Compliance Evaluation of ENV's Diligence in Landfill Site Selection Process

The review assesses the diligence of ENV in identifying new landfill sites as per LUC conditions. It highlights delays, inclusion/exclusion issues, and non-compliance with the Solid Waste Plan. Concerns raised by Ko Olina Community Association and Senator Maile Shimabukuro reflect discrepancies in the process.

• Compliance Evaluation
• Landfill Site Selection
• Environment Department
• Diligence Assessment
• Solid Waste Management

agust Follow

Uploaded on Sep 29, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. In re ENV, Docket No. SP09-403, Planning Commission File No. 2008/SUP-2 Has ENV Acted With Reasonable Diligence ? Ko Olina Community Association and Senator Maile Shimabukuro

2. LUC Condition No. 1 On or before November 1st, 2010, the Applicant shall begin to identify and develop one or more new landfill sites that shall either replace or supplement the WGSL. Applicant s effort to identify and develop such sites shall be performed with reasonable diligence. . . . (emphasis added)

3. The Commissions Finding of Fact FOF 221: The City s effort to identify and develop one or more landfill sites has been performed with reasonable diligence. (Emphasis added.)

4. Late Start The Site selection and development process was supposed to begin on November 1, 2010. o2011AP Ex. K15 at 6 ( 4) (10/22/09 LUC order); KOCA s Proposed FOF 358, 405 But the current SSC did not start meeting until January 2011. o2011AP 4/4/12 Tr. at 54:14 16 (Marsters); KOCA s Proposed FOF 406

5. Ko Olina or Kapolei The SSC does not include anyone from Ko Olina or Kapolei- two communities heavily affected by the Landfill o2011AP 2/8/12 Tr. at 23:14 20 (Williams); 2011AP 4/4/12 Tr. at 139:3 12 (Timson); KOCA s Proposed FOF 407

6. Contrary to Solid Waste Plan The site selection process did not follow the City s Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan ( Solid Waste Plan ), which Director Steinberger referred to as the City s framework for waste management. o 2011AP 1/11/12 Tr. at 26:21 27:1 (Steinberger); KOCA s Proposed FOF 408 For example, the site selection committee ( SSC ) did not exclude sites west of Makakilo, even though the Solid Waste Plan specifically directs that the site evaluations will preclude areas west of Makakilo . . . . o K144 at 11-4 (10/08 integrated solid waste management plan update); 2011AP 4/4/12 Tr. at 76:3 6, 76:16 18, 76:19 21, 77:21 24 (Marsters); KOCA s Proposed FOF 409 A number of the sites that the SSC may recommend are west of Makakilo. o 2011AP Ex. K258 (4/20/12 SSC meeting photographs); KOCA s Proposed FOF 410

7. Contrary to Solid Waste Plan The site selection process did not follow the detailed site selection procedures set out in the Solid Waste Plan o KOCA s Proposed FOF 411 For instance, the ENV did not direct the SSC to consider mitigation factors and obtain input from potentially affected neighborhoods before developing rankings. o 2011AP 4/4/12 Tr. at 113:11 14, 116:10 21 (Marsters); 2011AP Ex. K144 at 11-5 (10/08 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update); 2011AP Ex. K147 at 3 (Parametrix site selection memorandum); KOCA s Proposed FOF 412

8. Other Methodological Errors As Dwight Miller explained, the site selection process had other significant errors. Errors included: failure to correct implicit weighting, which has led to double counting of criteria o2011AP Ex. K147 at 3 4 (Parametrix site selection memorandum); 2011AP 3/7/12 Tr. at 94:9 12 (Miller); KOCA s Proposed FOF 414

9. From Broad to Narrow The site selection process did not move linearly from a broad consideration of sites to a narrow list of sites. o 2011AP 3/7/12 Tr. at 23:8 13, 24:2 23 (Miller); 2011AP Ex. K147 at 4 (Parametrix site selection memorandum); KOCA s Proposed FOF 415 Instead, the consultant directed the SSC to start with the narrow list of old sites, some of which were no longer viable options o 2011AP 4/4/12 Tr. at 39:13 20, 77:25 78:20 (Marsters); KOCA s Proposed FOF 416

10. From Broad to Narrow The SSC was using those same sites through the sixth of seven scheduled meetings, which were supposed to be concluded by July 2011. o 2011AP Ex. K26 at 2 (1/20/11 SSC description of service); 2011AP 4/4/12 Tr. at 66:25 67:2, 83:1 4, 84:17 20 (Marsters); KOCA s Proposed FOF 417 The SSC had to repeatedly [r]emove screens that [it] had not either previously discussed or authorized created by the ENV s consultant. o 2011AP 4/4/12 Tr. at 104:24 105:4 (Marsters); KOCA s Proposed FOF 418 The SSC only broadened the search criteria or removed screens during the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth meetings. o See KOCA s Proposed FOF 418

11. Not Happy [W]e weren t happy with the process that had happened. . . . We just wanted to get the process right. o 2011AP 4/4/12 Tr. at 104:20 23 (Marsters); KOCA s Proposed FOF 419

12. No Evidence of Selection Currently, there is no evidence in the record that the Landfill site selection process is finished or that the ENV has set a deadline to complete the process o KOCA s Proposed FOF 422