HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1078.000 1996-1998
~Y OF „q
pM..•Cf wq.
lldr~
Stephen K. Yamashiro
May.,
a'•;F.
r~r oi•H~:t~
&Un#g of '(?Ka(Vn1i
OFFICE OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
50 Wailuku Drive • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-2484
VITT (808) 961-8379 • FAX (808) 961-8685
November 13, 1998
The Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
Hawai'i County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
SUBJECT: 1997 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
Former Family Crisis Shelter -
Demolition Project
Final Federal Environmental Assessment
The office of Housing and Community Development has enclosed the
final executed Federal Environmental Assessment for the former
Family Crisis Shelter - Demolition Project for your files and
information.
Also, for your information, a public notice of Finding of No
Significant Impact and Notice of Intent of Request Release of
Funds will be published in the Hawai'i Tribune Herald newspaper
on November 15, 1998.
Should you have any questions, please call Brian Ishimoto at
ext. 8379.
/'z
Edwin S.f9'Taira-
Assistant Housing Administrator
Enclosure oDmm No, /073
S6
xc: Stephen K. Yamashiro, Mayor, (w/encl. ) 111le No.
William Moore, William Moore Planning (w/encl.) Aaf T(H
ad. ny 16
7137C.BMI
EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY
-AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER'
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORMER FAMILY CRISIS SHELTER DEMOLITION
APPLICANT: Hawaii County Office of Housing and Community Development
50 Wailuku Drive
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
CONSULTANT:
William L. Moore Planning
159 Halai Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
LOCATION: Hilo, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii
TMK: (3rd): 2-2-41:10
CLASS OF ACTION: Use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Community Development Block Grant Funds
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES
singAdministrator Date
Hawaii County Office of Housing
community Develop m^~ V
NOV 0 2 199A
Virginia Goldstein, Dire for Date
0
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND Dat
LEGALITY:
Deputy Corporation Co se
County of Hawaii ent is prepared pursuant to.
Q i Act, (Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes [HRSI):
Date: =panment of Health Administrative Rules (HAR):
olicy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(0); and
ntal Procedures under HUD (24 CFR Pan 58).
f
Finding of No Significant Impact on the Environment and Request Release of Funds (Combined
Notice :
(1) Date FONSI/RROF published in local newspaper:
(2) Last day for recipient to receive comments:
(3) Last day for HUD to receive comments: _
(4) Date FONSI transmitted to Federal, State, or local governmental agencies
or interested groups or individuals: G
(5) Date HUD released grant conditions:
Findinz of No Significant Impact (Hawaii Only
(1) Date FONSI Declaration published in OEQC Bulletin: n/a
(2) Date on which 60-day waiting period expires: n/a
(3) Documentation Attached: _x Yes _ No.
See Determination of Exempt Class of Action at end of App. 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART l: PROJECT LOCATION, PURPOSE AND NEED I
1.1 Project Location and Land Ownership 1
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action 1
1.3 Summary of Regulatory Requirements 1
1.4 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination 2
PART 2: ALTERNATIVES 4
2.1 Proposed Project 4
2.2 Alternatives Evaluated and Dismissed 4
2.3 No Action 4
PART 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION........... 5
3.1 Basic Geographic Setting 5
3.2 Physical Environment 5
3.2.1 Drainage 5
3.2.2 Lava Flow and Earthquake Hazards 5
3.2.3 Flora, Fauna and Ecosystems 6
3.2.4 Air Quality, Noise and Scenic Resources 7
3.2.5 Hazardous Substances/Toxic Waste 7
3.3 Socioeconomic and Cultural 8
3.3.1 Land Use Designations and Controls 8
3.3.1 Socioeconomic Characteristics 9
3.3.2 Archaeology and Historic Sites 10
3.4 Public Facilities and Services 10
3.5 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 11
3.6 r Required Permits and Approvals 11
3.7 Consistency With Government Plans and Policies 11
REFERENCES 12
APPENDIX I COMMENT LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
IN RESPONSE TO PRE-CONSULTATION: LETTER TO NEIGHBORS
APPENDIX 2 LOCATION MAP/PHOTOGRAPH
APPENDIX 3 HAWAII COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
APPENDIX 4 HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY
APPENDIX5 TREE REPORT
APPENDIX 6 LEAD-BASED PAINT AND ASBESTOS SURVEY
APPENDIX 7 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATE OF HAWAII
i
PART 1: PROJECT LOCATION, PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 Project Location and Land Ownership
The proposed project is located at 2020 Kinoole Street, TMK 2-2-41: 10, in the town of
Hilo, island of Hawaii. The latitude and longitude of the site is 19° 41.4' N. Lat.,
155° 04.2' W. Long. (Fig. l). The property is owned by the County of Hawaii.
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action
The County of Hawaii acquired this site and structure in the 1980s as part of an earlier
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) project to develop a Family Crisis
Shelter. This operation has since relocated to Kona. The County would like to
continue to use this area for special need purposes eligible under the CDBG program.
Unfortunately, it has been determined by the Hawaii County Department of Public
Works (DPW) that because of structural damage and deficiencies, including dry rot,
termite damage, and non-standard features, rehabilitating the structure would be far
more expensive than demolishing and building a new facility. The purpose of the
project is to promote a site that will provide an appropriate location for Special Need
projects.
1.3 Summary of Regulatory Requirements
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA), was enacted by
the U.S. Congress to require Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of
Federal actions as part of the decision-making process. The Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) developed regulations that specifies how Federal agencies must
implement NEPA. These CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of NEPA are codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500
through 1508. The CEQ regulations require Federal agencies to conduct an
investigation and evaluation of alternatives as part of the environmental impact analysis
process, prior to making decisions that may impact the environment. The regulations of
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for implementing
NEPA are promulgated at 24 CFR Part 58.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) process was conducted in accordance with
NEPA, as well as CEQ's and HUD's implementing regulations. According to NEPA
and its implementing regulations, an EA is prepared to determine whether or not a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) sufficiently documents the consequences of
a proposed action. When an EA supports a FONSI, the EA and its associated FONS1
satisfies the proponent's need to comply with NEPA. When the EA does not support a
FONSI, a Notice of Intent is prepared and the EA facilitates preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Therefore, if this study concludes that no
1
significant impacts would occur from implementation of the proposed action, a FONSI
will be prepared and the action will be permitted to occur. If this study finds that
significant impacts are expected to occur as a result of the proposed action, then
either an EIS would be prepared or mitigation measures would be implemented to
reduce all impacts to insignificant levels.
Chapter 343 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) is the basis for the environmental
impact process in the State of Hawaii. The content requirements and procedures of
Chapter 343, FIRS, and its implementing regulations, Title 11, Chapter 200, of the
Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), are similar to NEPA and its implementing
regulations. A major additional requirement is the need to explicitly evaluate whether
impacts are significant according to thirteen specific criteria.
OHCD has determined that the demolition is exempt from the Hawaii Environmental
Impact Statement Law (Chapter 343, HRS), per the following administrative rule:
§11-200-8(a)(8): Demolition of structures, except those structures located on
any historic site as designated in the national register or Hawaii register as
provided for in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law
89-665, 16 U.S.C §470 as amended, or chapter 6E, FIRS;
Therefore, this Environmental Assessment is meant to fulfill federal laws and
regulations only. It should be emphasized that this Environmental Assessment covers
demolition of the structure only and does not address any impacts from future use of
the site.
1.4 Pu~lic Involvement and Agency Coordination
The following agencies, organizations and individuals have been consulted during the
Environmental Assessment Process:
Count:
Planning Department Public Works Department
County Council Fire Department
State:
Department of Land and Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division
Department of Health
2
Federal:
Fish and Wildlife Service
Private:
Neighboring Property Owners
A copy of the letter that went out to neighboring property owners and all
communications received during preconsultation are contained in Appendix 1.
i y
3
PART 2: ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Proposed Proiect
The County of Hawaii proposes to spend up to $100,000 of Community Development
Block Grant funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to plan, design, tests and demolish the former Family Crisis Shelter at 2020
Kinoole Street in Hilo, Hawaii (Fig. 2).
The demolition would take place during 1999.
2.2 Alternatives Evaluated and Dismissed
The County of Hawaii also considered full or partial rehabilitation of the structure for
use in one of its programs. A detailed inspection by the Building Division of the
Hawaii County Department of Public Works concluded that rehabilitating the structure
would cost approximately $1,000,000. A new structure with similar floor space
specifically designed for a particular program would cost less than half this amount. It
was thus concluded that the rehabilitation alternative was unreasonable.
2.3 No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, the property would remain as-is. Because the cost of
rehabilitating the structure would preclude it from occupancy by other special needs
programs, it is likely the building would remain empty.
i
4
PART 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND PROPOSED
MITIGATION MEASURES
3.1 Basic Geographic Setting
The structure is located on a level, 1.0-acre lot on the southwest corner of Kinoole
and Kahaopea Streets, at an elevation of 145 feet above mean sea level. The surface
geology of the site consists of basalt lava flows from Mauna Loa with a date of
approximately 9 ka (Wolfe and Morris 1996)
The soil that has developed on this substrate is classified as Olaa extremely stony silty
clay loam. This soil has been used for sugarcane. Typically, it has a 16-inch surface
layer of extremely stony, very dark brown silty clay loam, overlying a subsoil and
fragmental `a`a at about 25 inches in depth. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and
erosion hazard is slight. (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1973).
Annual rainfall is approximately 130 inches (Giambelucca et al 1986).
The lot contains one structure and a landscaped yard that has become somewhat
overgrown since the Family Crisis Shelter was closed in 1995.
3.2 Physical Environment
3.2.1 Drainage
Existing Conditions and Impacts
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map dated September 16, 1988 (Panel No.
155166 0880C) for the area designates the site within Zone X, which is defined as
areas outside the 500 year flood plain. There are no known flooding problems on the
site.
3.2.2, Lava Flow and Earthquake Hazards
Existing Conditions and Impacts
The entire Big Island is subject to geologic hazards, especially lava flows and
earthquakes. The project site is located in Lava Flow Hazard Zone 3 (on a scale of
ascending risk 9 to 1). Zone 3 is considered "less hazardous than [Z]one 2 [which is
adjacent to and downslope of active risk zones] because of greater distance from
recently active vents and/or because the topography makes it less likely that flows will
cover these areas" (Heliker 1990). As such, there is some risk of lava inundation over
relatively short time scales.
5
In terms of seismic risk, the entire Island of Hawaii is rated Zone 4 Seismic
Probability Rating (Uniform Building Code, Appendix Chapter 25, Section 2518).
Zone 4 areas are at risk from major earthquake damage, especially to structures that
are poorly designed or built. Partly owing to the lack of unconsolidated sediments in
the local substrate, none of the several earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6.0 or
greater that have occurred in the Hilo area since 1950 has caused substantial damage
to well-engineered roads, bridges or other roadway structures.
In general, geologic conditions impose no constraints on either demolition of the
structure or future construction. Although the area is exposed to geologic hazard, any
facility that would service residents of this area must be located within such an area,
and there are thus no reasonable alternatives.
3.2.3 Flora. Fauna. Ecosystems and Threatened and Endangered Species
Flora, Fauna and Ecosystems
The project was inspected for biological resources in June of 1998. The entire parcel
is landscaped and somewhat overgrown with weeds. A wide variety of ornamental
species, almost entirely alien, are present. There is no habitat that would appear
valuable for native terrestrial or aquatic species. The disturbed, urban qualities of the
site make it poorly suited for habitat native fauna habitat.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies undertaking
act}ons that may affect listed or candidate endangered species to consult with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This agency was consulted via letter regarding the
potential presence of listed, candidate or proposed threatened or endangered animal or
plant species in the area. In its response (see Appendix 1), the agency did not
indicate the presence of such species, and no listed, candidate or proposed endangered
animal or plant species were found on the property during inspection. In terms of
conse{vation value, it would appear that no botanical or zoological resources requiring
special protection are present.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Because of the lack of native flora and fauna, no adverse impacts would occur as a
result of clearing and future construction. According to the USFWS letter of 1 July
1998 (see Appendix 1), "no significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources
are expected to result" from the project.
6
3.2.4 Air Quality. Noise. and Scenic Resources
Environmental Setting
Air pollution in the Hilo area from manmade sources is minimal. Volcanic emissions
of sulfur dioxide convert into particulate sulfate which causes a volcanic haze (vog) to
blanket the area when during occasional episodes when trade winds are not present.
The site is located within attainment area and not adjacent to a CO source that
generates CO in excess of 8 hour standard of 10 mg/m3 at project site.
Ambient noise is derived from traffic on Kinoole Street, the shopping complex across
Kahaopea Street, and adjacent roads, residences and businesses. A general inspection
of the site determined that it is not subject to current or projected noise levels that
exceed 65 LDN (day-night average sound level, in decibels)
The site has little scenic value, other than the modest contribution of its architecture
and landscaping to the ambience of the residential neighborhood.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The project would not affect air quality. Demolition of the structure would produce
very short-term, low-level noise impacts that would not require mitigation other than
standard scheduling restrictions.
Some impact to the visual quality of the site would occur because of the loss of an
attractive home and at least some landscaping. These will be mitigated when a new
structure is built and landscaping is installed. It must be recognized that because of
the dilapidated condition of the home, the overgrown landscaping, and the unsightly
chain link fence around the lot, the demolition is a necessary stage towards restoring
the scenic value of the site.
The project supports profuse vegetation, including several dozen large trees. A lack
of maintenance over the last two years has left the trees in need of trimming. In
order to determine whether any trees were termite infested, posed a danger to future
uses or otherwise required removal or trimming, a tree expert evaluated the property.
The report, attached as Appendix 5, inventoried the trees on the site and
recommended various courses of action for each tree in order to provide an attractive
landscape of healthy trees while removing invasive (e.g., epiphytic banyans) and
overgrown vegetation. This information will be available for future users of the site.
3.2.5 Hazardous Substances/Toxic Waste
Based on onsite inspection and information on file, it appears that this area is not
subject to hazards from explosive or flammable fuels, other hazardous chemicals or
7
radioactive materials, nor does it involve the siting of sanitary landfills or closing of
open dumps. The project is not located near a Clear Zone at a civil or military
airfield nor in or near an Accident Potential Zone at a military airfield.
The project is a federal activity involving demolition and disposal of materials that
potentially contain lead and/or asbestos. Therefore, pursuant to federal and state laws
and regulations[, a survey to identify lead-based paint and asbestos was conducted by
an environmental engineer and industrial hygienist. Appendix 6 contains the full
report, which is summarized below.
As expected in residences built during this period, the survey identified non-friable
asbestos and lead-based paint on several materials.
