The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0087.003 1996-1998 `w. n • OF q°.•-` Phone: (808) 961-8264 DOMINIC YAGONG ~o~G:' Councilmember ~Ir~•GI N~1 1 cou,~;~rY cotl~cll. '37 Fi:3 y Fft `f 2`f County of Hawaii ~ ~ „ Hawaii County Building C~~'`` ' \r 2S Aupuni Sheet COUNTY G~ HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii 96720 February 3, 1997 TO: Councilmembers FROM: Dominic Yagong, Chair ll'C Committee on Public Works and Parks RE: Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage Treatment System (STP) For your information and review, we have received the attached documents from Peter Boucher of the Wastewater Division to assist our understanding of the legislative and administrative history of the above-described sewerage treatment system: 1. Resolution dated 8/20/75 authorizing the Mayor to sign grant documents 2. EPA Grant Amendment No. C150060-02-2 for Papaikou STP 3. EPA Final Determination Letter regarding Audit Report No. E2CWM0-09- 0052-2200030 4. Ordinance No. 95-54 authorizing funding for Papaikou Collector System Also enclosed is a copy of portions of the Environmental Impact Statement for [he Papaikou Sewage Treatment Plant approved in November 15, 1973, and a Supplemental Assessment in 1976, which determined that the STP site relocation to Mokihena Bay would not result in a significant environmental impact and, therefore, was a 'negative declaration.' The EIS process is a state requirement. We have requested similar documents for the Hilo Wastewater Treatment Plant as it relates to the Waiakea sewer extension. Attachments Y,. ____~1.II-.--...._.~ '~_,t ~r,,,, Pr~esented~ EEB ~ ~ isel N,...,.. County of Hawaii -Department of Public Works WASTEWATER DIVISION Te1:961-8338 Fax: 961-8644 Memorandum: Date: February 3, 1997 To: Charmaine, Legislative Auditor From: Peter Boucher, Division Chief Re: Resolution No. 30-97 Papaikou Sewer Extension I am sending you copies of the following documents as requested: • Resolution dated 8/20/75 authorizing Mayor to sign grant documents • EPA Grant Amendment No. C150060-02-2 for Papaikou STP • EPA Final Determination letter regarding Audit Report No. E2CWM0-09-0052-2200030 • Ordinance No. 95-54 authorizing funding for Papaikou Collector System Please call if you have any other questions. County of Hawaii--State of Hawaii Resolution BF IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL in and for the Cavnty of Hawaii, at a meet ing held this date, that the Mayor of the County of Nawaii, be and he is hereby designated and authorized to sl gn in the name of the County of Hawaii such application forms and other documents for construction grant benefits from the appropriate Federal agency for [he Papaikou Sewerage Sys [em in South Hilo, Covnty of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED [hat the Chief Engineer be designated as the authorized representative to receive all communications. HE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Clerk be and he is hereby directed to forward a copy of [his resolution [o any Snterested government or governmental agency. Dated at Hilo Hawaii, this 20th day of Annnst , 1975. INTRODUCED RY: fH-!i unci an, County of +aii ROLL CALL VOTE COON TV COUNCIL wrF1 NOEB ME Count' of Hawaii Cm penter X Hilo, Howoii De luz X I hereby mNlly that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the role indiwled to Eoill X _Hisvo4v X the right hereof odopled by the COUNCIL of the County of Howoii on Kawvhorv August 20, 1975 x _ Levin X Yvdvo_ X ATTEST: - Yvmodv X t HY E$Tlb"4 that above u a wq of the od~oel Rele,en,„ C 1426/Pwe-58 ~~!!a LN ~ ~ a tp ~ spa, Robert M. Yo mo p ~ - ~ ~ Ted T. $u2Vq ~ CHAIRMAN 6 fRf L. G Of PCER ~~C// COUNTY CIERR ? M B. Ne... _ ~ ~ I. /.7 1 a ~.tEO sr„Fs ~ -i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY F~„~fc~ REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, Ca. 94105 CERTIFIED P".AIL N0. P125E45774 RETURN RECEIPT R.EQIJESTED Mr. Edward Harada Chief Engineer County of Hawaii Department of Public l•:orks i1 ~J ;;.r 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Re: Papaikou - Paukaa Sewerage System, 0150060 0?_ 2_ Dear P4r. Harada: The Hawaii State Department of Health and this Agency have authorized award of construction contracts for your Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System project. This Grant Amendment is based upon the total revised eligi'~le project costs as approved in the Approval to Award. Since the federal share is 75` of the total eligible project cost, your nrant is hereby increas e in the amount of R~2,275,305, from g7_,8`.SO,000 to `5,125,305. The re- vised total eligible project cost is .`>~i,833,74C. The original and one (1) copy of the enclosed Grant F,mendraeni are to be signed and returned to this office as soon as possible. One (1) cop; y of your transr.iittal letter should be sent directly to the :lawaii State Department of Health. S'nould you have any questions regarding this Grant Amendment, please conlct hAr. Jerry "'arcotte at (415) 556-ROF4. Sincerely yours, ~ I Fra`.!/'Ik ,1 Covington Director, l~Jater Division Enclosure cc: Hawaii State Department of Health Office of Environmental duality Control, ibnolulu, HI U. S. Army Engineering Division, Pacific Ocean I ~ 7+~5• U.S. EN VIRONM 'AL PROTECTION AGENCY ASSISTANCE 1DENTI FICA TION NO. ASSISTANCE Ae1tEEMENT/AMENDMENT C 1 5 0 6 n 0 ~ CHECK APPLICABLE IT EMISI DATE OF AWARD (ObliNtlon date) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 1 Q SEP 1980 GRANT AGREEMENT .TYPE OF ACTION X ASSISTANCEAMENOMENT Augmentation-Increase ~ X SUESEOUENT RELATED PROJ ECTS !WN'T) PART I-GENEP,AL INFORMATION 1. