2011 01-12

From: Tsuji, Michael
To: ColaJoann@epamail.epa.gov;
cc: Kurano, Matthew; Seto, Joanna L;
Subject: Waimanalo Gulch Landfill discharge
Date: Wednesday, January 12,201110:31:10 AM
Attachments: Dwg1 Limits of Liner System. pdf
Stormwater 12232010.pdf
101223 Waimanalo Gulch Landfill Discharge final.pdf

Joann,
Attached are: 1. CWB's inspection report on the landfill, December 23, 2010.
2. Waimanalo Gulch Landfill's drawing of the E6 cell where the
stormwater collected and contacted the trash.
3. Rainfall data

Below is the link to the news article on the landfill discharge.
http://www.khon2.com!content!news!developingstories/story!Landfill-Runoff-
Concerns-Watchdog!D9Aa jUUxUKfWS3VugDdHA.cspx

When things settle down, we should discuss our enforcement options, one,
because it is Waste Management, EPA may want to join the State in an
enforcement action.

Michael Tsuji
State of Hawaii
Department of Health
Clean Water Branch
Enforcement Section Supervisor
808-586-4309

Yamada, Stuart H
From: Okubo, Janice S.
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:33 AM
To: Gill, Gary L.; Yamada, Stuart H; Chang, Steven Y; Wong, Alec Y; Tsuji, Matthew; Tsuji,
Michael; Seto, Joanna L
Subject: TV News Clips for landfill and brown water advisory -- FW: Dateline Media, Inc. Search
'Department of Health' Found 3 Stories

FYI --

Attached or below are TV news stories on the landfill discharge and brown water advisory for Maui.

From: Ted Sappington, Dateline Media, Inc. (Auto Reports) [mailto:ted@dateline-media.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:38 AM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Subject: Dateline Media, Inc. Search 'Department of Health' Found 3 Stories

DATEUNE MEDIA, INC.
Media A1onitoring Network.
(BOB) 949-7710 • www.dateline-media.oom •

State Department of Health

1. JAN 112011 SUNRISE ON KGMB Nielsen Audience: 30,310 Calculated Ad
'.iiV7:00AM HI Equivalency: $1,092
[]ORDER KGMB-CBS HONOLULU, Run Time: 2:36 Calculated Publicity Value:
HI $3,276
30-Second Ad Equivalency: $210
[**07:12:05**] rnPreview Clip Morning news headline: guest live remote: university of Hawaii student
brissa mamamura. It is a security breach that may have affected thousands of uh alumni. The school will"
talk about ways to safeguard information. Ramsay wharton live with a little bit more. Good morning.
Good morning. That's right. Uh getting into session for the spring term. Just yesterday. And we've been
mentioning traffic and weather, but students are starting to pour on campus. With the new year brings new
discussions about privacy breaches. Just after 1:00 today, officials here is going to be meeting with some
tech can is from can ies from the state and city. They're going to be talking about ways and steps they can
take. This comes as a result of the class action lawsuit med in November against the university on behalf
of a former uh student who says his social security number made it out online. Here's his attorney.
Soundbite: victim's attorney Thomas grande. "Our client in it case, felipe gross discovered in February of
this year that four other individuals had been using his social security number. He discovered that when
he's plied with a grant with the State Department OF HEALTH. Several month later he was informed
business his credit card company his credit card was being used to purchase gasoline on the mainland.
Again, that victim alleging he was expected by two of the four security breaches recently. Now the uh
1

lawsuit wants the university they want the federal court to order them to stop using social security
numbers on campuses. And to take further steps, including pay for credit monitoring for the victims and
identity theft insurance. We've been able to talk to a couple of students this morning. Good morning. We
talked about you were among the students that received the email last year. How do you feel this morning,
knowing that your privacy is continuing suggests. It defInitely concerns me. I don't want to be a victim,
and I think it's really important that they take all measures to protect our information because we entrust
our information with them. And if something like that happened in the past, it can defInitely happen again.
We understand that back in 2002, uh officials said that they tried to take a step to stop using social security
numbers but they needed it for tax purposes, fmancial aid. Do you think that's going to be a real option
with the university, and would you agree with that?