Asbestos was found in the kitchen sink undercoating and linoleum floor covering. The
area of non-friable asbestos is sufficient to require notification of the Hawaii State
Department of Health. Lead-based paint was identified on the exterior paint. Such
paint, if improperly handled, may expose construction workers to lead, may produce
lead dust, or may generate waste stream material with high lead concentrations. In
addition, arsenic-containing material (canec ceiling) was also identified.
Mitigation Measure: The County of Hawaii will notify the Hawaii State
Department of Health, Indoor Air Quality Branch, at least 10 days prior to
demolition, in conformance with 40 CFR 61, National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants. The County of Hawaii will ensure that
specifications to the demolition contractor will contain instructions for proper
demolition techniques, awareness training, protective equipment, air
j monitoring, collection, and disposal.
3.3 Socioeconomic and Cultural
3.3.1 Land Use. Designations and Controls
Existing Environment
The property is located within the Urban State Land Use District and is zoned in the
RS-10 (Single-Family Residential, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum) District. The property is
not located within the Special Management Area (SMA). The Kinoole Street
frontage has a 5-foot wide setback to allow for future widening. Currently the
property is vacant and has no active uses.
' For asbestos: 40 CFR 61.145; 29 CFR 1926.5, and Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 12, Chapter
145.1; for lead: 29 CFR 1910.1025, and HAR Title 12, Chapter 148.1.
8
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed demolition is consistent with uses permitted in these regulatory areas.
No rezoning, land use reclassification, or other land use permits are anticipated.
3.3.2 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Existing Environment
The project occurs within and would both affect and benefit the district of South Hilo.
Table 1 provides information on the socioeconomic characteristics of this area, along
with those of Hawaii County as a whole for comparison.
Table 1
Selected Social Characteristics
GEOGRAPHIC
AREAS
CHARACTERISTIC Hawaii South
Island Hilo
Total Population 120,317 39,737
Percent Asian 37.8 59.4
Percent Hawaiian 19.2 12.6
Percent Under 18 Years 28.7 27.2
Percent Over 65 Years 12.6 13.5
Percent 10-64 Years With Work 13.0 19.9
Disability/Mobility/Self Care Limit.
Percent Over 25 Years With High School Diploma 77.7 78.4
Percent Over 16 Yrs in Labor Force 64.2 62.1
Median Household Income $33,186 $29,967
Percent in Poverty 14.2 14.3
Percent Owner Occupied Housing 61.1 62.6
Median Contract Rent Value $428 $371
Median Home Price $113,000 $110,700
Source: Bureau of the ensus -"1990 Census of Population. General Population Characteristics," 190 CP-I-13
and "1990 Census of Population. Housing, Sutttmary Population and Housing Characteristics," 1990 CPH-I-13.
Notes: Asian percentage includes non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders.
9
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The socioeconomic impacts from the project will be beneficial in that the property will
be available for future special needs project such as group homes.
3.3.3 Archaeology and Historic Sites
Environmental Setting
The structure was built in 1934, and is thus older than 50 years. When such structures
are affected by federal actions, determination of their eligibility for listing to the
National Register of Historic Places is required under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, the County of Hawaii consulted with the State
Historic Preservation Division (SHPD).
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The SHPD requested the County to photodocument the structure and to complete an
historic resources inventory form. These were accomplished and are provided as
Appendix 4.
The SHPD concluded in a letter of 9 July 1998 (see Appendix 1):
"The building has major structural and termite damage, and has been altered
significantly, and will be photographically documented prior to demolition.
f Therefore, we believe that the proposed demolition should have "no effect" on
any known historic sites."
Mitigation Measures: If any artifacts, charcoal deposits, or human remains are
discovered during demolition, work will immediately cease and SHPD will be
consulted to determine the appropriate mitigation.
3.4 Public Facilities and Services
The site is serviced by public infrastructure, including a County road, electric and
phone lines, and water service. No direct or indirect impact to these facilities would
occur as a result of the project. No future development or use options would be
foreclosed. The County is aware that the property is subject to a 5-foot wide setback
on the Kinoole Street frontage to accommodate future widening, although in the context
of the 1.0-acre size of the property, this condition does not substantially restrict any
future plans for similar uses.
10
Although fire and police responses to the site may occasionally be necessary (as they
were in the past) if the site is used for future special needs projects, no adverse
impact on these services is to be expected as a result of the proposed demolition or
any future construction.
3.5 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
The project would not involve commitment to larger actions or otherwise induce
secondary impacts. It is expected that the site will in the future be used for the same
sort of social service functions for which it has been used in the past.
3.6 Required Permits and Approvals
The demolition will require the following permits or approvals:
County of Hawaii:
Demolition Permit
State of Hawaii:
Notification of Hawaii State Department of Health
3.7 Consistency With Government Plans and Policies
The proposed project is consistent with the Hawaii County General Plan, which
encourages "the provision of public facilities that effectively service community needs
through better and more functional facilities in keeping with the environmental and
aesthetic concerns of the community" (Hawaii County Planning Department 1989:7),
and includes group homes and similar facilities in permitted uses in the Single-Family
Residential Zone.
i
11
REFERENCES
Giambelucca, T.W., Nullet, M.A., and T.A. Schroeder. 1986. Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii.
Honolulu: Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Hawaii County Planning Department. 1989. Hawaii County General Plan. Hilo: Planning
Dept.
Heliker, C. 1990. Volcanic and Seismic Hazards on the Island of Hawaii. Washington: U.S.
GPO.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1991. 1990 Census of Population, General Population
Characteristics. 1990 CP-1-13. Washington: GPO.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii.
Washington: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service.
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Dept. of Geography. 1983. Atlas of Hawaii. 2nd ed.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Wolfe, E.W., and J. Morris. 1996. Geologic Map of the Island of Hawaii. USGS Misc
Investigations Series Map i-2524-A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey.
r
APPENDIX 1
COMMENT LETTERS
FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
IN RESPONSE TO PRE-CONSULTATION
WILLIAM L. MOORE PLANNING
159 HALAI STREET
HILo, HAWAII 96720
(808) 935-0311/Fax (808) 9344162
County of Hawaii Plans to Demolish Former Family Crisis Shelter
TO: Neighbors of Former Family Crisis Shelter
FROM: Bill Moore, William L. Moore Planning
DATE: September 1, 1998
The County of Hawaii is proposing to spend Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to demolish the former
Family Crisis Shelter at 2020 Kinoole Street, in Hilo, Hawaii. The County of Hawaii acquired
this site and structure as part of an earlier CDBG project to develop a Family Crisis Shelter. This
operation has since relocated to Kona. The County would like to continue to use this area for
special need purposes eligible under the CDBG program. Unfortunately, the Hawaii County
Department of Public Works has determined that because of structural damage and deficiencies,
including dry rot, termite damage, and non-standard features, rehabilitating the structure would
be far more expensive than demolishing and constructing a new facility.
The County is preparing a Draft Environmental Assessment in compliance with federal
environmental assessment guidelines. William L. Moore Planning has been contracted to assist
in the preparation of the document and to initiate agency coordination.
i
The areas of investigation in the Environmental Assessment will include but not be limited to the
following: water quality assurance; wastewater treatment; flora, fauna, and ecosystems; traffic
impacts; geology, soils, and hazards; flooding and drainage impacts; social and community
impacts; historic sites; and economic impacts. Because the structure is believed to contain lead
paint and asbestos, particular attention will be paid to the demolition plan.
If you have any questions regarding the demolition or the Environmental Assessment process,
please contact Ron Terry at 982-5831, who is working with William L. Moore Planning on the
project, or Brian Ishimoto of the Hawaii County Office of Housing and Community Development
at 961-8379.
Sincerely,
William L. Moore
attachments
cc: Ron Terry, Geometrician
Brian Ishimoto, Office of Housing and Community Development
LEE SCALE
Demolition of Former MAKANI
Family Crist Shelter s
TMK: 2-2-41: 10
N Q Z
1 OMAO
'AUAHI PL PL
PL
LAUNA
NONUA55
OIHANA
wa ly lua
G1 x g 1
T
Project Location Map
P~
s pT,a~T,'I
' Y S. KUM WAWA PLC N•KUMUWAINA S
3 MALAWAINA PL _,aK'A i'A -
KOM OH ANA an•
MELANI 3
an KAPUALANI - 22
sd
WAINOHIA~ N e
KUHILANI NO e s m m o a
POHAKULANI li i
•
us
IWALANI KAWILI
KANOELANI
ANELA •ui
NANIAKEA
M 0 O H
Y i r ~
1 a NOHEA 14 101 • NOHEA
• A
wa as
KEHAULANI
PAM ALA PL /h -
HOONANE IProject ; SANTOS LN LOKAHI l~lw. _"r_~
William L. Moore Planning MIKIHALA ite_~p~
159 Halm Street K MO - MAIKAI L KAKI,
PL CJH
o Hawaii 96720
Hil
e KINOO LE r~. . `6~9
a
Phone: (808) 935-0311 KILAUEA AVE =23
a
is a 3
• OLU KEKELA
~w~wo'- KTA
0
TO VOLCANO
s'fdfii;Ha 1~
w its ;~rtaa°
M1~ i
BENJAMIN J.OAYETANO LAWRENCE
SALT
GOVERNOR
DiREOTOq OF F XEnLTM
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
P.O. BOX 916
HILO, HAWAII 96721-0916
June 8, 1998
Ron Terry, Ph.D.
Geo Metrician
HCR 9575
Keaau, Hawaii 96749
Dear Dr. Terry:
Subject: Environmental Assessment for Family Crisis Shelter Demolition
As a demolition and renovation activity, the Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 61, National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Asbestos NESHAP Revision, Final Rule,
November 20, 1990, requires the owner/operator to inspect the affected areas to determine
whether asbestos is present.
I
Under the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Response Act (ASHARA), all persons who
conduct inspections (i.e. perform sampling and assessment of suspected asbestos-containing
material) in schools or public and commercial buildings must have an active Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response (AHERA) certificate-of-training from an accredited training provider.
Under NESHAP's regulation, the owner/operator would be required to file with the
Department of Plealth, Noise. Radiation, and Indoor Air Quality Branch, an Asbestos
Demolition/Renovation notification 10 working days prior to demolition of each building or the
disturbance of regulated asbestos-containing material. All regulated quantities and types of
asbestos-containing materials would be subject to emission controls, proper collection,
containerizing, and disposal at a permitted landfill.
Under a renovation project, if the amount of friable or non-friable material rendered friable
is less than 160 square feet, the project would not be subject to the NESHAP requirements.
However, the persons who conduct activities related to abatement and/or disturbances to friable
material greater than three square feet or three linear feet, must have an active AHERA certificate
of training from an accredited provider for that specific discipline (i e , project designer,
abatement supervisor and worker)
Ron Terry, Ph.D.
June 8, 1998
Page 2
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Robert H. Lopes at (808)
586-5800. Mr. Lopes will also be able to address your lead paint removal plans.
Sincerely,
v~
AARON UENO
District Environmental Health Program Chief
WP7.0: EAFa CrisisDemol.mi
c: June Kunimoto, District Health Administrator
t
1
,
Virginia Goldstein
`aJ K~
Stephen K. Yamashiro Ovecu,r
Russell Kokubun
Depwh Dire,lnr
Gnnfu of pufunii
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720.4252
(808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742
June 15, 1998
Mr. Ron Terry, Ph.D.
Geo Metrician
HCR 9575
Keaau, HI 96749
Dear Mr. Terry:
Preliminary Consultation regarding the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment
for the Demolition of the Former Family Crisis Shelter
TMK- 41- tn• Wninkea Hnmegfeadg Rnnth Hilo Hawaii
Thank you for your letter dated June 1, 1998, giving us the opportunity to provide preliminary
comments regarding the draft environmental assessment being prepared for the demolition of
the former Family Crisis Shelter on Kinoole Street.
The subject property, consisting of 43,560 square feet (one acre), is situated within an area
designated "Urban" by the State Land Use Commission and zoned Single Family Residential-
10,000 squarg feet (RS-10) by the County Zoning Code. The project site is not situated within
the County's,Special Management Area. We would also like to note a 5-foot wide future road
widening setback along the property's Kinoole Street frontage.
We have no objections or concerns regarding the demolition of the existing dilapidated
structure. However, any structure or use which may be considered for establishment on the
subject property shall conform to all applicable requirements of the Zoning Code (Chapter 25,
HCC).
Review of the draft environmental assessment will not be required by this office unless there
are changes in the scope or nature of the project.
Mr. Ron Terry, Ph.D.
Geo Metrician
Page 2
June 15, 1998
Should you have any questions, please contact Daryn Arai of this office at 961-8288.
`S~incerelly~
U l~1?V\O~
VIRGItvIA GO STEIN
Planning Director
DSA:cjf
f: \wp60\c=\Ch343\LTerry09. dsa
c: Brian Ishimoto, OHCD
y
i
„ , G''- Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki
v r.
Chiel Engineer
Stephen K. Yamashiro
Mnyor Jiro A. Sumada
o.....j. Deputy Chief Engineer
Tonntg of 'a traii
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252
(808) 961-8321 • Fos (808) 961-8630
June 15, 1998
GEO METRICIAN
HCR 9575
KEAAU HAWAII 96749
SUBJECT : DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Family Crisis Shelter
Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii
TMK: 2-2-41: 10
We acknowledge receipt of your letter concerning the subject matter, and provide you
with our cofnments as follows:
1. Any building construction shall conform to all requirements of code and statutes of
the County of Hawaii.
2. All development generated runoff shall be disposed on site and shall not be
directed toward any adjacent properties.
3. All earthwork and grading shall be in conformance with Chapter 10, Erosion and
Sediment Control, of the Hawaii County Code.
4. Any work within the County right-of-way shall be in conformance with Chapter 22,
Streets and Sidewalks, of the Hawaii County Code.
5. The subject properties are found within Flood Zone "X", according to the Flood
Insurance Rate Map dated September 16, 1988 (Panel No. 155166 0880C).
6. The existing right-of-way widths of Kinoole Street and Kahaopea Street are 50-ft.
and 30-ft., respectively. Improvements along Kinoole Street and Kahaopea Street
shall be located beyond the future road widening setback established by the
Planning Department.
DRAFT EA
June 15, 1998
Page 2 of 2
7. DPW requests that a minimum 20-ft. curve radius beset aside to the County at the
intersection of Kinoole Street and Kahaopea Street.
8. We do not need to receive a copy of the environmental assessment when it is
completed.
Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr.
Casey Yanagihara in our Engineering Division at (808)961-8327.
