The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0677.000 2002-2004 ~NyY,OF~y~_ Harry Kim ~ I~~a Dixie Kaetsu Mayor Managing Director M ` ~rE-OF.~'.~1 Peter L. Hendricks COUNTY OF I~AWAII Deputy Managing Director 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808) 961-8211 • Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808)329-5226 • Fax (808)326-5663 June 30, 2004 . - r- - - - The Honorable Chairman James Y. Arakaki - and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii ~ Hilo, HI 96720 ~_t.. Dear Chairman Arakaki and Council Members: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State of Hawaii Department of Health (DOH), and the County of Hawaii (County), will be commencing work of removing waste from the Hilo Bayfront Recreation area shortly. This joint project is expected to begin in mid-July and should take about four weeks to complete. Attached for your information is the fact sheet regarding the project, and a brief from the EPA explaining how and why this method of disposition was selected. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you. Sincerely, v, > :f `a'1 A.. # Y~ Wendell Hatada Executive Assistant Attachments ~omrn. No. Ref. To; b ~ Hawaii County is an Egual Opportunity Provider and Employer Ref. ~3qt~ ~ ® HILO -BURRITO v EPA TO REMOVE WASTE FROM HILO BAYFRONT RECREATION AREA Hilo, Hawaii The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with assistance from [he Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) and Hawaii County (County), will remove several thousand cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris from the Hilo Bayfront area near Ponahawai Street. Most of this soil and debris are wrapped and buried in a plastic cell (the "burrito") near the flood control levee which was buih as the Alenaio Stream Flood Control Project (see map). The soil and debris were left over following the dest7uc[lon of the Hilo Gas Company (a gas manufacturing plant) in [he 1960 Tsunami. Two community meetings will be held to discuss [he upcoming removal project and answer any questions the public may have (see box below). Background ~ v~L~ ~ ; Following the tsunami of 1960, the State of ~~V y Hawaii designated this Bayfront area a "Tsu- Hlb HAWaI'i r f nami Buffer Zone° and created a recreation azea. ° e a~ The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) then y ` ~vt Hib BtJRito constructed a concrete flood control channel, N~'j•~ruueo S~LOCn~ retention pond and levee to help prevent the Am•~ul~y An " b ~ ~ MoxeoRu flooding of downtown Hilo during major ~ g g storms. The retention and and levee were built ~ ~ ~ on the former Hilo Gas Company property. , ~'°Y q ~~s ~ ,;w~~_ s ~ It was during this construction that the Corps vr. ~ ~ ~ n, 8 discovered contamination from gas company opera- °~Y° e,`' , ~ as ` ~rry $ P~INm St ` t.• s ~ lions just below the ground surface. The contami- y~ s S'~j wa~akea nation was primarlly volatile and semi-volatile ~ a .N~ o s, polyazomatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Volatile means ~ ~ L+'a^i s' the substance readily transfers to the air. PAHs ~ ~"1 ~ we u•m~•~~a s, come from gas manufacturing processes and can be potentially harmful to human health. The Corps attempted to bioremediate the waste (using natural processes to destroy the hazardous componenu); however, this procedure was not totally effective. The waste was then dug up and encapsulated in a plastic "butrito" neaz the flood control levee. • - • • • • • • 11 • 11 • • ~ • • 1 • ~ Besides the waste in the °buMto," additlonal How Long Will It Take and How Will the similar contamination from the Hilo Gas Com- COmmUnlt~/ fie Affected? pony operations has since been found next to the retention pond. Due to this area being susceptible EPA removal actlons such as this are quick and effectlve to tsunamis and flooding which could expose and means of dealing with this type of situatlon. This Hilo spread the contaminator, it is important to Burrito project should take approximately three to four weeks remove the potentlal for people or the ecosystem from setup to completion. The antldpated start date for to come in contact with the waste. In August mobilizing staff and equipment is the week of July 12, 2004, 2003, DOH requested help from EPA in removing With removal activities beginning the following week. While the waste. the work is going on, the public may see workers wearing protectlve clothing. This does not mean the public is at risk What Will EPA and DOH Do? from the site or cleanup activities. As part of the site health EPA's plan for eliminating the threat posed by this and safety plan, workers must protect themselves due to contamination is to remove the waste that is in the regular and close proximity to contaminated substances. "burrito". As part of this effort, DOH will remove people in the area may experience some nuisance factors the waste next to the retention pond. EPA will associated with this type of project. That may include perl- then regrade the affected side of the levee to odic odor from some of the contaminants at the removal site maintain the proper slope for flood control. The that may smell like mothballs. EPA will do all it can to removed soils and debris will be transported to and minimize the odor using anon-hazardous foam. Air monitor- used at the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill at ing will be ongoing to ensure that potentially hazardous levels Pu'uanahulu, the only landfill on the island per- of contamination do not go off site. In additlon, there will be milted to handle such waste. Anew municipal some equipment noise associated with the digging and remov- waste cell at the landfill is being prepared, and the ing of dirt. Trucks transporting the material to the landfill at waste from the "burrito" project will serve as the pu'uanahulu may also periodically increase traffic and noise initial layer of "select waste' required for the new during the few weeks of the operation. EPA will work with cell. This will reduce the County's cost for prepar- the local communities to keep this inconvenience to a minc- ing the cell to receive County municipal waste. mum. For More Information If you have questions or concerns about the Hilo Burrito project or the public meetings, please contact any of the people listed below: Craig Benson Vicki Rosen EPA On-Scene Coordinator EPA Community Involvement Coordinator (562) 889-1630 (415) 972-3244 Craig and Vicki can also be reached toll-free at: (800) 231-3075. Please leave a message and your call will be returned. EPA Honolulu Office: Hawaii Department of Health: Dean I-liguchi Mike Crlpps EPA Press Officer State On-Scene Coordinator (808) 541-2711 (808) 586-4249 Hawai i County: Wendell Hatada