HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0045.011 2002-2004 Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd ~ _ ~ ,
Councilwoman
Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni St
Hilo, HI 96720 6 February 2003
Topic: Proposed Change to County General Plan, HCPC site on Pepe'ekeo Point
Dear Ms Leithead-Todd:
I am to you from several perspectives, including my professional back ground as an
environmental consultant and fellow in the American Psychological Association
(Division 34: Environmental Psychology), a property owner in Pepe'ekeo, and a resident
of Hilo. I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes in the County
General Plan that would increase the heavy industry activities allowed at the HCPC site
on Pepe'ekeo Point.
I am very sympathetic to the County's needs to deal with solid waste refuse and the need
to enhance electricity generation on the Big Island. Indeed, I have worked with several
counties throughout the nation facing similar demands. My last place of residence was in
Yarmouth County, Maine, a region that has received awards and recognition for its
efforts to deal with solid waste and recycling, and a region that has struggled to deal with
past unwise decisions involving the generation of electric power. I plan to spend the
remainder of my life on the Big Island, and I want to do everything possible to ensure its
future vitality. I have been involved in efforts to enhance both economic and educational
development along the Hamakua Coast, and I become closely acquainted with its
aspirations and potential.
For a variety of reasons, the Hamakua Coast area, just north of Hilo, is ideally suited for
low-density residences and ecotourism. The scenic drive loop, the tropical gardens, and
Akaka Falls are mainstays in attracting tourists to the area. Economic development that
builds on these attractions could be very successful and compatible with the area.
Likewise, the pristine beauty of the area is attracting low-density residential
developments that are ideal partners to the ongoing agricultural and ecotourism efforts in
the area. This comfortable mixture of activities has made land prices in this area some of
the highest in East Hawai' i and spawned plans for other compatible activities such as an
independent living center in Honomu and ahotel/resort at the old Brewer headquarters
site.
The location of a heavy industry site within this area would not only be a misfit, but
could severely injure the future potential of the area. The planned waste-to-energy use
could be the most damaging type of heavy industry for several reasons. First, there are
the obvious health and environment concerns that could result from the incineration of
toxic materials such as mercury and other base metals in the plant. Indeed, technology
allows for the control of much negative emission, but even the most closely monito~~
(bmm. No. t--~.
PSk No. PL
Ref. To:
Ref. Dste FEB 1 ~ .2003
waste-to-energy plants have experienced significant accidents, and the monitoring
capacity in East Hawai' i does not approach that available at many other locations. The
real danger to the health of residents and the environment cannot be discounted. Of equal
concern is the psychological and economic impact of the misfit plant. The concerns and
fears of individuals living in the vicinity of plant can have demonstrable effects on health
and performance, far beyond any real physical danger. Although there is a tendency to
discount these effects as "unreasonable", these "unreasonable" effects are the basis for
dramatic decreases in airline passengers following a dramatic accident. The effects may
be viewed as unreasonable, but they are real and have been documented in a large
number of empirical studies. A third concern is the economic impact on the region that
the plant will have. Research has demonstrated the decrease in desirability to live close to
power plant sites, and the resulting decrease in property values in these areas. The impact
of a plant that releases emissions into the air in a visible manner is greater than and wider
than one whose activities are largely self-contained. There is also residual impact along
routes that transportation to and from the plant follows. Again, the effect is increased
when the trucks are hauling potentially toxic or noxious materials.
Indeed, it seems clear that both the plant and the hauling of solid waste are incompatible
with the plan and the present use of this area. Both present activities and future
development will be negatively impacted if this plan is approved. Although it is easy to
criticize, it is also important to offer alternatives. I have not given careful study, as I am
sure the Board has, to the solid waste problems faced in this area. 1 would certainly be
willing to become involved in efforts to study the problem. I have found that recycling in
on the Big Island lags such efforts in every area of the country in which I have lived. I am
also aware of highly successful and economical efforts in some locales (including the
Portland, Maine area) to transport solid waste by barge to waste-to-energy plants in low-
density residential and heavy industry areas. I think that careful study could develop
creative alternatives to deal with the problem and lead Hawaii to be leader in this area. It
seems that this would be an excellent issue on which to engage the university in a
research partnership.
I urge you to vote against the proposed plan and to engage in wider study of the issue
before moving forward with any plan. Thank you for considering my position.
Sincerely
~ p en W rchel, PhD
17 Alae St.
Hilo, HI 96720
(808)933-2535