-Galen M. Kuba, Division Chief
Engineering Division
CKY
copy: OHCD (Brian Ishmoto)
r
United States Department of the Interior
a ,
e
' FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
° Pacific Islands Ecoregion
4""`" p°° 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Rm 3-122
Box 50088
Honolulu, HI 96850
In Reply Refer To: EAS JUL I 1599
Ron Terry
Geo Metrician
HCR 9575
Keaau, Hawaii 96749
RE: Environmental Assessment for Family Crisis Shelter Demolition
Dear Mr. Terry:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your letter dated June 1, 1998, concerning
a Draft Environmental Assessment for the demolition of a family crisis shelter. The County
acquired this site and structure as part of an earlier Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
project to develop a Family Crisis Shelter. This operation has since relocated to Kona. The County
would like to continue to use this area for special need purposes eligible under the CDBG program.
However, the Hawaii County Department of Public Works has determined that because of structural
damage and deficiencies, rehabilitating the structure would be far more expensive than demolishing
and constructing a new facility.
I
No significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources are expected to result from the proposed
family crisis shelter demolition.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed shelter
demolition. If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Fish and Wildlife
Biologist Elizabeth Sharpe by telephone at 808/541-3441 or by facsimile transmission at 808/541-
3470.
,3470.
Sincerely,
Q~LCn L,-) T-cza--
{o-/ Brooks Harper
Field Supervisor
Ecological Services
cc: NMFS-PAO, Honolulu
USEPA-Region IX, San Francisco
ga;l
BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO MICHAEL 0. WILSON, CNAWOOON
GOVCRNOR OF HAWAII BOARD OF LANO MO NATV0.AL REWURCES
A • DFl'11TY
GILBEAT COLOMA AGAAAN
S ;
O
AQUACEATURE DEVELOPMENT
MOCAAM
STATE OF HAWAII AQUATIC RESOURCES
CONSERVATION AND
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES MMRONMEHTAL AFFAIRS
CoNsmvAnoN ANo
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT
33 SOUTH KING STREET, 8TH FLOOR CONVEYANCES
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 FORESTRY MO MUOUFE
HISTORIC PIEESERVATION
OIVIAON
LAND MANAGEMENT
STATE PARKS
WATER MO LANG) DEVELOPMENT
REF: HP-JEN
JUL - 9 1998
Ron Terry, Ph.D.
Geo Metrician LOG NO: 21931
HCR 9575 DOC NO 9806CO12
Keaau, Hawaii 96749 ARCHITECTURE
Dear Dr. Terry.
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
Family Crisis Shelter
TMK 2-2-41:10, Hilo, Hawaii
Thank you for your letter dated June 1, 1998, regarding CDBG program funds for the
demolition of the former Family Crisis Shelter. The building has major structural and
termite damage, and has been altered significantly, and will be photographically
documented prior to demolition. Therefore, we believe that the proposed demolition
should have "no effect" on any known historic sites.
Thank yoy for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions, please call
Carol Ogata at 587-0004.
Aloha,
MICH E DC WI , Ch irperson and
State Historic Preserva Officer
y
DETERMINATION OF AN EXEMPT CLASS OF ACTION UNDER THE STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
CHAPTER 343 ERS
AGENCY: County of Hawai' i
Office of Housing and Community Development
SO Wailuku Drive
Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
ACCEPTING AUTHORITY: Stephen K. Yamashiro
Mayor, County of Hawaii
PROJECT NAME: Demolition of former Family Crisis Shelter
PROPOSED ACTION: As revealed through an inspection report of
the former Family Crisis Shelter, it has been
determined that the facility has major
structural and termite damage. For the
protection of the public, and to limit the
County's liability exposure, the agency
proposes to utilize Federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to plan,
design, test and demolish the former Family
Crisis Shelter, located at 2020 Kino'ole
Street, Hilo, Hawai'i.
DETERMINATION: The agency has determined that although the
facility is eligible as a historic site, the
replacement cost due to termite damage is
excessively high to warrant repair and
j replacement. The agency is proposing to
photo document any historic significance at
the facility. As the proposed action
constitutes the demolition of an existing
facility which will have minimal or no
significant impact on the environment, it is,
therefore, exempt from the preparation of an
environmental assessment under Chapter 200,
Hawai'i Administrative Rules § 11-200-
8(a)(8).
REASONS FOR THE
DETERMINATION The proposed action involves the demolition
of an existing facility, with no present
plans to construct a new structure. The
agency will Request for Proposals from
eligible entities to utilize the vacant site
for a special needs facility. At that time,
the agency will conduct an environmental
assessment that complies with Chapter 343,
Hawai'i Revised Statues.
6425c.bm,
NOTIFICATION: The County's Office of Housing and Community
Development will transmit a copy of the
determination by the county of Hawai'i that
the action is exempt from the preparation of
an environmental assessment to the State
Office of Environmental Quality Control.
COUNTY OF HAWAII
By:
S,rTEP EN K. YAMASHIRO
Its Mayor-
RECOMMEND APPROVAL:
o
ate
sing Administrator Date
Office of Housing and
Community Development
RECOMMEND APPROVAL:
py 5 1996
j 'Virginia H. Goldstein Date
Director
Planning Department
~ r
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
i
1
1 - 7-
Corporation Counsel Date
County of Hawai'i
oi25c.bmi
Appendix 2 - Figures
Former Family Crisis Shelter Location
2020 Kinoole Street, Hilo, Hawaii
TMK 2-2-41:10
,'7 a
riY I ~ ,
4W i,
2 1
yyy ~ ~~4 At'atykea WO
3 I • -Sell rTMP
Two]
T if 1
r'' Il if &IMt it ..6
rj Jf
'I
L ! x g
I ? ~ `I Ali I~ ' 11~ ~
Former Fy. Sh at
~
aw
14
tr
Seal 1650 fe l ~L0~
' ~t A n'es
Source: USGS Digital aster Graphic, 7.5 minute serves. i o, 1 1.
Photograph: September 1998. Ron Terry
[ f
w(.
r~.y
1
APPENDIX 3
HAWAII COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
SCREENING CRITERIA FOR C ASSISTED PROJECT TO CONFIRM ITS CON ENCY WITH HCZMP
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION:
CRITERIA: This review is based on HUD's request for a general consistency certification pursuant to 15 CFR Part 930.37 that
was approved by the State Department of Planning and Economic Development April 8, 1987.
The State's CZM policies are reviewed for their applicability to the action proposed under the general consistency certification
as
follows:
O If none of the policies apply to the proposed action it is consistent with the Hawaii's Coastal Zone Management Program.
O If one or more of the policies are threatened, the grantee shall make an individual consistency review in accordance with
Section 205A-22, Chapter 205A. HRS.
DETERMINATION CZM POLICIES
Consistent Ind. Review
x I. SMA PERMIT
The proposed action qualifies as a minor permit and is not subject to an individual CZM
consistency review. Copy of permit is: -attached, in ERR file.
Proposed action is not subject to an individual consistency review. (References 1, 2)
X 2. LAND USE DISTRICTS
Proposed action is located in a developed, altered and urban district. It is not in a State
Ag, Rural or Conservation Land Use District. (References 1.3)
X 3. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THEIR HABITAT
Proposed action does not occur In or affect areas containing threatened or endangered
and their habitats. (References 4, 5, 6)
X 4. STREAMS
Proposed action will not alter the flow or use of streams.
Proposed action is not located adjacent to streams nor will it cause channelizalion or
diversion. (References 4, 7)
X 5. HISTORIC/ARCHEOLOGIC RESOURCES
The site(s) do/does not contain historic or archeological resources as determined by the
State Preservation Officer. (References 8, 9)
X 6. WETLANDS
The proposed action does not impact or affect a wetland. (References 4. 7)
REFERENCES
t r
L Countd Planning Department 6. The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii
2 Section 205A-22, Chapter 205A FIRS 7_ U.S. Corps of Engineers
3 State Land Use Commission 8. State Historic Preservation Officer
4 State Dept. of Land & Natural Resources
5 U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 9_ National Register of Historic Places (Federal Register)
DETFRMINA"PION
Based on the above review it is determined that-
_ The proposed action meets the criteria of the general consistency certification and is consistent with the
HCZMP
The proposed action requires an individual consistenev rev]cw that wdl be prepared and submitted to the
State DBEDT for their review and concurrence.
Prepared bs~ 4LI~~ L~9 e
Name 'Inle Date
t
FEDERAL CONSISTENCY
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Project/Activity Title or Description: Former Family Crisis Shelter Demolition
Island: Hawaii Tax Map Key: (3rd) 2-2-41:10
Est. Start Date: Fall 1998
APPLICANT OR AGENT
Hawaii County Office of Housing and Community Development
50 Wailuku Street
Hilo. Hawaii 96720
TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one only)
[ ] I. Federal Activity
(statement "a")
"The proposed activity is consistent with and will be conducted in a
manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Hawaii Coastal Zone
Management Program."
Signature Date 2A~
[ ] H. Permit or License
(statement "b")
"The proposed activity complies with Hawaii's Coastal Zone Management
Program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such a program."
Signature _ Date
[ ] HI. OCS Plan/Permit
[ x ] IV. Grants and Assistance
i
APPENDIX 4
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY
FORMER FAMILY CRISIS SHELTER
Hilo, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii
TMK: (3rd): 2-2-41:10
Submitted to
Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division
33 South King Street, 6th Floor
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
by the
Y Hawaii County Office of Housing and Community Development
50 Wailuku Drive
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Site No. '
TMK (3rd): 2-2-41:10
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY
IDENTIFICATION
1. Common Name: Former Family Crisis Shelter
2. Historic Name, if known: None; Original owner: Winifred McKaig
3. Street or rural address: 2020 Kinoole Street, Hilo HI 96720
Hawaii County
4. Present Owner: County of Hawaii
c/o Hawaii County OHCD
50 Wailuku Drive
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
5 Ownership: Public
6. Present Use: None (vacant)
Other Past Uses: Family Crisis Shelter, Residence
DESCRIPTION
7. Physical Appearance:
Style: n/a
Primary Bldg. Mat. Clapboard Wood
Additional Mat. Lava stone: posts & where former lanai is
enclosed
Roof: Gabled; Two-level roof (2nd story is inset)
Roofing Mat. Galvanized Iron
Roof Trim: Wood
Dormers: Gabled
Porch: (2) Inset/Outset; Centered/Offset
Door: Wood
Other Features: Basement with lava walls; Porte cochere.
8 Approx. Prop. Size: Frontage: 250' x 200' (corner lot)
9. Is the feature: Altered/Unaltered (remodeled several times)
10. Surroundings: Residential on all adjacent properties except one,
which houses a shopping center.
11. Is the structure: On its original site/moved/unknown
12. Year of initial construe.: 1934 (from Hawaii County Tax Records)
13. Architect: Unknown
14. Builder: Unknown
15. Related Features: None
Significance: Before extensive remodeling, the structure was a fine example of a 1930s-era
residence for Hilo's economic elite. Subsequent to remodeling and use as the Hilo Family
Crisis Shelter, the structure has become extensively dilapidated. The County of Hawaii has
determined that it would be prohibitively expensive to restore the residence.
[See photographs]
INDEX OF PHOTOGRAPHS
FORMER HILO FAMILY CRISIS SHELTER
TMK: (3rd): 2-2-41:10
Photographer:: Michael Shewmaker
Format: B&W; 4 x 5" Negatives
Date of Photography: June 1998
Photo Int./Ext Room or View Description of Features
1-2 Int. Entry Hall Window and Ceiling Details
3-6 Int. Kitchen Built-in Cabinets
7 Int. Basement Lava Rock Interior Wall
8-9 Int. Stairway to 2nd Fl. Stairs, Banister, and Posts
10 Ext. NW Corner 1st/2nd story; Offset Roofs; Porte
Cochere;
'l1 Ext. Porte Cochere Supporting Lava Posts
12 Ext. Front Porch Symmetrical Lava Rock Design
13-14 Ext. Porte Cochere/Porch Details of Lava Rock Posts, Ceiling
15 Ext. Side Porch from N. Remodeled/Closed In
16 Ext. Side Porch from SE Details of Lava Rock Wall/Posts
17 Ext. Side Porch from E Details of Lava Rock Wall/Posts
18 Ext. Side Porch from NE Details of Lava Rock Wall/Posts
19 Ext. Landscape N End View Through Double Row of Palms to
Porte Cochere
Following four sheets contain photocopies of photographs. Original negatives in archives of
Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division. Positives on file at Lyman Museum, indexed
under 2020 Kinoole Street, Residence.
a
I
i
'.' .. . -.,!t.0,.. ° •
'�-Xt . 3,!,,,..-
:4,-.-.:717.:"L
. 4, Si} . ,* •m --
4--:, �rte.- -, ` it , ,.
_s. > V ` '
E.' � V
,, „.
.,
- u} F-
'-;/-.:-.15,7;'e. , .
j F N b '!''''.'.'., '''C- y '- MI ..
...
1 IMMI
r •II
: lk —1 4 `.. \• i t -fi t s �'t
r i � �,- 3 w �� ,,,,,,..-„,..,.-,,,,,.„..„,••,.„..2_114„:„.:.\,s
+ .
11,:.-it: ! t
s` - : RF V
11 , d .. i
i ibti ,. ..
c . e>,
y
b
t.
d
,:tii
It
I I Y
. 1 A
— ; , t a ♦ -
• 4 '/ � .
'� :�.>'
•
� .,% . j h`A
•
4• ••-...P....0...A,.••••.•••.........1.71•1.0.•••RP 1:1 11' '
,....' -"11.• • - "? ."-*;.• •"‘n-'441•*•••..,'- -,,...:.
• - ....„- --7P,rtrk.'rE,,"Viti*r.:-,'" .•V • • •
1•-•---` _
• , ,
. ,,.• ...... 7.' VV
0: 2:;.- .:Ts' .• .1 ; a. a' - r' A
.
V V
5 ' .
_, ...
':‘,-":.- '
4. or.. i....-, - ....- --4- • -, ,,t. ...:,,•,
1 '' *," : - -et. k 0.-s-... -%
.2 *A •„.;:k• "" k,-Al .....i• • c.'.4541;,,,
i .,,,•*".
„
r ,- .. -1 '-=• - -• a._ .'
, • ' t • '4.,7* i
:".,,,."7/ ,1" ...... ' , • „
'i .4'.0 Ar,,,:„-%14 -: 4,'.,,,.,-.•' '''4,.43 . --• , I ' . - t ",, - -• ".
,.... .-•- 'it' L'4, ,4014,:,'..., • •.41-.714'7" -' - .. ' • .
- . .,, ..• '
::: -r
,1•, , i,,r4 •'.r. ;,..'t • 1 '.2: -•„ :or'1.'ii - .,,,.. .fil\s::: -:: < t" %ND
r'
, ",:' _ "-'4'14!" 1?. -''.• -,t4..." ,4,1 : '',"!4'd4,'' t'''. . --.. 1 ......
la......A :, _/...1 n-'- c.,•0.1r- 4,, ,s, ...Y
. .