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 2. STATUTE REFERENCE 1 REGULATION REFERENCE Construction Grants PL92-500/95-217 GO CPR 35 4 RECIPIENTIOR GANIZATIDN e. NAME e. ADDRESS County of Hawaii Department of Public Works 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 9672 b. E_MP LOYEE I. O. NO. (EIN)9Q-6!"I On 5~7 S, ~ PROJECT MANAGER (Recipient Conucl) m. NAME d. ADDRESS Edward Harada County of IJawa i i b. TITLE Department of Publ is 1•Jorks Chief En ineer 25 Aupuni Street c. TELEPHONE NO. (lnclude Aree Code) HI I O, ~ 96720 ~ 808) 951-9321 G, PROJECT OFFICER IE PA Conlecl) a. NAME d. ADDRESS Jerr Marcctte Environmental Protection Agency 6.T ITLE P,egion IX Pro'ect Officer 215 Fremont Street e.TEL EPHONE NO. (lnclude Area Code) San Francisco, CA 941 D5 41 F-n•1 S'G 7e. PROJECT TITLE/DESCRIPTION County of Hawaii, Papaikou-Paukaa Sewerage System. Construction of a new wastewater disposal facility which Will serve the area between Papaikou and Paukaa. 7b. ENTER APPLICABLE ITEMS FOR STEP 3 8 2/3 (WWT) 7c. PROJECT STEP (15TV'T) TREATMENT LEV ELI TYPE PROJECT. IS THERE ANY INOU STRIAE FLOMT ,YES No 3 TREATI•IEt:T PROCESSI SLUDGE DESIGN 9. DURATION PROJECT PERIOD (Dote a) BUDGET PERIOD (Detee) 1 RO - ~t/n1 ~ n - 19 1 nt y. DOLLAR AMOUNTS TOTAL PROJECT COSTS EPA AWARD AMOUNT (ln..-Slnd Ame. ) Q5 - i~ jn5 UNEXPENDED PRIOR YR. 3A L. (EPA Funds) TOTAL ELIGIBLE CO5T5 (I4'wT) 56 833 740 THIS ACTION(Thie obliQetion amount) TOTAL BUDGET PERI00 CO5T5 .,7 ~ -jn5 10 ACCOUNTING DATA APPROPRIATION DOC CONTROL NO. ACCOUNT NO. 03f. CLA55 AMOUNT CHARGED 68X0103,8 H00026 8G7H093003 a1-11 52,275,305 al. at. 11. PAYMENT METHOD 12. PAYEE (Name end meitay eddreee. Include ZIP Code.) ADVANCES ( of award) ~ REIM OV RSEMENT COUnty Of Ha Wa I 1 Department of Public 1Jorks ?oTHER 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 SEND PAYMENT RECU EST TO C ~ I ~A~..~~nnn? Cffic~~ '~-1'In1l"-v'ntrllivi :inn EPA Fonn S7U0-i`DA (Rem. B-79) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE 0950LETF.. PgGE I OF 4 PART Il-APPROVED BUDGE ~ ASSISTANCE IDENT ~-'CATION NO. 1 TABLE A - OBJEC` -LASS CATEGORY - TOTAL APPROVED ALLOWABLE (Non-ton coon) BUDGET PERIOD COST t. PERSONNEL Z. FRINGE BENEFITS 3. TRAVEL 4. EQUAP'M ENT 5. SU P`PLIES - ' 6. CONTRACTUAL 7. CONSTRUCTION B. OT NER 9. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES f0. INDIRECT COSTS: RATE 7. BASE /1. TOTAL (Share: Recipient, Federal tx. TOTAL APPROVED ASSISTANCE AMOUNT S TABLE B -PROGRAM ELEMENT CLASSIFICATION (Non-conslruclion) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. f0. 11. 12. TOTAL (Share: Recipient Federal 13. TOTAL APPROVED ASSISTANCE AMOUNT S TABLE C -PROGRAM ELEMENT CLASSIFICATION (Construction) 1. ADHANISTRA TION E%PENSE SJ, 00(' 2. PRELIMINARY EXPENSE 3. LAND STRUCTURES, RIGHT-OF-WAY 4. ARCHITECTURAL EN GINEERIHG BASIC FEES SSO, OOO S. OTHER AP.CHITECTU RAL cNGINEE RING FEES ZS•OOO 6. PR09ECT INSPECTION FEES 7. LAND DEVELOPMENT 8. RELOCATION E%P EN SES ' 9. RELOCATION PAYMENTS TO INpIVIDU ALS AND BUSINESSES 10. DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL fI. CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT IMPROVEMENT - S,8S6, ZOO 12. EQUIPMENT I OOO 13. MISCELLANEOUS 14. TOTAL (Linea 1 thrv Il) 15. ESTiM ATED INCOME (lf apPllceble) 16. NET PROJECT AMOUNT (L in• t! ml~•• IS) 17. LESS: INELIGIBLE E%CLUSIONS 18. ADO: CONTINGENCIES 3;~ 54O ;I~a~TOTAL (Share: Recipient Federe! CJ f;-S3, 74~ r zo.1TOTAL APPROVED ASSISTANCE AMOUNT 3 S, 125, 3~5 EPA Farm 5700-20A IR•+• 8-79) PAGE 2 of a PART III_AWARD CONDITIONS a. GENERAL CONDITIONS The recipient covenants and agrees that it will expeditiously initiate end timely complete the project work for which assistance has been awarded under this agreement, in accordance with all applicable provisions of 40 CFR Chapter 1, Subpart B. The recipient warrants, represents, and agrees that it, and its contractors, subcontractors, employees and representatives, will comply with: (I) all applicable provisions of 40 CFR Chap[erI, Subchapter B, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO the provisions of Appendix A to 40 CFP Part 30,-and (2) any special conditions se[ forth in this assistance agreement or any assistance amendment pursuant to 40 CFR 30.425. b. SPECIAL CONDITIONS (For cooperative agreements include identification or summarization of EPA responsibilities that reflect or contribute to substantial imolvemenf.) See Grant Agreement dated February 1, 1980 EPA Fe~m 5)00-](IA (Rav• 0-791 vice ~ of a ASSISTANCE IDE NTIFI! ION NO. SPF CLNL CONDITIONS (ConNnuetl) PART IV NOTE: The Agreement must be completed in duplicate and the Original returned to tfle Grants Administration Division for Headquarters awards and to the appropriate Grants Administrations Office for State and local awards within 3 calendar weeks after receipt or within any extension of time as may be granted by EPA. Receipt of a written refusal or failure to return the properly executed document within [he prescribed time, may result in the withdrawal of the offer by the Agency. • Any change to the Agreement by the recipient subscouent to the document being signed by the EPA Award Official which the Award Official determines [o materially alter the Agreement shall void the Agreement. OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE The United States of America, active by and~[hrough the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), hereby offers assistance/amendment to the .