Mayor's Office (808) 961-8223 Printed wr 30% Posfcasumer GL Recycled rRecyGade Paper ,~SSE05}q}FS A r„ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ~ REGION IX 1jE~T9( FF~,COS 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 June 28, 2004 Wendell M. IIatada Executive Assistant County of Hawaii Office of the Mayor 25 Aupuni Street, Room 2 ] 5 Hilo, fII 96720-4252 Re: Hilo Burrito Project Removal Action Alternatives Several ahernative technologies were evaluated for the treatment or disposal of wastes associated with the Hilo Burrito Site (Site). The selected remedy was chosen in consultation with EPA's Emergency Response Team (ER'f), EPA Region IX Waste Management Division personnel, Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH) officials and individuals within various County agencies. Several factors were evaluated. Chief among these is the analytical data set generated during the EPA removal assessment. This data set demonstrated that the waste is not a hazardous waste under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The data set also confirmed that several polycylic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds were present in elevated concentrations, frequently at levels that exceed State and Federal goals. PAHs are a group of chemicals that arc formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, wood, garbage, or other organic substances and are very common contaminants at former manufactured gas plant site cleanups nationwide. Several technologies were evaluated for this project. Thermal desorption is a treatment technology in which organic chemical constituents in contaminated soil volatilize as a result of heating. The volatilized constituents are then extracted from nonvolatile materials, such as soil, and treated prior to release. Based on Qic analytical data, waste volume and pre-treatment requirements, ERT experts have advised me that off-site thermal treatment for the Hilo Burrito wastestream is not appropriate. Co-burning is defined as combustion of wastes with coal iu utility boilers and cement kilns. Co-burning site wastes with coal at the Hilo Coast Power Company facility was evaluated and ultimately dismissed due to ash and emissions control concerns, regulatory program issues, and au impractically slow contaminated soil loading rate. I3ioremediation techniques create a favorable environment for microorganisms to use contaminants as a food and energy source. Bioremediation can be an effective treatment alternative for many organic compounds, but has been shown to be largely ineffective for the complex PAH compounds present in waste on the site. In the period preceding construction of the Alenaio Stream Flood Control Project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers attempted to bioremediate contaminated areas in-place. This unsuccessful campaign ultimately led to the recommendation for excavation and temporary placement in the Burrito feature. The Site location precludes any ability to utilize on-site treatment, containment, or any stabilization/solidification type remedy. The above-ground Burrito feature and nearby shallow subsurface wastes are located in an area of abnormally high rainfall (>200 cm per year), highly subject to periodic tsunamis, and located in a park in an urban, waterfront area. In fact, these same attributes, along with the temporary nature of the Burrito, provide the most compelling justifications for the proposed time-critical removal action. Disposal of Site wastes in a RCRA Subtitle D municipal landfill is permissible due to the non-hazardous nature of the contaminated soils. Two such facilities exist on Hawaii, the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill and the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill. The Hilo facility has received site related wastes in the past (PAH contaminated soccer field sediments) and operates in compliance with RCRA standards. The facility was, however, originally constructed prior to the promulgation of certain standards and does not operate with a liner and leachate collection system. 7'he absence of these engineering controls prevents the South Hilo Landfill from being considered for the disposal of CERCLA generated wastes. The West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill is a full RCRA Subtitle D managed facility with all engineering and operational controls in-place. EPA has performed an on-site review and conferred with State and County regulatory personnel concerning the operational status of the facility. Site contaminated soils and debris have been accepted for disposal at the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill under the terms of the conditional approval for acceptance of project waste prepared by the IPA Regional CERCLA Off-Site Rule Coordinator (ref. 40 CFR §300.440). Disposal conditions include the use of Site wastes as a component of the operations layer and cushioning layer protecting the bottom liner of the designated landfill cell. Because there arc no acceptable on-site alternatives, Site wastes (approx. 7,000 ton estimate) must be transported off=site. This would be true regardless of the choice of final remedy (i.e., transport to an off-site treatment location or disposal location). Oftentimes, off-site treatment requires two waste handling and transportation sequences (once to the treatment location a,rd a second time for the treatment residues to be transported to the landfill). Disposal at the West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill is a protective and cost-effective on-island solution for Site wastes. While not a factor in remedy selection, Sile wastes are suitable for v~d will be used as part of the necessary cushioning and bottom liner protection layer accessary for the facilities new municipal waste cell. Direct extramural costs for the chosen remedy are estimated at approximately $750,000. Direct extramural costs for the same remedy at a mainland facility are estimated at over $3 million, highlighting the expense associated with transportation. 2 hhe selected remedy allows both the State and County to contribute to this CERCLA removal action in meaningful ways. The State will take the lead for a specific phase of the project utilizing State resources and fw~ding from the Environmental Response Revolving Fund. The County is reducing the tipping fces for Site wastes at the County owned Wesi Hawaii Sanitary Landfill among other logistical support activities. We look forward to working together to complete this action and eliminate the point source contamination threat to the Hilo Bayfront area. Sincerely, Craig Benson Federal On-Scene Coordinator U.S. EPA 2250 Obispo Ave., Suite ] 01 Signal Hill, CA 90755 (562)889-1630 3