"fr7.. - •''' '. •'' 414,' t:60ii$41. `,,k 1, j• 44. '
-:
1 i
''•'" ' . le ik ,...-'• _, . a- 4,,,#41.-rei ',:5 • :,`"i
! '''; .:. . ..,,,, , Nr 1 - ->...4-t.:. a . .
1 ,,,lit 1:t , •,' t, ,it-,,, ,...`.itif 4„,, .., : : '--:,.....4* i ,
- - e; ,... , 1--Pi ,--!-'.4,-,l - -• ,A,.
i* , , .„...../ , - ..-:. ,,,-ot .. . , .:: - - '...• ,, ' 1,‘,44. 1 ,
. •
•
_
i • I I ,
I 1 I
..4• i 4 ,k . VV
k • ,
&MO A ' '' .
VV 4**IP
' .. ' ...4 J.'11 '-".,..7........''',„............. 11=1h..,..... '.
.1' . .
' CAMEZZ" :1:
-
• .-,
VV
-''"' :46•Sat?1/4 1."-
`.:.,
•
*i ,
_ -.. ..'.4,4•'''''4 ..... .".. '" ,.-,.;n74^F/41.row.--- „
- . • ,
..
' ' '. ' ' '' ' ''''r'_- ... `"—
1.5181 ' ',
q.t., ,,..,, ,, .
• z. tittle 5 _
4.
•4,4,2t,t*Z A
_ -• 444 1 :
6
• k i • i
• -' k '1.-
..-,. 4 '-• ' ,, •
...
- 47
1
' *-A / .1:M<1-•,,.
, Ar. •.<
'i - V .-
044_ t, :-•f: . i -7'- - '---"76 '
- , 1 I ' ,• 4. .,,.. q )M''' . ----...
''' ' k*- k 1 . 4 ..". i•kk. 5
* '
/ 4 t•1'
I
' 4-?is,fr' •,..., ,': ,,,,,,i,,.,.: , „
, i '.. #. .•Y 1 t A
y,, , ':.,,-,e,s- .. 4,,,,•-•-4,./-„ir z..../ , r
11 ' _. .
, . tr ,,,,4. ,$ 1...'t•
s••,,• '
• •-
, ,,i .)01" ... .
•V`...* j i r,
....
ra ,:tr.
, ., 1 .• 4 .. . Ildf
--- _
t •--____.;_„„4.
, 1 I —I
;,
- -•.- "V -
`^-
.e.
_
V 8
IF .,.,,..
,.. ....._
......._..................a.
.,1
,,,,, ribt,
1 .,,..-....g. ..../_- -. ,31•1": • IP"4.±'A;, =74-4.-- Am , - --..-..„ •
iv -'_A-0C. -4t-:- ' - -,:. ,,:--- ?. ,,-.T.'.-I- NIP" • t-....-,_.,- ..t.,-,
i A . .' -'• . 4 ''' - • i • -..'-.:-•,- • .
9
• ,
,to 3,94-••• ,.. ,_,...‘i. • ..e L-
....
•
!......-s.-....:' ..... -.5' -1 ..- ,s.....„.._„....' . ,,,.
, v;7 IR(...-gst;• : 4‘,..,, - 't '`•
. ...".•
•••"- ' !it
. ,
1 g%;
..,.....-.co.,1 ...
0.141444,1141;
::t;.•V;r :i . .- • *'' -' '.:...:',. ' . ' , .
• k
.• , .. '-•••. • Nit
/
••
..
. ....4..--4 .,..10,17--4:*.C,-, . • . .;.-11.•,.!
f"-10:SiL---4., .;-',1,IF ,' , I •N.,
• --i t,';',1- , ,'• - .-•k•'• 11,.;*•• ---;,-;-'-";•%.-4,::'- /
1). 1.- •-
.-. -
....
A- .._..•
.„., • . L..e:
2-1,At. , -.., -t ...• ,. ,- -.-7 .1,, .,.- .
ilrsi .,.......;
.._
• A
• ,. „..
t-,..k, •
A' • • ...• ...
-4 A .
;;•,,,..-4.-'', 1 .•', -P.: t 7 ' ' .T..,_.- ' • '•, - . „ ,._ -.1. 7 t '':-..... ..--,` •t?,....., . .. • ; ,
....".
. . . :. i.i.' l• .
.• ,..
i
r .
•. • . -el• '. 1 , ,.
• ''.. -4,....`, 41 . ..'7'..;*--.1, I '
s i
' '• ' 1 :' ‘ =3 ilei'''.S. i '1.3):t..-.S.i-: -
• - - '' '.•.-4: O.. ..A.-;••••ar IP -
i ii• I t
!. 41•"•,,
, --
....r..--i ,!..,.:•• *.' '' :- • 41
• ' 'A' ' . -i..., 44
'11
,„,...----.• -,,..; , '%,,L- - -,. Amor 4,04.1.. y- ........-,k,0_ v I
-,)--- :,. -le.4""..7--.-7n....m. , -,
V T
. -
..__
..... i 'Pr''_.$:•-•?,..L..1r. ‘r
N. ,..
4 P-•P'-''-''''. . I
Rit .
-;- .6.:.:15-..."-;r4r'' •• '
11 V7r7.':".•.-41 i '
P
.
.
- • ';'.- • .1.*c. --4. frAY - I
• _,.1---:
__ ._...kr....... .....
,
' ,,4-r-i-,-..-- . . ., ,
3.; • I .
-' 1rPt.. : •'.-1- .- ''',•fft A:-A' I.: C3.--...,.... ,64
I, .. .
.
ri„ t. .-73r' ).--/ J ,-_, zoit,,.;. ,::.4.44,,,r,‘et.toz,„r_Lii,,i.4.,,,;;;L:... : . ,• ••.,z.45:1,,e IL
.. . , ,, — g
... _____----7,---- -- a ,.....,,.
. • -...
• -- 4 I 1
4-13 '...,-. •.: . . . . -Yr---
.jiz.....;.•0—:, .is - t c - •;, . P Tr- '#- - . . .14 '
'-" • I. ..i'.r.:••• hzi4. 1
'- i *. '.. • 5 . ... *....i.t"-- '. - -4..... , -
.1,
..,-'• -.44e,--- I • ,t
4
I 1
- '4 1
. . 4- f ..P.-, :4. -. ••• • ,,ijr4. ,-Ir. , 4..et
-1.. • "" ' a r - .0' 'lir
, 1. . : -r
. , Iti.._,,„ .,.. ,....F. .... ...... .
,
. 1 '..
AS l.w3 .
1, 4 ,.,...-. i I.' '..*-4 • ' 4*, /
. •• e.-
' ^.';':.: ::'...3'.•"r Zir' . '. •'''; ......;/1"'r' /
j.
';,...W... ,, '.i• : 11, ' .iL
t
? !
•
, 1
..
V. '. ..,..'••-• .-•%...-...4. ••• ,9' ',• .ff„'',,--: /
.1\
. It'
. . • .-
• ,, .. ,,,. , - .
fl N, ','y .„ I
.,; r./ .1 ..? .' 1 .i'4,,.-.-. ; t • - • --", ...•^4.,'
: 1 f,: •- I i
i
....,_...._ :
': _ -,-. .
,•,..--.
t-
•,,V
,-
---!,4,--: • I
1„
si
,,4 , . 74• . *.; :,...;
• ; it•.:, f :
1.'"I''' •'. -4 ' .
. ..
: - -•i!'),f, „:, ! . • , .
• .., _,. -v••.•• :
•
., . .
. •
, ••,,,. . ..f
/
' • . , ii ' -- ' ,''- " rk. . . '' 4 C • i. i'.
'-'i
.. .
..•'. '•• .. • S
. ..
1 -.,,,,•.,
..4. .1, . . - , 7: '1•••.••-V,, .
. , .
4. ,-
. . . .,..
.7
11111.0'.•
• , ..
• • ....
. ' 1..1.
••••
• IAA S. . 44
, . .
,.... .. • * ,I12 -
•:, 1 .0-1
• •••,;.?' .' i !
t. - • 11 .. , 1' r4:I.,. 10:.: ;_
-, . ..
,.,‘...4.
. .,
M:-.. t'
• ....-
. .• _i ,
.,,,,. #4 ,.... ,,. , ..
4,...:.,..L.... -•.--. , Ik. - .,,
,..
. .
•
.....
. ..: . ;4 :... r
\ A --," '''' ..-- f.• %...;N.-•- I
rd' ..•41‘‘'.\l' •
_
. '; .. , i ,
•
**---N
) • .4.4.-2; .,_.•
. . : •1 -‘,/, 13. .
. \ x r• -t-.4...Ili P i •4".4
\• -. ...-
. . . ,
. -.4•
• #`
.. .,i,........ir , _ ,
._.. . 1 le.._ r. e--- ,'-' ' :' • ',•-- a., /
-? , .,..- -.. -- - '•
,00 ... .
‘-4 ' ' it4• \"(9-4
' -,e0 - gr.: el'•t 0, ,''; , / il
,.......5) ( I ES ae,X I! ° Ti I
..,•
r M ''s 4V . .4• • ,
' 'N'•
4. . ' '
. ...* fAl. .
.4 .
..—
1.4 '
• .
1'. -4. -
. 1.1 I
- ,:.'‘I
itfr
' \ .
..
,
' 1-‘.":
4t..7111111111111
j • ,%, ' ..-
-..,
. ..: . . .
_ 1, . -
t 11\ .1..
• . r
/ 1 -4 , Nil'1"."
...,
-,
lr li ' i % 1
..., .\ • . ,•'!i'iw
)--....--' r ..._
.. .
. ,
7 . •I
, ..( ;1,...1.1.:e •
\''', • L--__
:. •
1 ,
...•. \ ppilL.•‘...•:.
... , 44 1,
11 11
- •sttZt
"''' ' •
•Ir . s—"'' %, .1 1• .
."4
• , '
I ••• f
,,...' 15.1/4 .,.
741 s' . ' Illik, lvi •
'k
• "..., V. _'
•
......-s4r
..
APT'S,'.•''s V.: 1 ' , - ' ___._..--X-
:'^ '
L ----. . ,
-I '
, - -•
.,
. • • __- ---
, . .
• 15 ,
'I.-, - --
•
.t...:_ ). t•
. ........,..
, ..,
• .... .
• 1• . :
.- ...._ .
,- •rA-, -,-,--. _
_ •
ki
.., _...., .._ .:.
it!
:i • ,-
... . •,- .... .
__..a.
.. .....,.., ,, - .
........
, 1......,
\ - .- -31
I.
....), , \
•
-,---„, , ., lt,,
. ,
. = „....J. ,
....._
,
,
r
A y I
4•
, _„„s • • • • 14
.,••••
ri
.._ ..,•• ,,,
.
, ,
Y.- -. .—.....c... I* . .
) ,
. .
i 's\ . „ • , i
i
-•.....„.., ,,
J • r4 . ),/d,"‘ .,1 4
/ •• J.'
....„.• r.
•:,,-:„,,#. ..."N.,. ...'
/ _.../
i..,...,-...,...,,:,.. ,'" )„, .....,..._,../1 r, mi i ,., _. 0A..: ).•"4..i.„ 4 t l
• 1 - '''',0 '/ .:.
•4',.
- s"--N- r. l'•• ' '-
71 • l'• -- -''
'•• ) ••':...' * P''•is .I•• •' • - s•- ' .1.'1:..- . .
\ / s '(' 'S -4 :4 '•"4--. '--b 1 I.: ' 7.•'.>••.;.-••••'-•
/' ,• • • • • '''.: ' • . A",--%,•:`—.e-v —.„ ,
,,
,--: A.. .si.•....;.•,.;;', -- . .
, •. i\\\
.: .
- - • . .
..
• .....---• .
. N • -, '' ", ' •• -, -
....
_..
, \
-.....fr
,
. • ,. ' 1 \
- • • . ,'...::-.! ,...„!I!' ,
•• —-...?.- ....,14.-f.:"04...4 :4
, ,,., r- '...s4,.';`i,, i.tsZtri...Z.:'t.-•
. • r •- - 16,••I.-.••,;. _'-,;•• -,-.-..., •
. •
-- rs ' ••--' -••-- • .: • ."--1. -...,;..; .,u7r .
..1 • • • 7 ••• ,t. '44,.•4.0_,...44,-.......•- ..,C..
,. :••••.!•..'4' .... .. -..,4-k.4 •',:r•,V",..". 4.:
. .
. - .• -•._ . • • . •
,�',, 'rte Ci'rT Ikt.. ' -. '''
` t
."••, Rid , i
V � �, �`. STI . `4 ..••••,i
`r ,1
�\ '�' 5.� R !_fes 1� , `' L
Y .. a CSC Y' _
•y ` '� \.y-„K, .V. ... ''.:•4•••14 .4=....G.4.
•s : FX V..„7"-• 1 � '• ti /
# . f / C� •
,'i
•
, ••!...-.1,...,:s............,„ jeck,...,L.--= ---,17°'
"lb f rea • . .
•
- - . l• • . • �•• I ",, !'���,r,,,,.,e - `�•`'•• 777, `I '•• 4.- .p
•
• Y •
4 y -r-•t.;,•:•••-.,.' �"
•
e
18 • r. • . -
,'-•-,.--•
•
TT a 'u'
• - i
Arefr."."
..,•
•
F - v- 7.4;'-'''''N-7 •' • - I 7 1 . -'
APPENDIX 5
TREE REPORT
FORMER WOMEN'S SHELTER
CORNER OF KINOOLE AND KAHAOPEA STREETS
REPORT ON THE CONDITION OF THE TREES
AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR THEIR FUTURE MAINTENANCE
PREPARED BY
JACUNSKI'S COMPLETE TREE SERVICE, INC.
The following is a detailed list of the trees located at the former
Women's Shelter on the corner of Kinoole and Kahaopea Streets:
* All trees to be pruned appear to be in good health except
where noted.
* There does not appear to be any indication of termites.
* All epiphitic Banyan trees should be removed.
* Recommend removing many of the larger fruit trees as they
have outgrown their spaces.
Starting at the Kahaopea Street gate and heading makai towards
Kinoole Street corner:
- I Fan Palm: Prune old fronds and flowers and clean up head.
- 1 Banyan tree growing on above Fan Palm: Cut down and apply
growth inhibitor to stump.
- 1 Croton plant: Remove vines.
- 2 Money trees: Prune and shape trees.
- 1 Fan Palm located outside fence: Prune old fronds and
f0wers and clean up head.
- 1 Coconut tree located outside fence: Prune old fronds and
flowers and clean up head.
- Croton and Money trees: Remove vines and prune and shape
trees.
- I tall Hapuu Fern: Prune and shape.
