HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0045.005 2002-2004
02/07/2003 21:59 8089641309 ROY SKOGSTROM PAGE 01
OS FEB 03 Fax - 2 pages,
To: Ms. Bobby Jean Lehhead-Todd
Hawaii County Covncil
Fax %1-8912
From: xDy K Skogstrom
Ptpeekeo,HI
" PH 964-5229
FAX 964-1309
Re: Written testimony opposing the proposed Genera! Plan revision increasing the
area for heavy industry at Pepeekeo Point, fvr the planning meeting on 10 FEB OZ
Dear Ms. l.ehhead-Todd and A11 Coutlty Council Members:
In the proposed t3encral Plan revision, there is an increase in the sine of the area for
heavy industry at Pepeekeo Point, which 1 and many others oppose.
The surrounding area is rural and is a combination of residential and agricuhural land,
including a new subdivision going rut on hundreds of acres Weer the site. i.oCatitlg new
heavy industry in such an area is not good planning.
The Pepeekeo Point location of the current antiquated coal-fired plant is merely a
historical artifact of when that plant was fired by sugar cane rosidue. At that time h made
sense to locate the cane-5rod pleat rnar tl~ cane, but today it makes no sense to locate
new heavy industry in that arcs. Brewer Envuroamerttal Industries has publicly stated it
believes the coal-bred plant will close as soon as new generating capacity is established
elsewhere on the island, in perhaps one or two years. That will be an opportunity to
return the area to the residential and agricuhurel nature of hs surroundings.
It seems likely that the proposed increaxd area for heavy industry at Pepeekeo Point is in
response to the proposal by Brewer Environrrtemal Industries to construct awaste-to-
enorgy plant (trash incinerator) near the site of their current coal-feed plant. As you
know, there 18 8 large community group Opposed to thie idea. Community tneeting8 have
been held with overwhelming opposhion expressed, and over 400 signatures have been
ooUected on a petition and presented to the Council
The primary reasons for community opposhion to this plant are as follows:
1) Most of East Hawaiu's trash is producod where most of the people are, that is, in Hilo
and Puna. The idea of unnecessetily trucking this (Brewer's numbers follow) 300 tons
per day of trash on 4 trucks per hour, 8 boors a day, 7 days a week, or roughly one truck
every 10 minutes going pest a given location abng the Hib Bayfront ant the Hamek„a
Highway, is absurd. if Brewer's techttokrgy (or any other) is chosen from the
ahernstives, h shouts be built where the trash is, in fire Hilo-Puna area.
Comm. No,
t File No.
Ref. To:
Ref. Data FEB 0 6 2003
02/07/2003 21:59 8089641309 ROY SKOGSTROM PAGE 02
2) Brewer has stated that the trash incinerator will produce little pollution (meeting EPA
standards) srul little noise. If this is true, there is no reason that it cau?not be buih where
the trash is, so all this unnecessary nuisance trucking can be avoidod.
3) Brewer has stated that h wants to build the trash incinerator at t}tc Pepeakeo site
because it has the infreaen,~~ure there (transformers. power lines, etc.). That may be good
for Brewer, but not for the Hilo and Hamakua residents who would have to tolerate all
those noisy, smelly trucks every 10 minutes for the next twenty years. Tourism would be
negatively impacted as well.
As for costs, 32 round trip trucks per day, 365 days a year, for 20 years, at SI50 per
round trip, equals S3S million worth of unnecessary truckirte eraugh to buy a whole bt
of transformers and power lines to build the plant where the trash is.
Let's not waste tax dollars, create unnecessary noise a~ air pollution, negatively impact
tourism, and stick heavy industry in the middle of prime tesidernial/agricultural land.
Please decry the proposed incrcasod area for heavy industry at Pepeekeo Poiut, and build
the trash plain where the trash is.
Sincerely,
C.~~
Roy K. Skogstrom
2