tag, operation cost, $25 tipping fee, and agreement were accepted and approved by the PI congress. Although the incinerator was well above complying with the EPA's 1990 Clean Air Act and its 1995 and 98' amendment standards, maintaining the scrubbers and plant required too much down time and the uncertainty we faced with emission and pollution controls, and the toxic ash left behind, forced SUDC to abandon many of its incinerator projects In countries that were under the EPA and now under the Kyoto Accord. SUDC's operations have moved to China, Jordan and Tunisia. Several associates who are in sales and manufacturing of incinerators in the US and abroad have shared their concerns with me about future emission regulations. The United States was pressured to take part in the Kyoto Accord September of 2007, and will be facing new, more strigent emission regulations after the elections as the courts prepare to revise the Accord in 2009 and will present a new Accord in 2012. Other then the waste, emission and pollution issues facing an incinerator, you will have to brace yourselves for the cost such an enterprise entertains. Even if you can be assured of technology that will conform to the new emission & pollution standards we will face in the near future, any incinerator without the proper infrastructure, such as a minimum of 3 pre-sorting stations and small enterprise to generate income from recycling, is bound to be a costly and embarrassing mandate. I ask that you reconsider the proposal to invest taxpayer money and put the county into more debt for this incinerator. Please be responsible by exploring all other avenues that offer a safer, environmentally fit alternative that will help bring Hawaii County into the State of Hawaii's Energy Master Plan to make us more independent and a model leader for other states and nations. As of now, you have showed yourselves to not be trusted with closed-door meetings, the 1.2 million dollars f wasted taxes for consultations, and creating unnecessary stress and conflict among the citizens and residents of Hawaii County. This is not the way to govern and lead.