Starting 'from Kahaopea/Kinoole corner and heading south along
Kinoole Street to gate:
- 1 Banyan tree at corner: Cut down and apply growth inhibitor
to stump.
- 2 Hapuu Ferns: Cut down (trees are too close to fence).
- 1 small Fan Palm, 1 Banyan tree, and 1 Manila Palm: Cut down
and apply growth inhibitor to stumps (trees are located
between fence and wall).
- 3 large Money trees: Prune and shape trees.
- I Pan palm located closest to walkway and Kinoole Street gate:
Prune old fronds and flowers and clean up head.
Former Women's Shelter
Report on Trees
Page 2
Walkway from Kinoole Street gate to house:
- I large Lychee tree located in yard between walkway and
Kahnopea Street: Lightly reduce in height and prune large
deadwood from tree. Thin, prune and shape remainder of tree.
- 8 Fan Palms (4 on either side of walkway): Prune old fronds
and flowers and clean up heads. NOTE: The Fan Palm closest to
the house on the north side of walkway should be watered,
fertilized and monitored to try to save this tree to keep
palms evenly matched along walkway.
- 1 clump of Fan Palms at front makai corner of house: Cut down
and apply growth inhibitor (too big and too close to house)
Along Kinoole Street on south side of walkway heading to south
corner:
- 2 Fan Palms along wall: Prune old fronds arid flowers and clean
up heads.
- Selectively remove Fan Palms located in yard (there are too
many palms and they are overtaking tire yard).
- 1 large Money tree leaning on fence: Cut down and apply growth
inhibitor to stump (tree is in poor condition)
- 1 other large Money tree located along fence: Reduce in height
to approximately 6' tall.
- Small African Tulip trees and Elephant Ears: Cut down and
apply growth inhibitor to stumps.
- I Avocado tree located at south rnakai corner of yard: Cut down
andr apply growth inhibitor to stump (tree has outgrown its
space).
1 Coconut tree: Prune old fronds and flowers and clean up
head.
1 large Money tree at south rnakai corner: Cut down and apply
growth inhibitor to stump.
- 1 Plumeria tree: Cut down and apply growth inhibitor to stump.
- 4 Lycrhee trees between house and Kinoole Street: Cut down and
appl,( growth inhibitor to stump (trees are too tall, too close
' to the power lines, and have outgrown their space).
Starting front south corner at Kinoole Street and continuing along
south boundary:
- t large Lychee tree on south side of house: Reduce in height
by approximately one-half and thin, prune and shape remainder
of tree.
- All African Tulip trees, Gunpowder trees, Cecropia trees and
Morley trees: Cut down acid apply growth inhibitor to stumps
(these are "weed" trees).
I Royal Palm tree: ('ut (Jown.
AlI large Dracaena: CLIL down and apply growth inhibitor to
~tunips (Covered with vines and overgrown).
1 coconut tree: Prune old fronds and flowers and clean up
head.
Former Women's Shelter
Report on Trees
Page 3
Starting from south mauka corner and continuing along mauka
boundary to Kahaopea Street:
- 1 Coconut tree: Cut down (too close to house).
- 2 Fan Palms closest to house: Cut down (too close to house).
- 1 tallest Fan Palm: Prune old fronds and flowers and clean up
head.
- Selectively keep 2 of the best Avocado trees: Reduce in height
by approximately one-third, lightly raise canopy, and thin,
prune and shape remainder of trees.
- Ali other Avocado trees: Cut down and apply growth inhibitor
to stumps (too many trees).
- 1 Mango tree (base has included bark) and 1 Avocado tree: Cut
down and apply growth inhibitor to stumps.
- Cecropia and African Tulip trees: Cut down and apply growth
inhibitor to stumps (these are "weed" trees).
- African Tulip and Avocado trees located at mauka south corner
of lot: Cut down and apply growth inhibitor to stumps (these
are "weed" trees).
- African Tulip trees located at mauka north corner of lot,
outside fence: Cut down and apply growth inhibitor to stumps
(these are "weed" trees).
- Banyan and Cecropia trees located inside fence: Cut down and
apply growth inhibitor to stumps (these are "weed" trees).
- 1 lclump of Dracaena located on right side, mauka side of
driveway (covered with vines): Cut clown and apply growth
inhibitor to stumps (these are "weed" trees).
- 1 Mango tree located on mauka side of house, closest to house:
Raise canopy and lightly reduce in height. Thin, prune and
shape remainder of tree.
APPENDIX 6
LEAD-BASED PAINT AND ASBESTOS SURVEY
cu_
Lead-Based Paint and Asbestos Survey
Hilo Family Crisis Center
Hilo, Hawaii
October 1998
Prepared for: William Moore Planning
Prepared by: Convard Consulting
963 Honokahua P1. Honolulu, Hawaii
Telephone: (808) 396-7403; Fax: (808) 596-4684
i
SIGNATURE PAGE
The asbestos containing material and lead-based paint survey described in was completed by me
or under my direction and conforms to applicable NESHAPs and AHERA regulations.
Nan. Convard, R.E.A.
Project Manager Date: October 14, 1998
J a L. Taba, CIH
bestos Inspector/Designer
Project Industrial Hygienist Date:October 14, 1998
r
I
I r
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION I
2 SURVEY ACTIVITIES ]
2.1 Visual Survey .....................................................3
2.2 ACM Sampling and Analysis 3
2.2 Lead Sampling and Analysis 4
2.3 Canec Ceiling 4
3 ANALYTICAL RESULTS 4
3.1 Asbestos ..................................4
3.2 Lead ..................................7
3.3 Arsenic ..........................................................8
4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8
4.1 Discussion .......................................................8
4.2 Summary of Recommendations 11
5 LIMITATIONS ........................................................I1
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location Map 2
Figure 2: Approximate Sample Locations and Results - First Floor 5
Figure 3: Approximate Sample Locations and Results - Second Floor 6
Table 1: Summary of Asbestos Results 7
Table 2: J Summary of Lead Analytical Results 8
I INTRODUCTION
William L. Moore Planning contracted Convard Consulting to complete a lead-based paint (LBP)
and asbestos survey of the former Hilo Family Crisis Shelter (HFCC), 2020 Kinoole Street. Hilo,
Hawaii. Figure 1 identifies the location of this building. The purpose of the survey was to
identify asbestos-containing material (ACM) and materials coated with LBP so that these
materials are properly managed during planned demolition activities. This report describes the
activities, results, and conclusions of that survey.
The asbestos survey was performed to investigate issues pertaining to National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS ) 40 CFR 61.145, OSHA regulations 29 CFR
1926.5, Construction Industry Standard for Asbestos, and Hawaii Occupational Safety and
Health (HIOSH) regulation Title 12, Subtitle 8, Chapter 145.1 - Asbestos.
The LBP survey investigated issues pertaining to Occupational Health and Safety Administration
(OSHA) regulations 29 CFR 1910.1025, Construction Industry Standard for Lead, and Hawaii
HIOSH regulation Title 12, Subtitle 8, Chapter 148.1 - Lead. Housing and Urban Development
regulations' regarding LBP do not directly apply to this project since the structure is being
demolished and not intended for future occupation. The statute definition for LBP of 1
milligram per square meter (mg/m2) or 0.5 percent by dry weight was used as the screening
level to determine potential exposures to construction workers and disposal options.
Project personnel included a qualified inspector with current Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act (AHERA) Inspector/Management Planner/Project Designer certificates. Personnel
have alsorcompleted training in LBP inspections and abatement planning. Appendix A includes
the appropriate certificates.
2 SURVEY ACTIVITIES
Inspectors surveyed the HFCC building on June 13, 1998. Survey activities included:
I
• a visual inspection of interior and exterior portions of the building
• sampling of potential asbestos containing materials
• sampling of painted surfaces on interior and exterior of the building
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, Title X
260 FR 47248, September 1995
Hilo Family Crisis Center Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Page I of I I
October 1998 Convard Consulting
0 111
t
r a
(. Moku Pans'Pt La n4atar, ^' .• �. •••
fiM -•r.i'r
.. P:wa n7., r .t Cocoanut PS 'a•na»a
Ir.,�. Y •:,,.:::;,;44:11.6"
t'tit �V S :.�.�, :.`` t
J.
* ,uon '�
A ap ,
A *Ithr'ST�1�'g`'� i♦ t II I I•.4 q ,i t .i - - *..Y, , It s
-- * / ,} '' s. t'"Cu54.'%.
. !`( ♦ ` 'r i^b;M"attF. •htfi ti I S. i .._..
i /` ` •
l Ori, t. ♦ - `tJ,yt I 1•
� • .. . ti. c i . . 1 a
� ka' �.nr.'x 9f ss'Lnfr`{„ r., �I •
M•rl.,. I . - ._.
I!Hal.' Pr. tea ''. >. ' I .,,ai 7tra■- ,a do'
-y ..' •i
`a .'- ' tia '.• ` ,,W iakea' H •
\, 1/ a Jo»uli. a v. �i.
`. ...",=-•..- retrf.y W ,,
1► :.«� id{� •� �.� u.w.Msi. � �'�
4 err _
j z 61.
•
T s Mt}r i
.Fg rR -••v 6
; r
erarxer.�evrrlt� 40 ` %Si xwiPsC4Pantsi •..
V 4`,. 40
}:i ,...„....".7.11s.•I 1/2:44:ura p,
+.v.fq d N• 'yn '
U
, 4 'b tmi p A \
./
� /Jt�! 1Ilitit` •\ '\ \` a`
t '� - _
7 ..PeriNe.'4 - -_.
a4�r� ykt :.' ; Project Site ..
_ - ••
'a a .P,lq 2020 Kinoole St. •
^ i . 1.. r.,
9Ha”
• t a 4
; �yI1 cit
4. t. ,
,: 2, 3, t3 ,z
Q'''. __
_ { t
-` ai� S. .. I
I- i ��. .._,� • .
^ VV al
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series: Hilo Quadrangle: 1981 . \ _ _
Approtimate Scale: 1" =2 000' ® ' P•tta•tn�
NORTH ; Deep weft,, `..1„ •.
• •
- t - t_,` Wit_
Hilo Family Crisis Center Figure 1
Lead and Asbestos Survey Project Location Map
Hilo Family Crisis Center Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Page 2 of 11
October 1998 Convard Consulting
2.1 Visual Survey
William L. Moore Planning and Hilo County Housing personnel accompanied the Convard
Consulting inspectors. Ms. Nancy Convard and Ms. Joana Taba, CIH on the initial visual
inspection of the building. The intent of the initial visual inspection was to familiarize project
personnel with the site and planned demolition activities, identify potential ACM and LBP
materials, and determine if access to all suspected materials was feasible. This visual inspection
and meeting with County Housing personnel confirmed that the entire structure was to be
demolished and that access to potential ACM and LBP building materials was feasible.
The visual survey identified the following categories of materials as suspect ACM:
• floor tile
• floor tile mastic
• sink undercoatings
• canec ceiling panels
• floor linoleum
• drywall
• drywall joint compound
• spray-on ceiling texture
The inspectors determined that the roofing material was not suspect ACM due to the metallic
appearance, thinness, and metallic sound when struck.
Due to the age of the building, all painted surface were considered suspect LBP coated paints.
2.2 ACM Sampling and Analysis
Inspectors collected two to three samples of each suspected material for bulk asbestos analysis.
A total of 31 samples were collected. The samples were collected and immediately placed in a
plastic sample bag, and labeled with the sample identification number, sample location, and date
and time of collection. Sampling was completed in general compliance with AHERA guidance.
Figures 2 and 3 show the locations of these samples, on the first and second floor, respectively.
The samples were shipped via Federal Express to Environmental Management Consultants
(EMC) in Scottsdale, Arizona, for bulk sample analysis by EPA Method 600/M-4-82-020.
EMC's laboratory is NVLAP accredited (Accreditation Number 1926).
Hilo Family Crisis Center Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Page 3 of l 1
October 1998 Convard Consulting
2.2 Lead Sampling and Analysis
Inspectors collected paint samples from each dissimilar paint surface and paint color found in the
former HFCC. A total of I 1 samples were collected. Figure 2 and 3 shows the sample locations,
for the first and second floor, respectively. Samples were collected by scraping approximately
two (2) square inch of all layers of paint down to the base surface directly into a ziplock bag.
Lead sampling followed guidance issued by the HUD in its most recent guidance, which is
consistent with EPA guidance in 60 FR 47248.
The lead samples were shipped via Federal Expres 3 to Environmental Hazards Services, LLC, of
Richmond, Virginia, for total lead analysis by EPA Method 6010.
2.3 Canec Ceiling
During the visual ceiling material believed to be either composed of ACM or canec material was
sampled. When asbestos results indicated non-ACM material; the sample was re-analyzed for
arsenic.
3 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
This section summarizes the analytical results for asbestos and lead sampling. As noted above,
one sample was submitted for arsenic analysis. Figure 1 portrays the results in terms of presence
or absencd of these materials, while Table 1 summarizes the location, type of material, and
concentrations for positive results.
3.1 Asbestos
The analytical results identified asbestos in the kitchen sink undercoating material and in the
second floo0eige and brown linoleum floor covering. Asbestos is characterized as friable (hand
crushable) and non-friable (non-hand crushable). The Environmental Protection Agency
recognizes friable asbestos as hazardous to human health and the environment. Both asbestos
materials discovered at the HFCC are considered non-friable in their current condition. Non-
friable asbestos must still be handled according to OSHA standards and double-wrapped for
disposal at permitted landfills. The following table summarizes the results of the asbestos
sampling. Appendix B presents the laboratory analytical reports. Figures 2 and 3 present the
results in terms of presence or absence of asbestos in the approximate sample locations.
Hilo Family Crisis Center Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Page 4 of l I
October 1998 Convard Consulting
EXIT LANAI
WINDOW EXIT
17
MI
~I PLAYROOM z
al 0
o OFFICE r
o
L-4
r
9 0
e O
m
F
ROOM 1 0
0
D 8
T B N
T
M
x
OFFICE z
c CLOSET 9 10
c
x
M BATHROOM
z
+ + S
1 11
e B e CLOSETN
12
I zo KITCHEN 0
121, e e > ROOM 2 0
0 e STAIRWAY 14 13
® OFFICE
FIRE EXTINGUISHER
' E=
EXIT
LEGEND
Asbestos Sample
Result
6 Sample K
Lead Sample
Result
6 Sample N NORTH (Approximate) NOT TO SCALE
Notes:
1. See Tables 1 and 2 for sample description and numerical result
2. for lead means <0.5% lead by weight.
for asbestos means no asbestos fibers detected.
3. for lead meads X0.5% lead by weight
for asbestos means asbestos fibers detected.