~4.1lllty of Pawa i i Deoartnent of Pebl is '•hrkg RECIPIENT ORCAw 24TION EOr~~% of all approved costs incurred up [o and nut exceeding 5. 1°5 iF5 Aasu TT.ITt'~ I t for the support of approved budget period effort described in application (including aft application modifications) Papa i kou-"aukaa Se wera~P Sus+p included he.ein by re[erence. --'3-- _ r . ~ _ ISSUING OFFICE (Grants Adminis fre Pion Of(ic e) AWARD APPROVAL OFFICE ORGANIZATION/ADDRESS ORGANIZATION/ADOftE55 Environmental Protection Agency Environmental pro+ection Agency Program Support Elranch Water Division, Region IX 215 Frsnont Street 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 San Francisco, CA 94105 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TURE F AWARD OF I TYPED NAME AND TITLE GATE Frank ~1. Covington 1° SEP IS'c0 I•I + 'This Agreement is subject applic le U. S. Environmental protection Agency statutory provisions and assistance ,regulations. In acceptin is award or amendment and any payments made pursuant thereto, (1) the undersigned Irepresen[s that he is duly authorized to act on behalf of the recipient organization, and (2, the recipient agrees (a) that the award is subject to the applicable provisions of 40 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter B and of the provisions of this agreement (Parts l thru IV), and (b) that acceptance of any payments constitutes an agreement by the payee that the amounts, if any found by EYA to have been overpaid will be refunded or credited in full to EPA. BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT ORGANIZATION 51 ~ TYPED NAME AND TITL EIICrt)Crt T. ~ ~ i~tB y0 Sit1 I DATE EPA Ferm 5700-IOA (Net. 8- kb8~~ of a 1 ~ Environmental Protection Agency-Grant Agreement PART IIIB - SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. This grant offer is subject to withdrawal unless contracts for project construction are awarded within 90 days from the date of acceptance of this grant offer. 2. The grantee shall negotiate all engineering consulting subagreements so that the provisions contained therein are in conformance with the requirements set forth in 40 CFR Part 35, published in the Federal Register, September 27, 1978 and submit them to EPA within 90 days of the effective date of this Grant. No payments for the affected engineering work shall be made to the Grantee under this grant until EPA has approved all subagreements. 3. The Grantee shall submit the user charge system or ad- valorem tax rates and the industrial cost recovery system rates, incorporated :in a proposed municipal ordinance or other appropriate legislative enactment, to the EPA for approval, and thereafter, provide for its enactment before the treatment works constructed with the grant is placed into operation. 4. The grantee agrees to make payment to its contractor promptly after receipt of Federal sums due under this grant and to retain only such amounts as may be justified by specific circumstances and provisions of this grant or the construction contract. Retained amounts shall be limited, except where greater retention is necessary under specific circumstances specifically provided for in the construction contract, to the following schedule: (a) retention of up to 10% of payments claimed until construction,i_s 50% complete; (b) after construction is 50% complete, reduction of the total retainage to 5% of payments claimed, provided that the contractor is making satisfactory progress and there i.s no specific cause for greater withholding; (c) when the project is substantially complete (operational or beneficial occupancy), the retained amount shall be further reduced below 5% to only that amount necessary to assure completion of the contract work; (d) a cash bond or irrevocable letter of credit may be accepted in lieu of all or part of the cash retainage under (b) or (c), above. The grantee further agrees to include appropriate provision in each Step 3 construction contract to implement this prompt payment requirement. The foregoing condition wi1:1 not apply to the extent that it may be prohibited by any specific requirement of State or local laws or ordinances. 5. The grantee agrees to report to. the Project Officer and promptly credit to the Federal share due under this grant the full amount of any interest earned, or; if no such interest is earned, an imputed amount of interest at the prevailing rate, upon Federal sums paid Lo the grantee, if payment to the contractor is unjustifiably delayed by the grantee, its employees or representatives. 6. The Grantee shall acquire and maintain any flood insurance made available to it under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended. The insurance shall be in an amount at least equal to the total eligible project costs excluding cost of land and uninsurable improvements, or to the maximum limit of coverage made available under the Nationa: Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, whichever is less, for the entire useful life of the project. This condition shall not be applicable if, on the date of execution of the grant ap;reement by both parties, flood insurance was not available pursuant to the Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, for property in the project location. This condition shall not be applicable if the project location is outside the boundaries of a special flood hazard area delineated on a Flood Hazard Boundary Map or Flood Insurance Rate Map which has been issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal 'Insurance Administration. This condition shall not be applicable if the total ` value of improvements insurable under the National Flood Insurance Act is less than $10,000. 