2003-11-21 TCONTINENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

means that it barely holds the value of what the cleanup costs would be if they fail to meet their obligations under their State permit. TheyÓre six months away from having to prove that they have removed 30,000 cubic yards. I donÓt believe theyÓve even begun. This means theyÓre going to have to remove 30 trucks worth of as months to meet that deadline. Of course they can try to meet it in other ways, but I donÓt think theyÓll be successful. I think by next June weÓll find out where they stand. If they donÓt manage to recycle it, the State is going to make them haul it to the Kona landfill. That will cost $32 per ton to landfill. ItÓs actually useful at the landfill. TheyÓll use it for cover and other things. We all agree this is useful material. We all wonder why they havenÓt started recycling it, but there must be a reason. I just want to make sure that everyone understands that there is a way that the developer can sell that portion and not have it equal the cleanup cost, and it could be abandoned. I think the developer is not responsible for creating it, and that relief falls on the facility operator, and that we should all clear this up quickly. IÓve asked you, I have written a written complaint last June or May stating that I was requesting public hearings be held for the Special Permit and the revision of SMA 221. I believe I read the Planning CommissionÓs rules and regulations state that you are here to guide the Planning Director, not the other way around; and he did not share my complaint with you. By law, they should have been required to have their public hearings. The Planning Director has acted without authority in this manner; and IÓm asking that you take into consideration that weÓre getting things backwards here. We need to assure that the asset value is there. I think that if you take an action, Continental Pacific can go back to the facility operator, make them take care of this problem, make them put up the bond. They certainly have the money, theyÓve been selling $40 million every year. I think that, at this point, the coal ash has been named as one of the items that is listed as a non-source point pollution in the Hilo Bay and watershed area. ItÓs not proven to be stable, it washes away with the storm water. You cannot just spread it all over as everyone is hoping to do. If you put it on roads, you need, theyÓre going to have to get people to sign off, acknowledging that theyÓre responsible for it not washing into the ocean. What is now a Clean Water Act violation in one location could end up being a non-source pollution violation in our watershed. So itÓs not as easy as, oh, hey, hereÓs all this free material. ItÓs a complicated job finding a way to recycle it in a way that it doesnÓt move around and get into the ocean. I donÓt want argue about the contents of it, and this and that. If you go on the web and read all the studies that were done and present it to Congress, you will find that thereÓs two opinions on everything. But if you look at how the other states are handling coal ash, nobody is handling it the way that this County is handling this pile. And I hope that you understand that thereÓs only two people who can do anything now, itÓs the State and the County. The EPA is not going to go any further. They have no jurisdiction over the solid waste. ItÓs the State and County matter now, and I believe itÓs within your jurisdiction and what your job is about to advise the Planning Director. 20