Hilo Family Crisis Center Figure 2
Lead and Asbestos Survey 1 st Floor Approximate Sample Locations and Results
Page 5
ROOM 4
1 1
Fill
F15 16 CLOSET EXIT
17
BATHROOM
ROOM 3 M e 21
20
c _
~ 19
9
EXIT
t
ALCOVE
I '1 D EXIT FIRE ESCAPE
a (STAIRS)
t D
LEGEND {
Asbestos Sample
Result
e6 Sam
ple 0
Lead Sample W
Result
Sample N
6
4NORTH (Approwmate) NOT TO SCALE
Notes:
1. See Tables 1 and 2 for sample description and numerical result
2. for lead means <0.5% lead by weight
for asbestos means no asbestos fibers detected.
3. for lead meats >0.5% lead by weight.
for asbestos means asbestos fibers detected.
Hilo Family Crisis Center Figure 3
Lead and Asbestos Survey 2nd Floor Approximate Sample Locations and Results
Page 6
Table 1: Summary of Asbestos Results
Sample ID Sample Location Results
A- 4 Kitchen Sink: Black undercoating Positive. Contains approximately 5%
Chrysotile, 95%CaSO, Binder
A- 11 2nd Floor: Light Beige Linoleum Positive. Contains approximately 20%
Chrysotile, 80% CaCO, CaSo, binder
A-18 2nd Floor: Beige Linoleum Positive. Contains approximately 10%
Chrysotile, 10% Cellulose, 80% CaCO,
CaSo, binder
A-A3 Several I" Floor Tiles Negative
A-5 through A- I" Floor tiles, ceiling, and drywall Negative
10 and Al 1
through A-14
A-14 through 2' Floor ceiling and square pattern Negative
A-17 linoleum
A-19 through Other 2' Floor flooring, ceiling Negative
A21
Note: Negative results are grouped for clarity of reading. Detailed results are found in Appendix C.
3.2 Lbad
Analytical Results for Lead indicate that LBP is present on several building materials. The
concentrations of lead on interior samples ranged from less than 0.024 to 0.818 % content by
dry weight. No samples from these interior locations exceeded 0.5%. Therefore, these paints are
not considered LBP. Exterior paints included one sample (light grey paint) with a lead content of
6.02 % leadl and a second sample with 19% lead content (dark grey paint). The concentration of
lead in these samples requires special consideration. The appropriate actions are described on the
Discussion and Recommendations section of this report. The results for lead analysis are
summarized in Table 2 below. Figures 2 and 3 presents the results in terms of presence or
absence of lead at greater than 0.5 % in the approximate sample locations. The laboratory report
for lead analysis is presented in Appendix C.
Hilo Family Crisis Center Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Page 7 of 1 I
October 1998 Convard Consulting
Table 2: Summary of Lead Analytical Results
Sample ID No. Sample Description % Lead by Dry Weight
PBOI Exterior Walls: Light Grey 6.02
PB02 Exterior Walls: Dark Grey 18.6
PB03 Light Blue: Kitchen Wall 0.408
PB04 Hot Pink: Outside Kitchen Wall 0.031
PBO5 White: Kitchen Wall 0.195
PB06 Dark Blue: Kitchen Door Trim 0.302
PB07 Light Purple: 2nd Floor 0.019
Northwest room wall
PBO8 Pink: 2od Floor Hallway 0.021
P1309 Light Pink: 1" Floor Office Wall 0.318
PB10 Dark Brown: Stairway <0.024
11 PB I 1 White Paint: Kitchen Ceilin 0.059
3.3 Arsenic
Only one§ample was collected and analyzed for arsenic analysis. This sample yielded arsenic at
3,150 parts per million (p.p.m.).
4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The followipg paragraphs discuss the results above and provide recommendations for
* management of the hazardous building materials during construction.
4.1 Discussion
The survey identified the presence of non-friable asbestos and LBP on several materials.
The area of non-friable asbestos exceeds the "de minimus" quantity of 160 square feet of
asbestos materials. This requires NESHAPS notifications to the Department of Health (DOH),
Indoor Air Quality Branch. The NESHAPS notification must be made at least 10 days prior to
the demolition activities.
Hilo Family Crisis Center Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Page 8 of 1 I
October 1998 Convard Consulting
The concentration of lead in the exterior paints is considered high and warrants particular
consideration. LBP with high lead content (greater than 0.5%) concentrations, such as the dark
grey paint with 18% lead are considered hazardous. Separated from their substrate materials
these paints must be disposed of as hazardous waste. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulations, however, recognized the total waste stream in considering whether or nor
LBP materials are considered hazardous wastes. That is, the potential hazard can be assessed by
calculating the percentage of additional sampling of the LBP lead concentrations in the total waste
stream, including substrate and other materials co-disposed with the waste. This assessment can
sometimes be made by extrapolating from existing analytical data and estimation of total waste
stream volume. In some cases, analysis of the substrate and lead paint for total lead and toxic
leaching procedure (TCLP) lead concentrations may be required.
Based on these findings, demolition activities will need to address the following issues:
Lead Issues
• potential lead exposures to construction personnel
• potential lead dust releases
• intact disposable of LPB with substrate material and avoidance of generating waste
streams with high concentrations of lead
Asbestos Issues
• Removal of ACM prior to demolition of the entire structure
• NESHAPS notifications to the Department of Health (DOH), Indoor Air Quality Branch
• potential asbestos exposure to construction personnel
• proper containment of ACM
• disposal of ACM at permitted landfill
Canec Ceiling (Arsenic Issues)
The canec ceiling material contains arsenic at levels that may warrant special handling. A toxic
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) should be run on a representative sample of the total
waste stream to determine appropriate disposal requirements for the construction debris.
Alternatively, fhe material may be considered hazardous and removed separately, containerized,
transported and disposed of at an approved mainland facility. Several Hawaii contractors are
familiar with this process.
Each of these issues can be effectively managed through appropriate planning of demolition
activities. The procedures and requirements to be followed should be outlined in the
specifications included with demolition contract documents. These specifications outline
applicable environmental and worker safety laws and regulations and the associated procedures to
be followed by the selected contractor. The following paragraphs describe the issues to be
Hilo Family Crisis Center Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey 9 of 11
October 1998 Convard Consulting
addressed in ACM and LBP specifications. The detailed specifications are provided under
separate cover.
Specifications for LBP
Specifications for LBP will address the above cited issues through the following:
• specification of general demolition procedures (i.e that LBP will not be removed from
substrate materials)
• requirements for a water spray during demolition of exterior building areas
• requirements for LBP awareness training of construction workers
• requirements for specific personal protective equipment for construction workers
• requirements for air monitoring
requirements for the collection and proper disposal of paint chips
Specifications for ACM
Specifications for ACM will address the above cited issues through the following:
• specification of general demolition procedures (i.e that ACM will not be made non-
friable)
• requirements for emissions controls, e.g. containment and barriers as appropriate
• requirements for doubling bagging of ACM waste
• requirements for disposal of ACM waste at a permitted facility
• requirements for asbestos awareness training of construction workers (if asbestos is not
removed by a specialized abatement company prior to demolition of the entire structure)
• relquirements for specific personal protective equipment for construction workers
• requirements for air monitoring
For the ACM removal, the simplest option is to remove the floor coverings attached to the floor
itself. Alternatively, careful stripping of the linoleum and its adhesive may be done. The specific
method is normally selected by the contractor based on the related monitoring and disposal
requirements of the specification.
4.2 Summary of Recommendations
Lead-Based Paint
Specifications should be included with contract documents to require the management of LBP
appropriately to avoid occupational exposure to lead, minimize generation of hazardous
materials, and require proper disposal of construction debris.
Hilo Family Crisis Center Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Page 10 of 71
October 1998 Convard Consulting
Additional LBP sampling that includes the substrate material should be conducted to confirm
that the LBP when adhered to the construction mate ial and considered with the total waste
stream is not considered hazardous. It is recommended that this be included in the demolition
contract.
Asbestos
Specifications should be included with contract documents to require the management of ACM
appropriately to avoid occupational exposure to asbestos, minimize generation of asbestos waste,
and require for proper disposal of construction debris. The contractor should be given the option
of specific methods to be used for ACM removal, provided that all applicable federal and state
regulations are followed.
Canec (Arsenic)
It is recommended that the contractor conduct TCLP analysis on the canec material and total
waste stream to determine appropriate disposal methods. The contractor should then, in
accordance with the contract specifications and applicable federal and state regulations, arrange
for and complete disposal of the canec material.
5 LIMITATIONS
This hazardous building materials survey is based on the review of available information and
reasonable field sampling efforts. These activities were conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the scope of work and practices and procedures generally accepted in the
environmental consulting field.
The report represents Convard Consulting's professional opinion and judgement, which are
dependent on information obtained during survey services.
All opinions and recommendations presented in this report apply to site conditions existing at the
time of performance of services. Convard Consulting is unable to report or accurately predict
events that may affect the site following completion of the described services. Convard
Consulting assumes no responsibility for conditions it is not authorized to investigate or
conditions not recognized as generally unacceptable at the time services are performed. Convard
Consulting is not responsible for revisions in applicable environmental standards, practices, or
regulations following the performance of services.
Hilo Family Crisis Center Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Page I I of t l
October 1998 Convard Consulting
APPENDIX A
AHERA AND CIH CERTIFICATIONS
r
THE AMERICAN BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
INCORPORATED
Do
I~U~ ~~G1~S18
OF D
Organized to improve the practice and educational standards
of the profession of Industrial Hygiene.
This is to certify that
Jouna L. '1'ak~a
has met the requirements of this Board through her education, experience,
and professional ability, and is hereby certified in the
CHEMICAL ASPECTS
of
INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
pate L'OWC=aan of the
October 31, 1979 f`iBoudof >{ect /
CatifiateNumber I
LI-
173 %r
A
e _ r
l
O
c.i
Own IN
y
~
00 A.,
a
N
G y 4.b W o o~
Z r
~zQ To 0I(
x a: Cal~ t
E- Cc) D v Ci U li o~
Lo x
r p o o W 3I
W A .Y q O A 4. V
V o~ V W " v to
a z ~ ~ O v O jy 4 C fj'
0 ~T a X
111 o' '`o o O
~ C R JJ
a ~
w
\987
53Lb~
sSs. O)
Y •J L
V ~ 3~ 1 Z n I
V < V
T
~ ,rte\•
86~ ~ssr~`
I`
~I
N
~ U d
i i pp ~ y av.
N
V U ~ o
O
I~ u W O C ` '
'i a Q~ N ~ ~ O
~ C
U v ,vp O~ a
~ N Q o ~ ~ O h ~ tl• v O
W " V 4 o w
coo,
d y 7 b V1 LL7 " U N 1
e a n 91 ~
i a z ~ H ~ o a y ~ y h~
111 o
N
~ r IIII~ v hrf
v fib. G~
a <
6! ~ S3 S Ali
APPEND tX B
ASBESTOS ANAL':TICAL DATA
r
Z_35]56
C
5_,-~_i9_8 'ophl FPC'1 c'C I"+C o~J:c 9_-0 Sd60 -
6 1198 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Page 1 0t7
BULK MATERIAL REPCRT
LAB: 48946
REPORT Laboratory Analysis: BULK MATERIAL Methodology: EPA 600/M4A2 020
Client: J 8 J CONSULTANTS PIO#:
Reported to: JOANA L. TABA Proj:
Sampled front: FAMILY CR SHEL/HILO By: Client
Shipped via: FEDERAL EXPRESS Received: 6!1648 Reported: 6117198
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PARAMETER TEST RESULTS
01A A-01 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
12'x12" floor tile 100% Quartz, CaCO, Binder
blue
01B A-01 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
floor tile mastic 3% Cellulose, 97% CaCO, CaSO, Binder
black
02A A-02 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
12"x12" floor file 5% Cellulose, 95% Quartz, CaCO, CaSO. Binder
beige
02B A-02 Asbestos None detected. Thls sample contains approx.
floor file mastic 5% Cellulose, 95% CaCO. CaSO, Binder
yellow
03A A-03 Asbestos None detected. This sample oontalns approx.
12"x12" floor file 100% Quartz, CaCO, Binder
brown
'WSREPOIIT.VRIIE!TD THE STANDARDS OR PROCIp1IR0 pEJ(i1PVDANO TOIW WIIL{(S)TtSTC0. TMI TESTRISULTS ARE NOT NICC]1ANLY N TIVI OR RTfMILwTATIYC
CC TAG OUALIRSS Of TNC LOT PRDM wMICN TNI SAI{PLI WAS TAKEN OR D<YPARIIITLY N)ENTICAI OR MMNAR PTIOMTOTS, NOR DO THEY REPRESINT AM OMOOINO CYALITY
YSURANCI PROGRAM UNLESS SO MOM. TNIi l MEPORTS ARE 000 TWIT SXCLLMIJS VSB OF TNff ADMI IID CLMI(T AND ARB RpDSR® UPON THE DONMMON THAT M W
WALL NOT„ REPROOUCED VIMOILY OR IN PMT BOR ApYSRTMMA OR OTWAR PURPOW OVIR OUR SMMATURe OR IN CONNCDTTOM WITN OUR NAME VATNOUT vuuL WRITTEN
GMMISSIOM SANM.AS NOT OEITROYID IN ?VSTINe AM RITAMIR) A MAXIMUM OF n0TY DAY!.
Awn.-OTRD SY TINE NATIONAL INSTITUTI Of STANDA I" TECNNOLOOY, VOLUNTARY LABORATORY ACCRIINTATION PROORAM FOR SELECTED TEST MIMOO POST AS{{STOS TN[
AMREORATION OR ANY RIPOATS OINSRATSICBY THIS LABOMTORY W NO WAY 00"STmr1LSOR IMPLMI PRODUCTC{RTfICAT APPROYAL OR INOORSIMINT IY THS
NATIONAL PIEITTVTM Of 3TAWAROB AND rIONNOLOOT. ALL AMA\YKI AN DIMMe PROM CAV BIIATID YOUAL ESTIMATI UMARS OTHIRVAIA! NOTED. POlAF12E64.I6MY 0 NOT
tCWnTSNTLY RI\UeII W OSTILTIIO ASeietpf M PL0011 COVINYIB MDSMI4R MON.IRUSLI OIfOANICALLY e0UN0 MATlRlALL WMTTTAIIVB TRANSMISSAN RACTROM
NON ASeSRO!-CONTMNMIO.