7. The Grantee shall give preference to the use of domestically produced and manufactured construction materials in the construction of sewage treatment works, in accordance with Section 215 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, and the EPA implementing regulations and guidelines. The Grantee will enact and enforce in each jurisdiction served by the treatment works project, before the treatment works constructed with the Grant is placed in operation, a sewer use ordinance or other legally binding requirement which: 1) Sha11 prohibit any new connections from inflow sources into the sanitary sewer portions of the sewer system, and 2) Shall ensure that new sewers and connections to the sewer system are properly designed and constructed. ~~,~0 9' ar~~ ~ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ~t~ REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, Ca. 94105-3901 SEP 2 41993 Ms: Donna Kiyosaki County Engineer Department of Public Works County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hiio, Hawaii 96720-4292 Subject: Audit Report No. E2CWM0-09-0052-2200030 Grant Nos. C15-0060-02 and C15-0062-06 Docket No. 09-93-AD03 Dear Ms. Kiyosaki: This is a revised Final Determination Letter (FDL) by the Regional Disputes Decision Official (DDO) in accordance with 40 CFR Part 30, Subpart L. This revised FDL resolves a dispute at the Regional Administrator level. After review of additional supporting documentation and arguments provided by the County of Hawaii (County), I hereby revise the March 23, 1993 final determination as described in the following. The notes below correspond to the notes in the Audit Report Summary of Findings. Please note that some of the documentation submitted by the County does not meet the requirements of the auditors at the audit resolution stage, however, this documentation does meet the equivalency requirements at the RA level and is hereby accepted. This decision does not set precedent for resolution of similar issues raised in future audit reports. Note 2A C15-0060-02 In the March 23, 1993 FDL, I disallowed $6,891,902 for the underutilization of the Papaikou Wastewater Treatment Plant and interceptor sewers for Papaikou and Paukaa. The current flow to the treatment plant is .14mgd, which is only 40~ of the .35 mgd design capacity. In order for the cost of this grant to be eligible, at least 75~ of the homes and structures in Papaikou and Paukaa must be connected to the sewers. The County must also show that the treatment plant receives flows of at least 75$ of the design capacity. After reviewing the basis for design and the most recent census information documenting an unexpected decline in n ~ Printed on Recycled Paper 1 population, a readjusted flow rate of .24mgd was accepted in the March 23, 1993 FDL as the design capacity which will be used to determine fulfillment of the 75$ requirement. The County plans to construct the Papaikou Phase II Sewers and Paukaa Phase II Sewers which will fulfill the 75~ requirement. The Papaikou Phase II project will sewer 39 homes and increase the connection rate in the area to 90$. The Paukaa Phase II project will sewer 150 homes and increase the connection rate in the area to 93$. Assuming a flow of .05mgd1 from the projects, the plant will-receive .19mgd, which is 79$ of the adjusted capacity of .24 mgd. The March 23, 1993 FDL determined that the cost questioned by the. auditors would be eligible provided the County submits documentation that it will construct Papaikou Phase II and Paukaa Phase II projects in accordance with the following schedule: Start Finish Construction Construction Papaikou Phase II 3/94 7/95 Paukaa Phase II .1/95 6/96 To date, the County has provided the following documentation. Papaikou Phase II - State Revolving Fund (SRF) Priority List - County's Six Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for current state fiscal year 93/94 - plans - County ordinance appropriating County funds for CIP projects including Papaikou Phase II - County resolution to apply for the remainder of the funding via Farmers Home Administration Paukaa Phase II - SRF Priority List - County's Six Year CIP for state fiscal year 95/96. ~ This eetimate is based on the following calculation, using 1990 census data: Avg. # Peroons Total Total Homes Per Home Persona Av¢. Flow Flow Papaikou 39 x 3.03 = 118 x 100gpcd = .0118mgd Paukaa 150 x 2.46 = 369 x 100gpcd = .0369m¢d 0487mgd 2 J - plans As further assurance of project completion, a special condition will be added to Grant No. C15-0060-02 requiring the construction of Papaikou Phase. II and Paukaa Phase II projects in accordance with the previously identified schedule. The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) will track the condition on a quarterly basis as a part of their quarterly status report. Additionally, EPA, Region 9's Municipal Assistance Branch will track the County's progress on their audit tracking system. In the event the County fails to construct the collection systems as required by the special condition, the County will be required to repay a proportional share of the grant. Based on the documentation submitted to date and the soon to be added special condition to Grant No. C15-0060-02, I hereby find that the $6,891,902 previously disallowed is grant eligible. Eligible $6,891,902 Ineligible -0- Note 4 C15-0062-06 In the March 23, 1993 FDL, I