2. JAN 11 2011 WAKEUP2DAY Nielsen Audience: 13,987 Calculated Ad
Equivalency: $1,400
[ ]ORDER KHON-FOX HONOLULU, Run Time: 2:20 Calculated Publicity Value:
HI $4,200
[**05:41:39**] ru!Preview Clip Morning news headline: waimanalo gulch landfill gathers more than 400-
thousand tons of the island's trash every year. And during heavy rains that trash mixes with water. Andrew
pereira has more now on a large discharge during our last big storm. It's the law of gravity, water always
flows downhill. So when waimanalo gulch landfill was pounded by rain December 19th, all that water
flowed into the ocean. Soundbite: envirowatch, Carroll cox, "this brings on a big problem. Environmental
watchdog Carroll cox raises an obvious concern, rain water mixed with trash and ash from h-power is not
a good combination. Soundbite: cox, "the chemicals that people throwaway and household waste and all
of that is being introduced potentially into the water system. Waste management, the company that runs
the landfill for the city, believes 7.5 million gallons of rainwater gathered inside one of the cells where
garbage trucks dump their trash. The STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT believes some or all of the
water went into the ocean pumped into a concrete channel that snakes down the landfIll, flows underneath
farrington highway and end's up here, at the water's edge behind ko olina resort. Soundbite: cox, "it
presents a problem but it's a problem we can't quantify right now but we know that it has the potential of
having a devastating impact on the environment and the animals and plants there. When STATE
HEALTH inspectors examined the area four days after last month's storm, waste management tested the
storm water, which showed contaminants did not exceed STATE HEALTH guidelines. However, sen.
Josh green, a doctor who also chairs the health committee, says that doesn't mean you should be
swimming in the area after a big rain. Soundbite: sen. Josh green, "avoid it, you know it's still just smart
because these samples are just you know samples, spots in time. Green says storm runoff, especially from
a landfill, can contain staph and e- coli bacteria. And although the storm water last month tested within
acceptable limits, he's disappointed warning signs were not posted. Soundbite: green, "some people are
more sensitive than others so a sign does no harm. Andrew pereira khon-2 news, Hawaii's news leader
waste management says its permit with the STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT does allow it to
discharge storm water into the ocean.

JAN 112011 HAWAII AT 5 Nielsen Audience: 44,660 Calculated Ad
Equivalency: $750
[]ORDER KHON-FOX HONOLULU, Run Time: 0:50 Calculated Publicity Value:
HI $2,250
[**05:02:27 PM**] [Eh>review Clip News headline: last night's storm front continues to cause problems
for residents on maui. A brown water advisory is in place from maalaea to kihei. STATE HEALTH
OFFICIALS are concerned last night's heavy rains may lead to potentially dangerous brown water. Also
an issue is the drinking water in kula. The rains damaged a waterline near kawehi place in upper kula, and
county officials say that may have compromised the water quality in the system. Residents are being told
2

to boil water before drinking it. Soundbite: maui county spokesperson, rod antone, "it is just not worth it
taking a chance to use the water from tap right now because it has been exposed we just don't know what
is in there and we don't want anyone getting sick. Water testing is taking place and the department of
water supply will notify customers when it is safe to drink water from the tap.

Report Generated: 2011/01/1208:37:44.742 (CT)
Total Story Count: 3
Total Nielsen Audience: 88,957
Total 30-Second Ad Equivalency: $960
Total Run Time: 5:46
Total Calculated Ad Equivalency: $3,242
Total Calculated Publicity Value: $9,726

To order clips from this report,
check the ORDER box for each story required,
then open the Clip Order page by clicking here.
[Order Clips]
If the Clip Order page does not appear,
or the clips you want to order do not have an ORDER box,
notify your monitoring service.

This report contains copyrighted material and may be used for file and reference purposes only. Any
reproduction, sale or distribution is prohibited.
Portions © 2009 Nielsen Media Research, Inc. Ratings data contained herein are the
copyrighted property of Nielsen Media Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

3

<,

Miyashiro, Thomas
From: Whelan, Joseph [JWhelan1@wm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 3:51 PM
To: Miyashiro, Thomas; Ichinotsubo, Lene K
Cc: Lottig, Justin; Frey, Jesse; Von Pein, Rick
Subject: Request for Approval to Resume Cell 6 Waste Receipts
Attachments: DOCCELL 6 .pdf; Assessment of Northwestern Portion of Cell E6 for MSW Placement
Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill.htm

Greetings Lene & Tom.