MICROSCOPY Is d0TR4NTLY THE ONLY METMOO THAT CAN Be U"O TO OETERMINEIR TMM MATSRN L 0/N h COHMOERAO OR TT%AT{O A*
Ana"r. -Kurt KBIBEr PY: Kurt Ketfler - -
HVLAP Accreditation 01926, CA ELAP 91913, TX DOH 830.6094
7342 EAST THOMAS ROAD SCOTTSDALE. AR12ONA R091-»1A (AM1 ODTI-~ WAY ,Am1 a AAA
a. IUN °d ^I SIN .J7 1R. ° 23 ~7A50 a. d2
_ A
1 7?1 1 r?CI-' D-tC ''^IC 93E2 =5v~ d1B3 2
3 ,7;gg ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Py9e 2 ol7
DULK MATERIAL REPORT
LAB: 48946
REPORT Laboratory Analysis: BULK MATERIAL Methodology: EPA 600IM4-82.020
Client: J 6 J CONSULTANTS PfOfl:
Reported to: JOANA L. TABA Proj:
Sampled from: FAMILY CR SHEL/HILO By: Client
Shipped via: FEDERAL EXPRESS Received: 6115/98 Reported: 6117/98
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PARAMETER TEST RESULTS
038 A-03 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
floor till mastic 4% Cellulose, 1 % Synthetics, 95% CaCO , CaSO,
yellow Binder
04 A-04 Asbestos Positive. This sample contains approx
sink, undercoat 5% Chrysotle, 95% CeCO, CaSO , Binder
black
05 A-05 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
canec ceiling 90% Cellulose. 10% CaCO, CaSO , Binder
It. brown
06A A-C6 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
12•'x12" floor the 100% Quartz, CaCO, Binder
blue
068 A-06 Y Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
floor tile'mastle 3% Cellulose, 97% CaCO, 8lnder
yellow
THERBORUPNS TO TWO RANOMDS ORFROOEOUPM MMSr IOAMO TO TIERAW1Ik%TAIT=TNR TEST RESULTS AMC NOTIVICISILIALYMIMOAMSOR MYR2EENTATIYe
OF TIE OIALITIER OF THIN LOT FROM WHICH TN1 MAMPLE WAS TAMA CIA OF Y ARWTLV 11411110µ OR SIMILAII PROOMTI, NOR DO 7141Y RMIRISENT M ONGOING OVAUTY
AJMULINQ PROGMAM IMLESS 90 NOTRO. THE51 MIMAY3 AM FOR THE IOCLUMVI U51 OF TH1 ADORSSSfe CLIENT AMC ARE RENO"20 UPON IN1 CONINTION THAT TNR
WILL NOT 0e RMROOUCLIC WHOLLY OR N PMT FOR AOVERTIRWfr DR QT HM PURfOM OVER OM MGMTVAE OR IN CONNECTION "IN OUR NAIII MRTNOUT RPECIAL WRTTrOV
MM U84K SAMPLE! NOT ORSTROYSO IN YERTRM PAR RRTAIWO A MA IMILIM OF MRTY DAYL
ACCREOTeoeYTm PATIOY NRTTUTIOIRMOAROE.TaCMNOIOGY,V0.UNTARY LAROAATOAY ACCR1pTAlMM/ROCMMFOA S[LRCr{D 11411NUNCIO ROM A(lf(T07rHl
ACCREOCTATON OR ANY RMOMTS ORNIRATRD MY TNO 1A10RATORY IM NO WAYCON(NTUTIS M IMI LNS FROOVOTCERTPICAIIOR APPROVAL, OR lA11011]011M RY INS
HATO4k IIIlTTInO OP ITANOAMOR MD YICMNOLOGY_ ALL ANµVR{R AN 0{M/!O FMOM CAUeMTED W]L'AL l]TMAT( yNLIN OTN1RWMe NOIm FOLAII(lPLMiNT y MOT
CON(TMttY R{LIARLR IN 01TICTUMf AS/EST00 IM FLOOR COVERINGe ANO RIMRAR NON•/RNOLe ORGANICALLY MOUND MATEMJAL& OVAMTITATIVE YMK M15510M ELECTMON
NICROSCOOV 4 MMEHTLY TIE ONLY NUNCIO MAY CAM K V4110 TO O/YERMNE N TR15 MATERIAL CA4 0 CONSiO&A O OR rMATIO AS NON-ASBESTOfCONTMNING-
Analyst Ken 3cMRKe eY: KUM ICeder
NVLAP Aocreditation 51926, CA ELAP 51913, TX DOH 530-0094
7142 91ST T40UAS ROAD SCOTTSOALE. ARIZONA 8525+-7214 (ROS) ?90.M9 FAX: (502) 000-- ea
P. d3
IUN-__-?e GN 37:8_ Ta Ba ? ~5 i5d513
1 7- 1 g98 ' ! SP- 4 E~,'Jrn E,,'C I r IC 6422 99tO S-'.68 3
6!17198 F-WARONMENTAL MANAGE BENT CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 7
BULK MATERIAL REPORT
LAB: 48946
REPORT Laboratory Analysis: BULK MATERIAL Methodology: EPA 6001M4-82-020
Client: J & J CONSULTANTS P!O#:
Reported to: JOANA L. TABA Proj:
Sampled from: FAMILY CR SHEL/HILO By: Client
Shipped via: FEDERAL EXPRESS Received: 6116198 Reported: 6/17199
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PARAMETER TEST RESULTS
07A A-07 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
12'x12" floor tile 100% Quartz, CaCO. Binder
brown
078 A-07 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
Floor tile mastic 100% CaCO, CaSO, Binder
yellow
08A A-08 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
12"x12" floor file 100% Quartz, CaCO, Binder
brown
088 A-08 Asbestos 'insufficient sample for analysis
mastic
09 A-09 ,I Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
drywall, paper 10% Cellulose, 90% Quartz , CaCO, CaSO
white, ft. brown
rHE A[POMT UPUL[ 70 TN[ lTANDAAD{ GR ?ROC[DYRI{ OQf11.~ Al1p ro TK[ Yr WJ([f T[iTLD, VN[ 7M IOf[ULT[ ME NOT NEC[[MRKY04010AT1Y[ OR REYRESANTA rM
OF THSQUAUTIG{ OF TN[ LOT FROM YIIRON TII[ UMPLX WA4 TAA[M OR OR APPARENTLY IOSNTI"L OR UMRAR PRODUCT; WA CO THRY RlMSUNYAN ONGO W QUALITY
LISURANCG PROGRAM UNL[[[ [O NOTED. 1TIESR RS/glli AR[ 10R T111 S[OLUSN! U[E d TN[ AOORE9tG0 CUSIIf AMp M! iOlIDEREO UPON TN[ CONO,T)ON THATTNEY
PALL NOTISR[PROWCIO WHOLLY ORN PART FOR AOVWRTM04 OR OTHER PUWOeE[OVER OUR W. TW[ORM Co M6CIMN,Wrn1 OUR NAM[ VATMOUT SPECIAL WAIYYLN
FEAM SKK"MPL[S NOT DaSTROYM W USTING LRS AWTARRD A MAA WTNIATY DAYS.
ACCURNrm !Y THI NATIONAL IN"WTE OF {tANOMDS liCMNOLOlY, YOWNTART LAGORATGRY ACCREDITATION MOORAN FOR SeUCT[O TUT Y{THOO FOR AUara. Tne
ACCRSdTAHON OR ANY ARPOAT{ GIN[RATtO OV THIS LAAORAiGRY W NO wIY CON[TrUTi[ OR IMPWS PROONOT e{Rl1FICATIDIL APPROVAL, OA INOCR[EYRNT RY TN!
NATIONAL WSTITUT!OP{TANOAAOS AMY TSCIIMOLOOY, ALL.ANALY[U AA! OlRIV{o FROM CAU NAM VgMAL UTUMTS UNLUS OYNq"ft MGT POLAPRlOtIGNT M NOT
CCMMSDMY MIA" WD CCTIMG ASORATO{M PLO"CON[RXMI AND Mia AR MOUSSIA[LI OROANOALLY MOUND MATEAULI QuMtTATIV{TMNSMT.SfON ELECTRON
- INOAOAOOFY 1E CWiFANTLY THi ONLY MErH THAT CAN OfU[EO TO OSTWMN4W 114$ MATSRAL CAN W CON30,110 OOR TR[ATIV AS NOM-A3WATOS.COMTAINING
T
AAaiyst Kurt KaWN By: Kurt Ke#W
NVLAP Accreditation #1926, CA ELAP $1913, TX DOH #30-0094
7342 EAST 1140MAS ROAD SCOTT$tALE. AA1?r1NA AA14I.71. 1m1 Po..
7`!N-:=-13 ':1. d- 73 __TA$A__. ° -5?5a5a P. OJ
S 7-' 9cg ' HPnI F :G.+ cP1C ?NC 60~~ ~J0 SS63 "
V17/98 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Pago 4 of 7
BULK MATERIAL REPORT
LAB: 48946
REPORT Laboratory Analysis: BULK MATERIAL Methodology: EPA 600/M4-82.020
Client: J & J CONSULTANTS P/O#h
Reported to: JOANA L. TABA Proj:
Sampled from: FAMILY CR SHEL/HILO By: C'.ient
Shipped via: FEDERAL EXPRESS Received: 15116/98 Reported: 6/1793
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PARAMETER TEST RESULTS
10A A-10 Asbestos None detected. This Sample contains approx.
paper 97% Cellulose, 3% CaSO. Binder
It. brown
108 A-10 Asbestos None detected. This sample contatne approx.
joint compound 100% Quartz. CaSO, Mica, Binder
white
11 A-11 Asbestos POSRIVC. This sample contains approx.
inoleum 20% Chrysotile, 80% CaCO, CBSO . Binder
beige
12A A-12 Asbestos None detected. This Sample contains approx.
' 12"x12" floor tile 100% Quartz, CaCO , Binder
blue
I 12B A-12 ° Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
floor Ste mastic 4% Cellulose, 1% Synthetics, 95% CaCO. CaSO,
Binder
yellow
' Tltl REPORT YPtI[ETO+MI fTANOARDe OR PROCNIIEO VORTPIlO AND TO TM[fAMR[ts)Time TME/pTASSULTS MINOi N[L1mANLY NOICATIV[OA aSFa[SDITATYJE
OP TN! OUALnISS OF TMS LOT FROM `NHIDN M SAMPLE TMAf TARQ1 OR OFAPFAR[NTLV 10WTIGL OR7MILAR FMOOUOi; MOR DO TK1' REIRlS[NT AN ONOpMO OLIAL,TY
AEEURANC!FROORAM uNLX"!0 NOVGO,TNIS[RVGRrEARE FOR ME EXCLUSIVE U09 Of THEABeEE4t[D CLIENT AND AM RENDERED IROY ,M! C TLOR MAT TMEY
FILL NOT E[ REMOOVC4D WHOLLY OR IN PAIR FOR ADVENTISX4D ON OrWM PUMONA OM DUE RIONAIUM OR IN O%Nt9T*N WMI OUR NAAN"MOUT SP[OIAL WNTTLN
Pew4Md. SAMPLES MOT O%$TAOY[D N rs]TNO ARE RETAINED A MAXIMUM OF TIOW BAYS.
A EURTVD SY MA NATIONAL INSMYVrs OF STANDAM.TSCHNOLOW, VOLUNTARY LA6ORATORYACCR[NTAT1O1 PRODIUM FOR SENCTEO TEST METHOD, FOR AS TO TM!
ACDRUITATION OR AMY ROCAr4 O[MERAT[O MY TIME LAG MTORY N NO WAY CONSTITUM CR IMPLIES PROOU C[ ATICN AAPFIWAL, OR ENDORSEMENT RY TIK
NATIONAL N[TITUTE OP STANDAROS AND TECMMOLOeY. ALL AMALYE[SAEA DEAN; FROM OAL4MTE0 YMuAL ESTIMATE UNLESS OTNSAIWSE NO1E0, POLMNJDigHT IS NOT
COW4Tl1174Y ROJASLE N DETECTING A54"TOS IN FLOOR COVEINIM AND WEAR NONI403A R6 OROMaOALLY SOUN13 NATO ULA. 0JANTTA7IVS TE,041A4Y0M 0.[CTAOR
MICRODOOPV 0 OUN010MY TIE ONLY MIITMOD THAT CAN Y USED TO OCTIPANNS•MS MATIML CANS! CCNSIOE RED OR MGTSO Af Now-As aiuao&=N,W .D.
Analyst Kurt K6tdar By Kurt KERtler
n NVLAP A=editation #1926, CA FLAP #1913, TX DOH i30-0094
7342 EAST THOMAS ROAD SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 65231.731E (6021120-Meg FAX: (w2) DDD-B4ee
w,
i
rid«i ~*7_ I-10 r1 13 34 ~a91 _.35J5a P. 06
6-I -19J8 1 = 1 cPln F'PD.l Et-1r IIVC 602 SSO 3Cc9 ° S
g117ryg ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEM cNT CONSULTANTS Pag+ 5 of 7
BULK MATERIAL R__°PORT
LAB: 48946
REPORT Laboratory Analysis: BULK MATERIAL Methodology: EPA 600/M4-82-020
Client: J 3 J CONSULTANTS P/O#:
Reported to: JOANA L. TABA Proj:
Sampled from: FAMILY CR SHELIHILO By: Client
Shipped via: FEDERAL EXPRESS Received: 6116/98 Reported: 6/17f98
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PARAMETER TEST RESULTS
13A A-13 AsbeWS None detected. This sample contains approx.
12'x12" floor tile 5% Cellulose, 95% Quartz, CaCO, Binder
beige
13B A-13 Asbestos -insufficient sample for analysis
mastic
14 A-14 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
drywall 10% Cellulose, 90% Quartz , CaCO, CaSO, Mica
brown, It, brown
15 A-15 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
spray-on, ceiling texture 100% CaCO , CaSO , Mica. Binder
whRe
16 A-111 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
drywall 10% Cellulose, 90% Quartz, CaCO, CaSO, Mica
white, R brown
TN[REPOET APKIES TO IME]iANDAROt OR PROCeCURlS DlNRRtD?MD TO TINS SAMP1.e3lTOTEl NtT/3T ARWLTE MS NOT MICORARLLYNON:ArIVI OR RSfRIi!NTATNe
OP INS MAUTlS Of MR LOT FROM WNIGN TINS SAMPLE WAS TAKEN OR OF APPARINTLY IOOITNUIL OR SIMILAR PROOVM NOR 00 THEY MPARAMY AN ONGOING QUALITY
ASSURANW PROGRAM UNLESS SO MOK4 TNSSR ROM)" ARE PGR MS EACW SP4 VSS OP THE A0011EAM GLISNT AMC MS 9RNOR11to UPON MR CONDITION MAY YNET
VELL NOT BE OAPP4000ED VRIOLLY OR IN PAIIT 004 AOVERIISING OR OMIR PURP NHi$ OVMt MR 515 "MM OR N GONNRCTIOM RRYN OUR NAME VA01WT SP IGK WAI"O ,
PIRLUSSION. SAMPLO NOT OFATROVRC N TMSTING AAR RETAINED A MAXIMUM OP THIRTY OAV&
ACCASOITRO SY TN! NATIONALINS"Wn a STANOM09 T(ONNOLOOY, NYOLUNTMV WORATORY ACtIISDITATIOH PROGRAM WR S!LlCit0lrET YETNOD PORAtI41 YO7. M!