disallowed $58,299 for the purchase of emergency generators for the Wailoa and Pua Pump Stations. The audit report states that the emergency generators are an unnecessary cost outside the scope of the approved project and are therefore an ineligible "add-on" which has no relation to the original grant. The original grant was awarded on August 13, 1984 to construct a collection system serving the Ice Pond area on the Island of Hawaii. Flows from the Ice Pond area are treated at the Hilo Wastewater Treatment Plant. On April 17, 1986, a grant amendment was processed which decreased the grant based on the March 19, 1986 Approval-to-Award for the installation of the generators. We disagree with the audit report's statement that the generators are an ineligible "add-on" which has no relation to the original grant. Emergency generators are an eligible item. Both the Wailoa and Pua Pump Stations are in the same facility planning area as the Ice Pond Collection System, as defined by the Clean Water Act, Section 212(2)(A), and 40 CFR 35.905. Sewage from the pump stations and the Ice Pond Collection System is treated at the Hilo Wastewater Treatment Plant. Although the generators were outside the scope of the original grant, the EPA Regional Administrator expanded the scope to include the generators by issuing an amendment in accordance with 4o CFR 35.903(d) and 40 CFR 30.700. Additionally, in regards to the absence of the generators in 3 ~ a the Hilo Facility Plan, facility plans are not required to contain a list of every piece of equipment, fixture and appurtenance which is eligible under the construction grant program. In fact, 40 CFR 35.917 -4 (b) states that facilities planning will be conducted only to the extent that the EPA Regional Administrator finds necessary in order to insure that facilities for which grant funds are awarded will be cost- effective and environmentally sound. Cost-effectiveness is ensured by reviewing possible project alternatives. The only alternative to installing emergency power generators is the no project alternative which is not a viable option since the prevention of raw sewage spills is required by the construction grants program. Environmental soundness would not be jeopardized by the addition of emergency power generators. Emergency power generators do not change either the environmental impact of the wastewater treatment system or the level of environmental review needed because neither the degree of treatment nor the capacity of the existing facility would be affected. In fact, the addition of emergency power generators increases environmental soundness. The emergency generators are a reasonable and necessary part of the treatment plant, within the amended scope of the grant. Furthermore, the emergency generators eliminate the public health threat associated with sewage spills and maintain the integrity of the wastewater treatment system. I hereby find that the emergency generators are eligible pursuant to 40 CFR 30.700 and 35.940-1 and that $58,299 previously disallowed is grant eligible. Eligible $58,299 Ineligible -0- CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the determinations of eligible and ineligible costs: C15-0060-02 COSTS CLAIMED ELIGIBLE INELIGIBLE Total Project Costs $6,923,095 $6,915,616 $ 7,479 Federal Share (75~) 5,192,322 5,186,713 5,609 C15-0062-06 COSTS CLAIMED ELIGIBLE INELIGIBLE Total Project Costs $ 347,794 $ 347,794 $ -0- Federal Share (75g) 260,845 260,845 -0- TOTAL AUDIT COSTS CLAIMED ELIGIBLE INELIGIBLE Total Project Costs $7,270,889 $7,263,410 $ 7,479 Federal Share (75$) $5,453,167 $5,447,558 $ 5,609 We have reviewed the project files and note the following 4 ~ A status of grant payments to date: Grant Number EPA C15-0060-02 $5,186,713 C15-0062-06 260,845 Total $5,447,558 If you accept the above-noted determinations, the final payments for these projects will be as follows: C15-0060-02 EPA Final Cost Determination $5,186,713 Paid to Date 5,186,713 Balance Due EPA $ -0- C15-0062-06 EPA Final Cost Determination $ 260,845 Paid to Date 260,845 Balance Due EPA $ -0- TOTAL AUDIT EPA Final Cost Determination $5,447,558 Paid to Date 5,447,558 Balance Due EPA $ -0- We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Meiling Lincoff at (415) 744-1944. Sincerely, Nora L. McGee Assistant Regional Administrator Office of Policy and Management cc: Ron Beeler, OIG Geary Pena, Sacramento-OIG Marie Leung, P-4-2-4 Rich Hennecke, P-2 Tiffanie Pang, P-4-2-1 Dennis Tulang, HDOH 5 a • COUNTY OF HAWAII. :...STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 95 54 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 94-70, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCING THEREOF FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 1994, TO JUNE 30, 1995. BE IT ORilAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 94-70, as amended, relating to public improvements and financing thereof for the fiscal year July 1, 1994, to June 30, 1995, is hereby amended by adding the following project: Department of Public Works Papaikou Collector System $2,362,500 SECTION 2. Funds for the foregoing projects shall be provided as follows: Federal Grant - Farmers Home $1,575,000 Farmers' Home Loan 787,500 $2,362,500 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY C UNC MBE COUNTY OF HAWAII cam: I~IWN~ G., Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: April 5, 1995 Date of 1st Reading: April 5, 1995 Date of 2nd Reading: April 19, 1995 Effective Date: April 26, 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PAPAIKOU SEWAGE TEATMENT PLANT PAPAIKOU, HAWAII BUREAU OF SEWERS & SANITATION COUNTY OF HAWAII CHUNG DHO AHN & ASSOCIATES, INC. HONOLULU, HAWAII ~ ~e• ~ ~ • - ~ SCI • . ~ i9~ ~.OV 'Lu P;~l ~E ~~XECU TIVE CHAMBERS NONOIULU -v JOHN A. BUFNS ~ ~ ...,.J November 15, 1973 Dear Mr. Harada: Subject: Environmental Impact StatE~ment for Papaikou Sewa4_e Treatment Plant, Papaikou. Har~aii Based upon the information contained in the subject environnental impact statement and the recommendation of the Office of Environmental Quality Control, I am pleased to approve this impact statement. Yours very truly, GE RGE F,. ARIYOSHI A ting Governor Mr. Edward Harada, Director ' Department of Public 4Jorks County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 cc: Dr. Richard Marland Mr. Fred Rodriguez G e• OE0110E R. ARIYOSHI RICHARD E. MARLAND, PM. D. • •~ti GOVERNOR ~ I I~ OPECTO,1 • ~'i I Z TELEPHONE NO. 516691 S STATE OF HAWAII ` ' OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR . 550 NALENAUWRA Si ROOM ]01 HONOLULU. HAWLU %Sq ' I September 14, 1976 Edward Harada, Jhief Engineer Department of Piblic Works County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 95720 SUBJECT: Supplemental Statement for Papaikou Sewage Treatment Plant, Papaikou, Hawaii Dear Pir. Harada, Zc? review of the supplemental assessment on the above subject, we note the chaige of site location for the proposed se:aaoe trey=meat plant to Mokiheia Bay. We have examined the environmental i~:p::cts and on behalf of the Governor we determine that the supplemental document to the EIS previously accepted under the Executive Order to be a negative declaration. We have filed the document with the Environmental Quality Commission in accordance with Chapter 343, Hawaii I Revised Statute. The determination will appear in the September •8, 1976 EQC Bulletin. If you should have futher questions regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to contact us again. S c rely; / hard Harland Di ector cc: EQC Governor George R..Ariyoshi R SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PAPAIKOU SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT BUREAU OF SEWERS 8~ SANITATION COUNTY OF HAWAII CHUNG DHO AHN & ASSOCIATES, INC. HONOLULU, HAWAII ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY CORPORATION SPECIAL CONSULTANT MAY, 1975 a T r INTRODUCTION ' The Environmental Impact Statement for Papaikou Sewage Treatment Plant was prepared by the County of Hawaii and ap- proved by the State on November 15, 1973. However, in the interim, the site of the treatment plant has been finalized and the treated effluent discharge point modified. This repart supplements the approved final Environmental Impact Statement and the Engineering Report. Within this re- port, the proposed action, anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed modifications, and alternatives considered will be desczibed. r PROPOSED ACTION Presently, raw sewage from four known sources and numer- ous cesspools are being discharged into the ocean, streams and ground. The proposed action calls for the callection, trans- . mission, and treatment of the raw sewage to a central facilit;r for treatment and disposal. Treatment of sewage before dispo- sal is a preventative measure to ensure the protection of pub- lic health and safety in addition to aesthetic considerations and the prevc+ntion of degradation of the environment. Raw sewage will be collected fram Paukaa, Puueopaku, ' Papaikou, and Onomea, and conveyed to the proposed wastewater treatment plant located on the bluff over Dlokihena Bay (Refer to Figure 1). f i~ Q The raw sewage upon reaching the wastewater treatment plant will undergo biological treatment. The proposed plant will employ an extended aeration modification of the activated Sludge treatment process without primary sedimentation (Refer to Figure 2a and Figure 2b). In this process, the wastewater will be pretreated by passing through a comminutor where the solid material is bro- ken into smaller pieces to protect plant equipment and prevent plugging of pipes. After comminution, the wastewater passes through a grin chamber which removes dense material such as gravel, sand, cinders, and egg shells. After pretreatment, the wastewater flows to the aeration tanks (biological reactor) where biological growth occurs. Basically, the process depends upon natural microorganisms growing under aerobic conditions to form flocculent aggregate (biomass) which absorb and fix fine suspended, colloidal and dissolved matter. The flocculent aggregates are the~i removed by sedimentation in the clarifier. The sediment (sludge) from the clarifier is pumped to the aerobic digester for treatment and the effluent from the clarifier is chlorinated prior to final disposal into the surf zone of the ocean. Aerobic 3igestion will be used for the stabilization of the sludge. This process involves the biological conversion of sludge through partial conversion of putresible matter into liquid, dissolved solids, and gaseous by-products with some destruction of pathogenic microorganisms. After the sludge has been digested, it will be dewatered by gravity filtration. The primary objective of the dewatering operation is to re- duce the sludge moisture content so that the physical form is changed from essentially that of a fluid to that of a damp solid. The <lewatered sludge will ther• be disposed of in County-operar_ed sanitary landfills. ENV I RONDIGNTA!. I DIPACT Majority of the short term envircnmental impacts will be related to the construction