ACGAOITATON OR AMY RRRORTS OENRRATEG SV Me LAeORArORY N NO W V CONOMTUM OR NPILU PRODUCT tlR11PICwnGH, AIPRGVAL OR RNMIUMINSNT F M{
"TONAL NSWNYE OF STANMROS AMD T"OIINOLOCV. ALL ANALYSBE ARE OSRN{D PROM CAURRATIO VISUAL ESTIMATE UMLRBE OTMIRYRS! NOTm. POLARIESO-UGHT IS NOT
001411 TGMTLV RIWAKC IN OITICTWO ASBESTOS N PI60MA NW AND SIMILAR NON 4INAI1S GACAAIGALLY SOLNO MATERIALS. QUANTITATIV! TRANSMISSION ELECTAOM
MCAORMnNOURA{NTLY MI ONLY METHOD TMAT CAN M USRD TO MTERMSIS IF THIS MATERIAL CAN O!CONSIOOISDOR MIATIOAS NON•ASOWOS-COMTAUNMO.
a
Anatyat Kurt KRtdw BY KuR KNew
NVLAP Accreditation #1926, CA ELAP 01813, TX DOH #30-0094
1 ;734050 P.Oe
T BH
- luN-22-3d nGrl OT i.L
0^-'17-1893 I.=OPM ~RCO E~1C IPZ 602 91.;j 816'8 S
6/17198 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT5 Pege 8 of 7
BULK MATERIAL REPORT
LAB: 48946
REPORT Laboratory Analysis; BULK MATERIAL Methodology: EPA 60011x14.82.020
Client: J 8 J CONSULTANTS PIO#:
Reported to: JOANA L. TABA Prof
Sampled from: FAMILY CR SHEL/HILO By: Client
Shipped via: FEDERAL EXPRESS Received: 8116!98 Reported: 6117(98
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PARAMETER TEST RESULTS
17 A-17 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
drywall 10% Cellulose, 90% Quartz. CaCO, CaSO. Mica
white, IL brown
18 A-18 Asbestos Positive. This sample contains approx
linoleum 10% Chrysotile, 10% Cellulose, 80% CaCO. CaSO.
brown Binder
i9 A-19 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
linoleum 17% Cellulose, 3% Fiberglass, 80% CaCO. CaSO.
whits, gray Binder
r
20 A-20 Asbestos None detected. This sample Contains approx.
linoleum 15% Cellulose, 5% Wollastonds, a0% GaCO, CaSO
beige, it- brown , Binder
21 A•21 1 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx
spray-on 100% CsCO, CaSO, MICa, Binder
pink, whits
THE PEPORTAPPLIE/ TO TNR STAMOARD/ OA PWCCDUft3XgNNPMO AND TO TWI AAA^111) TEETM THE TeET REEULT] AAE MOT rLEC6AMR1lY INpCAPYC OR R IS"I"O TAMI
W TW OUALITRR OE THE LOT /ROM WHICH THE ]AMPLE WAS TAKER OR OF ANARERILYWI VINT AL W WEAN PRTAUOTE NOR 00 THEY R/MESRM AN ONDOIHO OUAARY
ASMMANCR PTOfORAM UNtEaE IO NbaEA THM AZPOATE ARE FM TWO 00JAM UN OP'INA ADVA (NEED WENT AND ARE RINOIRAO UTOII THE EOM MON THAT THEY
WILL NOT N R100000CE0 WHOUY OR M PART ME ADVIAT EMO OR OTHER PURPORRE OVEN OUR 51ONATURE DIl IN COIMfITTOM WITH OUR NAMM YAT1gUT SKCULL WRITTEN
PERNLSMON. EANTLAE NOT OISTROYEO IN TEETMWG ARE AETARM A OAEM W OF THIRTY DAYS.
ALY:REDMO N THE NAT10HAL WIT"WR OF aTAMDAAO11 TECMMOIAOY, VMUNYARY LAEOMTOAY ACCREDITATION PROGRAM PORI SOLCCTE0 TMET MRTHDO MR ASMSTOE THR
ACCREO(TATWN OR ANY AAPDTIA DOWRATEO EY TIES LA4OPATDAY MI IMCIAY OOMWnWTjE OA INTERES TRGOUCT CERTIEICATIbL NPNCVA OR SHOORSEMENT RY THS
N?T
RATi " rw nTuTE OP ETANDAROR Pun TECNHOLOOY. ALL AMAATEER ARE OENUES FWAX CALIERAY1I0 WSwy NTMATEUTILISE OTHERWISE MOTSD. POWUEIOa10NT 13
CONMIEYENTLY R04ASLE W DETECTING ANEETOS W PLOOR COWARIOO Al0 MOLAR NON XIIIANA OROAMCALLY /OURO MATERIALS. OIMNnTATNE YAAMMI&SION ELACTRGM
,.a W&ROSCOPT II OUMSWMY THE ONLY M111W*TWAT OAN N UjW TO DETERMINE W TWO MATIRML CAMNCONSOMAM0011 TREATED A]NOM A]Ei]YDiCONTAl1AME.
01
Analyst Kurt Xomw BY Kurt KaWar
NVLAP Accreditation #1928, CA ELAP #1913, TX DOH 030-0094
7342 EAST TNOMAS ROAD SCOTTSOALE, ARIZONA &A ,I ~R lenn• •4 -
PJN -•N n7 3a8 2595050 a 07
5-'7-1958 .2'%PI FRGt, c~C INC 602 Ad6B 7
617798 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Page 7 of 7
BULK MATERiAI, REPORT
LAB: 48946
REPORT Laboratory Analysis: BULK MATERIAL Methodology: EPA 600/M4-82-020
Client: J d J CONSULTANTS P100:
Reported to: JOANA L. TABA Pro):
Sampled from: FAMILY CR SHEUHILO Sty; Client
Shipped via: FEDERAL EXPRESS Received: 6116188 Reported: 6117/98
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PARAMETER TEST RESULTS
22 A-22 Asbestos None detected. This sample contains approx.
spray-on 100% CaCO. CaSO, Mica, Binder
white
a
t
T
THE REPORT APPLIES 70 THE STANDARDS OR PIIOCN7UIIS2 IDBM71f1(O AND M TTIE MMPIe(SI TE(RO. THE TpT 0.fAULTt AN NOI NBGC.SSARLY INpOA1M OR REPRlfEHTATNE
OF THE OUALITIU OF THE LOT PRDII W'IIICH TIN U WLI WAS TAKEN OU OF ANAMTLY IDMMAL OR SIMILAR PRDOUCV%HDR DO THEY RSrRISENT AN ONOOMO QUAUTY
AEfVRAN'N PRODAAM UNLLU b MOTS D. THUS REPORTS ARE rOR THS EACLU" USE OPM ADOREEMDCLIENT "SAM RI4V= UPON TLS! OONDRION THAT THEY
WILL NOT" "PRODUCED WHOLLY GRIN PART POP AOVIRTSNO OR OTHEA r000.Y!OVVtMW O11ATURi GRIN CONNECT-OM WITHOUR NAY(YIRNOUT SPECIAL WAMEN
? UIWIpI SWPLlS NOT DEBTROVAD N TENRNO AU RETANED A MAXIMUM Of THIRTY DAYS.
ACCUGITUD ET THE NATIONAL NSTITUTS OF STANDARDS TWHNOLWV. LOLUNTAAT LARORATSOY ACCREOITATlN PROMW POR SISGTCO MIT NBTHCO FOR AS(FS10L THE
A IUI TATIOI OR ANY REPORTS GENElU71110 M THIS LABORATORY N NO WAY OONITITVM OR IMPLIE7 PRODUCT ClRTFK 71" APPROVAL, OR MOOREEM1W BY THS
NATIONAL PbTTUTS OP STANDARDS AM TSCNMOLDeY. ALL ANALYSrA ARE BIAMID PROM !L TSS VTSUAL ESIOIAT( UNLEU OTHERYAY NOTSO. POLAR04LIOHT It NOT
OONWITENT\Y RELIAEL5IN D(T(CTWO ANOT68 N PtODN DOVONWS AND NNEJA NO"A ARL! OIOANICALLY SOUND MATERNLL QUANTITATIVE TRANSMNNOI 6SCTASN
NCNOSOOPY Is GUMMY TN( ONLY U(N100 THAT CAM N Us=IOIlTEAMNS OTWSWT(RIIAL CAN 94 CONSICIEW OR TREATED
Mary= Kurt KSItISr By Kurt KNLNH
S
C NVLAP Accreditation #1929, CA ELAP #1913, TX DOH *30.009A
APPENI)IX C
LEAD ANALYTICAL DATA
2 z
O a V_
~.r r J o. r w w Z y 1R
r
v w W w ' cx o O > Z2 LL10
Q a LLJ x Il o i
> s U a OL N I w o w zaa z J
_N b~ X a1 G3 L) 2 a r
z O z w
2 a y < v d~(.
OM J J'° 2 < w Jx r K}
410 , --t 9 O y W> <O Z
uj w w ° ! - N m LLI yO a
tll
b. _
¢ < w .(A yS7 - N
a a w
w0 P4el X < 2 < f
a r
N
N
T
J
Z
Q < } m
m J
O °2 a }
W O °A. LU
9 y m
~ w
¦ ° E
} O,~L~ i ¦ Z w •
a w m n w n m n
O Q~ ¢ p C O ¢ p O
v m a. U [9 c c
v ~s. <
U- °d a r a r
O x
z
2
U J to 'm
cim. Q a }
in ID Z = m
Q o< v m o ° o
E w E
.Y _ ¦ z w o z
J y m a v a
Y V t ¢ e e E¢ c E
{L p p
CO m a` 0 m a` v
n w .t
< <
F ^ F Y a~ ~ b a r
3 w
z 00 a ° `9 J
< to
a: LL
,r r Q_O r
w
v
boo y = N O O O O O D- y q~ m o
= Qo J o 0 0 t t t l
w< a J4 z z lp w
2 m y p ` E¢ a ` o
° m ` a v
a v< a i t^ y y r Y v T - a` v N
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS SERVICES, L.L.C.
7469 WHI It: IN A- R3
804.275-4788 FAX 804-275-4907
LEAD IN PAINT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
CLIENT: J&J Consultants DATE OF SAMPLING: 12 JUN 1998
41-425 Flamingo Street DATE OF RECEIPT: 15 JUN 1998
Waimanalo, HI 96795 DATE OF ANALYSIS: 15 JUN 1998
DATE OF REPORT: 16 JUN 1998
EHS PROJECT M 06.98-1740
PROJECT: FAM.CR.SHEL.IHILO
EHS CLIENT SAMPLE CONCENTRATION
SAMPLE# SAMPLE# WEIGHT (a) BY WEIGHT)
01 Pb-01 0.137 6.02
02 Pb-02 0.114 18.5
03 Pb-03 0.105 0.408
04 Pb-04 0.122 0.031
05 Pb-05 0.122 0.195
06 Pb-06 0.163 0.302
07 Pb-07 0.157 0.019
08 Pb-08 0.120 0.021
09 P9-09 0.112 0.318
10 Pb-10 0.107 <0.024
11 Pb-11 0.113 0.059
QUALITY CONTRO4 DATA -
BATCHM 061598P1.1
INCLUSIVE EHS SAMPLE NUMBERS: 01.09
Initial Calibration Verification (S.OOppm Pb) 101°x6 Recovery
Laboratory Control Standard (10.0% Pb) 106% Recovery
Continuing Calibration Verification 10 (10.0ppm Pb) 101% Recovery
Continuing Calibration Verification 5 (5.00ppm Pb) 104% Recovery
Matrix Spike 104% Recovery
Duplicate Relative Percent Difference 5.13 RPD
Reoortinc Limit 25 Ou¢
BATCHM 061598PI-2
INCLUSIVE EHS SAMPLE NUMBERS: 10-11
Laboratory Control Standard (10.0% Pb) 104°x6 Recovery
Continuing Calibration Verification 10 (10.0ppm Pb) 101% Recovery
Continuing Calibration Verification 5 (S.OOppm Pb) 102% Recovery
Matrix Spike 101% Recovery
Duplicate Relative Percent Difference 4.83 RPD
Limit 25 0u¢
Reportino - PAGE 01 of 02 -
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS SERVICES, L.L.C.
EHS PROJECT 06-98-1740
PROJECT: FA.M.CR.SHEL.1HIL0
PREPARATION METHOD: EPA 600/R-93/200
ANALYSIS METHOD: EPA SW846 7420
ANALYST: David Xu Jv
Reviewed By Authorized Signatory:
Kenneth T. White, MS,.VBA(AM, CIH, CSP, General Manager
Howard Varner, Laboratory Director
Irma Faszewski, Quality Assurance Coordinator
David Yu, MS, Senior Chemist
Feng Jiang, MS, Senior Geologist
This method has been validated for sample weights of 0.0208 or greater. When samples with a weight of less than that are
analyzed those results fall outside of the scope of accreditations.
Sample results denoted with a "less than' ( < I sign contain less than 25.Oug total lead, based on a 50mi sample volume.
Results represent the analysis of samples submitted by the client. Sample location, description, area, volume etc., was provided by
the client. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Environmental Hazards Services, L.L.C.
LEGEND g = gram ug = microgram ppm = parts per million
ml = milliliter Pb = lead
pai n pb08.dot/19APR 1998/11 b
- PAGE 02 of 02 - END OF REPORT -
a
APPENDIX 7
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
STATE OF HAWAII
Review each of the rules or standards listed below and check
and/or complete the statement that applies. The completion of
the form and signature at the bottom will provide evidence that
the proposed action is consistent with Hawaii's environmental
regulations and standards.
1. Chapter 343 HRS Environmental Impact statements
2. Act 282, Private Waste Water Treatment Plants, Session
Laws of Hawaii, 1985
3. Title 11, Administrative Rules, State of Hawaii,
Department of Health
a. Chapter 42, Vehicular Noise Control for Oahu
b. Chapter 43, Community Noise Control for Oahu
C. Chapter 54, Water Quality Standards
d. Chapter 55, Water Pollution Control
e. Chapter 59, Ambient Air Quality Standards
f. Chapter 60, Air Pollution Control
_ It has been determined that the proposed action
requires compliance with one or more of the above
regulations which include:
Appropriate permits for clearance on the above
regulations were obtained on
x The proposed action is consistent with the regulations
listed above and no permits are required.
Certified by
y
' - -
Date