activitie_. Special precautions will be taken during site clearing and grading to prevent wr- due dust and soil erosion problems frcm wind and runoff. The Contractor w:.ll be required to conform to all applicable grad- ~ ing ordinances and special provisions written into the contra.t specifications. Noise and access problems are not anticipated to present serious problems. The project site selected for the treatment plant is not located adjacent to existing homes or residential areas nor will construction activities interfere with existing traffic flow patterns. As for the long term environmental impacts, both benefi- cial and adverse impacts are anticip~.ted. The primary bene- ficial impact will be the elimination of four known raw sewage ~ - discharges. The biological treatment of the wastewater will also improve the quality of the wastewater before being dis- charged into the environment. The amounts of substances presently entering the ocean, streams, and ground have been estimated (Refer to Table 1). The proprsed activated sludge treatment plant should si~- nificantly im,~rove the quality of the water being disc hared. The amount of nutrients, etc. after treatment have been esti- mated (Refer :o Table 1). Thereforr., although centralizati:~n of the treatment faci- lities for the treatment of wastewater necessitates the dis- charge of a greater volume of treated wastewater at one dis- charge point, the impact on the receiving waters should be minimized due to the removal of the p:llutant Load. Further- more, the quantities of pollutants an volume of treated ef- fluent when compared to the total natural runoff plays only a minor part 'in the offshore water quality. Also, t}ie great dilution capar_ity of the ocean and circulation in the area should greatl:~ minimize the effects of the treated discharge. The total area which will be affected is not knoirn. The shoreline at the point of discharge has limited ac- cessibility due to the 60-foot cliff. The extremely rough water also precludes the use of the area as potential recrea- tional sites for water contact activities such as swimming, and surfing. No conflict with existing and future public use of the area is anticipated. ADVERSE ENVIRONDIENTAL IbiPACT l4HICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED The major primary long term adverse environmental impact ' will be the commitment of approximately three acres for the plant site. Once the site is committei for use as a treatment plant site, it: cannot be used for agri=ultural activities or as a residential or recreational site. Also, the long term environmental impact of discharging treated effluent into the offshore waters, will not be knoti,m until the effluent is dis- charged for a long period of time. Ho.~ever, it is not anti- cipated that :he discharge of treated effluent will have an adverse impact on the offshore waters Furthermore, this method of discharge is not irreversib;.~ for less cost effec- tive methods ::uch as deep ocean outfa~.l or injection wells which are options available at a later date should the need arise. OPERATIONAL Il1PACT5 Odor A properly operated and maintained treatment facility will have no odor problems. However, as a precautionary measure, the following will be designed to mitigate odor ' problems should the problem arise: f { . 1 f ' I 1. The headworks will be covered. 2. Sludge will be completely digested before haul- ing to landFill for final disposal. Odor con- trol methods will also include masking asents. Noise Emergency standby generators will be equipped with residential type mufflers. Furthermore, the design of the structures in which the generators are housed, will have sufficient floor space for'*he installatio~i of sound insulation cubicles should the need arise. ALTERNATIVL-S CONSIDERED Treatment Sites Threw locations within the general vicinity were evaluated as potential sites for the treatment plant. These sites are marked as Sites "A", "B", and "C" on Figure 3. -The sites considered ,ire on land owned by Mauna Kea Sugar Company. ' An analysis of both the advantages and disadvantages of the three sites are as follows: Advantages of Site "A": 1. A relatively flat terrain, which would re- quire a minimum of lat. grading, thus de- creasing construction cost. 2. A greater lateral distance from the exist- ing residents, which would minimize com- • plaints about odor, appearance and noise. ` f 3. Allows gravity flow to the treatment plant site, thus lowering construction costs. 4. Traffic to and from treatment plant can use cane haul road, and thereby avoid interfer- ence with residential traffic. Disadvantages of Site "A": 1. An influent pump station to process the flog through the plant ma} be required because of the relatively flat terrain, thus increasing construction costs. 2. Land presently used for cane fields would be taken out of agricultural use. 3. A tendency of possible noise and odor prob- lems to be carried tr. wards residential area by the prevailing wind direction. 4. Visual appearance of the plant iaould he more Critical because of :its location in an open area. Traffic to and from the treatment plant 1 would hinder the cane haul operation. i Adva;stages of Site "B": 1. Allows gravity flow to the treatment plant ' site and also througl: the treatment platrt itself, which lowers construction costs. 2. A vertical separation from the level of the residential area and also its location nearer the stream puts it in an area shielded from public view. ` 3. Generally prevailing wind direction would direct any possible noises and odors away from the residential area. 4. Traffic to and from the treatment plant would not affect the cane haul operation. I r ~ ' S. Land is not suitable for ag.iculture; there- fore, losses of cane land are not imposed. Disadvantages of Site "B": ~ 1. The sloping terrain would require more grad- ing than for Site "A", thus increasing con- struction costs. 2. The lesser lateral distance from the resi- dential area, which could provoke complaints about possible noise and odors, if any. 3. Traffic to and £rom the treatment plant coull affect the local residential traffic. Advantages of Site "C": 1. Allows for gravity f!_ow to the treatment site. 2. Traffic to and from the plant will not inter- - fete with residentia;_ traffic; cane haul roal can be utilized. 3. Greater distance fron existing residential. areas. 4. Odoi problems should not present problems due to the distance Crom existing residential areas and prevailing wind direction. 5. Adjacent land will allow option for future plant expansion should the need arise. 6. The close proximity to the surf zone will decrease the cost of the effluent transmis- sion line. Disadvantages of Site "C": 1. Approximately three acres of land presently under sugar cane cultivation will be removed. 2. A separate access road to the plant is re- quired, thus increasing the construction cost. f After analysis of the three sites, it was decided that Site "C" would be best-suited for the proposed treatment plant. The basis of this decision was that the site location would be the furthest from existing residential areas, thus providing the best possible in- surance against complaints from edor and aesthetic prob- lems should these problems arise. Furthermore, the site will provide additional space for plant expansion should ' the need arise. Also, the close proximity to the surf zone will enable the utilization of this method for ef- fluent disposal. Alternative Treatment Process Liquid Portion i a. Alternative Primary treatment Basically, primary treatment of raga i wastewater involves ~r sedimentation process which removes a port'.on of the suspended I solids (SS) and flotables (60°s to 70o re- movable) with some reduction in the non- . soluable biochemical oxygen demand (BOD - I 25$ to 35$) and reduction of coliform bac- teria (approximately 25°s to 75a). Primary treatment as an alternative would provide an insufficient level of treatment and is not • i i ' i c ' 5 ~YIhO' ]!1!]Y ] I~ ~1 ~ a a.~~ ONOMEA PUMP STATION ~~l~Y~:~--Y ~ I~"\~ ~-UN SEWERABLE AREA ~L~, LINE ~A~ 12 ONOMEA TO PAPAIKOU ~ 1.]/. ~P 10 ~ _ ~y.,-~~i w I, ~ ~ ep~'~Y s,al,~ II C~:` TREATMENT PLANT -----i' i~''~ ~ ~ u p ! MGUMIU PT V_ ~ - i. U PUUEOPAKU - a ~ a I m LINE ~B~ PAUKAA TO PAPAIKOU a s a s I • 3 ~ 4 ~,~y~ ~1. . V41N1• Pt I -7 PAUKAA ~ _ I i ~]+el,~ ~ UNSEWERABLE AREA SEWAGE DRAINAGE h~; ~ . PAUKAA AREAS I PUh1P 1~ STATION ' ''+`'y,'`'+ I~~ Papaikou-Paukaa Sewage System Figure 1 • , ~J . 11t1V~~~== -1NNF V~ ~ ~ ~ i _ y ~ ~ _ ~ k! ~ ~ _ w ,Y W - ~ ~ Jl`-- ~ .O j~~ " ~ ~ I I ` ' ` ' k~ ' ' 4, DEPT. OF WATER SJPPLX - I ~ ~ ' ~ `Plp i, ~ PAPAIKOU WELL ~ ` ~ 1\ 1 11! I' s ~ ~PAPAIKOU ` ~ wind Rose ~ EFFLUI_\7 KAPU~~(_Re~~~ \ `J/ Jp DISCIi~1R~E ~ ~ ~ WA7PAIII POINT 1 \ SITE 'A' SITE 'B' / f1AUNA I<EA SUGAF, (`1ILL • ~ MAUMAU PT. C+.f !I - t . ~'i i i ALTERNATE PLANT SITES Papaikou-Paukaa Sewage System Figure 3 r ~y~'~ l ~ lye r ~ HA 4 r ` ; 4x. ~1'yyy~. i"A K• }r~ ~ W ~ y,~~~21 !'may' 9A 'Y''~.C I ~ 17 t""~ ~'~4~ ~ 3t _ ~ Ij/ --5t, > Jr ll /S -F' \ 4 ' A ' 72~ \ i ~~r A, c a~ s r f l w.r ~ 'L, ~P'• f ~ - ^~lyyy~ a M f ~ ~~w7 s" / ...1 - : ~ f ~ ~ .fir-.lllslr ~ _ ~ P „ ~.4~'~ K ~ ~ e~ ~ , .mow ~r ~i~ ~rI" ~Wb .w~~' ~ r .._M A ww'/ f*• '~f ~T+ 't1~ v ~..W~'.UMVMi r.v.. ,fm,~~ ~~.W ~~~.a: .A y F a. L j ` :a _ Y Y. r "ilnf j~ Y F a~ • rl~~... ~ , ~ - ~ ~ 1.f ~ \ ~ ~~1 a { t 1. f \ 1, ~ ..r+ti'K' ~ e~r },urs,.- Ji f: rx~ r b'~ -.-.k-. ' ~ ~ ~ 1~Jy { C,~~~-hO~IS J C~rlC1(Y)lt~ ~ ~~l 7_~ , II DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The recommended action entails the design and construction of a secondary treatment sewage treatment plant with design flows to initially treat 180,000 gallons per day, and an ultimate treat- ment of 350,000 gallons per day. This: ultimate rate is based on an existing population of 3,200 people. Due to high rainfall in the area, investigation may show that there will be high infil- tration in this area. Peak wet weathE,r flows can be assumed to 3.5 times the design flows. The treatment plant should include: Grit chamber communitor, aeration tan}:s, settling tanks, aerated sludge digestor tanks, blower-chlorin~:tor system, chlorine con- tact chamber and sludge dewatering unit. The exact location of the proposed facility and discharge points have not been finalized at this time. Availability of land for the facility will be provided by Papaikou mill management and is predicated on the degree of treatment required under State Health Department rules and regulations. At the present time the plant is approximately an acre in size and the proposed location site is indicated on the project site map. The desired location would provide for discharge into Kapue Stream which has been de- termined to be an acceptable solution to discharge of treated effluent. =6- Also under study are transmission lines which would carry sewage from Paukaa residential subdivision to the proposed facility. The inclusion of transmission lines within this pro- ject and therefore the size of the plant will be dependent upon the engineering study. I ` -7- I