Please find attached the report from AECOM, QC firm for the Cell 6 construction project, which addresses
the Departments concerns over our resuming operations in Cell 6. I would appreciate your review and
providing an email approval to resume disposal activities within cell 6 at this time. Please contact me with any
questions as soon as possible, as we are nearing capacity in other areas of the landfill. Thank you.

Best regards,

«DOCCELL 6 .pdf»

Joe «Assessment of Northwestern Portion of Cell E6 for MSW Placement Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary
Landfill.htm»

General Manager

Waste Management of Hawaii

808-668-2985, ext. 15 Office

808-668-1366 Fax

808-479-4610 Mobile

Waste Management's landfills provide over 17,000 acres of
protected land for wildlife habitats and 15 landfills are certified
by the Wildlife Habitat Council.

Waste Management recycles enough paper every year to save 41 million trees. Please recycle
any printed emails.

1

Miyashiro, Thomas
From: Miyashiro, Thomas
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:17 AM
To: Whelan, Joseph
Cc: Ichinotsubo, Lene K; Fujimoto, Janice K; Ruiz, Jose A; jlottig@wm.com;jfrey@wm.com;
rvonpein@wm.com; Chang, Steven Y; Yamada, Stuart H
Subject: RE: Request for Approval to Resume Cell 6 Waste Receipts

Hi Joe: We acknowledge receipt and have no adverse comments on your submittal of AECOM's assessment and
acceptance of the containment and leachate collection systems in the area to be used in Cell E6, as depicted in the
attached drawing. However, because of the severe rain event last night, based on a conversation with Jesse this
morning, we understand that virtually the entire area of the lined portion of Cell E6 is under water, and the water level is
near the top of the new berm constructed on the south side of the cell. Unfortunately, in view of this development, this
assessment should be redone or updated. We can only sympathize with you as this worst case scenario continues.

With best regards,
Tom

From: Whelan, Joseph [mailto:JWhelan1@wm.com]
sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 3:51 PM
To: Miyashiro, Thomas; Ichinotsubo, Lene K
Cc: Lottig, Justin; Frey, Jesse; Von Pein, Rick
Subject: Request for Approval to Resume cell 6 Waste Receipts

Greetings Lene & Tom.

Please find attached the report from AECOM, QC firm for the Cell 6 construction project, which addresses
the Departments concerns over our resuming operations in Cell 6. I would appreciate your review and
providing an email approval to resume disposal activities within cell 6 at this time. Please contact me with any
questions as soon as possible, as we are nearing capacity in other areas ofthe landfill. Thank you.

Best regards,

«DOCCELL 6 .pdf»

Joe «Assessment of Northwestern Portion of Cell E6 for MSW Placement Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary
Landfill.htm»

General Manager

Waste Management of Hawaii

808-668-2985, ext. 15 Office

1

808-668-1366 Fax

808-479-4610 Mobile

Waste Management's landfills provide over 17,000 acres of
protected land for wildlife habitats and 15 landfills are certified
by the Wildlife Habitat Council.

Waste Management recycles enough paper every year to save 41 million trees. Please recycle
any printed emails.

2

of2
·From: Boyle, Ron [Ron.Boyle@aecom.com]
To: Whelan, Joseph
Cc: Frey, Jesse; Frerich, Dan; Lottig, Justin
Subject: Assessment of Northwestern Portion of Cell E6 for MSW Placement, Waimanalo Gulch sanitary
Landfill

Hi Joe,

It is AECOM's understanding that WMH would like to begin filling MSW in the northwestern portion of Cell E6 at the Waimanalo
Gulch sanitary Landfill (WGSL). This area is at a higher elevation which has not been flooded by recent storm events and is
needed for lmmediate use due to lack of alternative filling areas. The purpose of this e-mail is to address concerns recently
expressed by DOH Solid Waste Branch before filling can commence. The primary concerns are discussed below:

1. On Monday, 1/10/11, AECOM observed the northwestern sideslope of the Cell E-6 liner for any potential damage due to
large rocks that were rolled down from the Western Surface Water Drainage excavation last week. The sideslope liner is
covered by approximately 3 feet of operations layer (sand material) on the bench and 2 feet on the sideslope and was
previously placed in accordance with the project specifications. Due to recent rains (late December 2010), erosion gullies
had formed in the sideslope operations layer but these areas were repaired by Goodfellow Brothers, Inc. (GBI) prior to
excavating and pushing rocks down from above. Based on discussions with GBI personnel and field observations, it
appears that the operations layer was intact and provided the necessary protection to the liner from the rocks rolled
down from above. There are large rocks/boulders spread along the E-6liner bench and floor that should be removed
carefully with an excavator to prevent damage to the underlying liner and leachate collection layer. On Wednesday,
1/12/11, AECOM's CQA representative (Dan Frerich) observed that the rocks on the floor of the cell were carefully
removed using a tracked excavator and stockpiled outside of the landfill cell.
2. On Wednesday, 1/12/11, AECOM observed the northwestern edge of the Cell E6 floor liner for any potential damage to
the encapsulated liner system as a result of recent flooding events. Based on AECOM's observations, it appears this area
did not sustain any significant damage from flooding. The edge of liner in this area was constructed in accordance with
Detail W shown on sheet no. 10 of the drawings prepared by Geosyntec (dated January 2010). The northern edge of the
liner system along the cell floor was buried in a l-foot deep trench, then backfilled will soil cushion material and covered
with pieces of plywood. This edge was then covered with a 4.5-foot high stormwater diversion berm constructed with
compacted soil cushion material. The edge of E6 floor liner further to the east at the E4 liner tie-in area was damaged by
the recent storm flows due to it being at a lower elevation. An assessment of the damage in this tie-in area is currently
underway.
3. On Wednesday, 1/12/11, AECOM observed the northwestern edge of the Cell E6 floor for any potential damage to the
LCRS gravel layer. Based on AECOM's observations, it appears that there were minimal impacts from the recent storm
flows to this area. Because the overlying operations layer and MSW placed in 2010 are visually intact, it is expected that
the underlying LCRS gravel layer is intact. Additionally, a layer of 10 oz/sy geotextile filter layer fabric protects the
underlying gravel from infiltration of silt. The leading edge of the LCRS gravel layer will be exposed later in 2011 for
completion of the remainder of Cell E6 and CQA monitors will confirm that the gravel is free of contamination.
4. On Wednesday, 1/12/11 AECOM met with WMH and GBI personnel to discuss measures being taken to prevent further
clogging of the temporary drainage inlet no. 1. An approximately 15-foot high temporary berm was constructed across
the valley floor yesterday to contain runoff and direct it into the drainage inlet. It was agreed that the area surrounding
the inlet should be dug down to the level of the inlet riser by removing mud and rocks that had accumulated from
previous storm events. This will increase the storage capacity for debris accumulation in future events. A berm of large
boulders will be stacked just upstream of the inlet to act as an energy dissipater and hold back debris from clogging the
inlet grate. AECOM's CQA representative will remain on site to confirm that these improvements are completed today.

In conclusion, based on our recent observations of Cell E6 at WGSL and completion of temporary drainage measures, we believe
that the northwestern section of Cell E6 is in good condition and has adequate protection from future storm events to allow
placement of MSW.

Let me know if you have any questions.

file://C:Documents and SettingstmiyashiroLocal SettingsTemporary Inter... 2/17/2011

of2

Ron Boyle, P.E.
Senior Engineer. Environment
D 808.356.5321 Cell 808.497.5941
ron.boyle@aecom.com
AECOM Technical Services
1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1600
Honolulu, HI 96813
T 808.523.8874 F 808.523.8950
www.aecom.com

file://C:Documents and SettingstmiyashiroLocal SettingsTemporary Inter... 2/17/2011

.,
I

..

/

/
/
/
/
,:: /
cv"'
9)
.' ,,-•,,'" '.: "I.,
---

--------

From: Steinberger, Timothy E
To: Gill, Gary L.; Chang, Steven Y;
Seto, Joanna L;
Subject: WGSL Stormwater
Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:45:14 PM
Attachments: WGSL letter to DOH 1-12-11.doc

Please refer to the attached letter stating my concerns on the DOH position
regarding storm water runoff. Hard copy of the letter will follow.

Timothy E. Steinberger, PE
Director
Department of Environmental Services

January 12,2011

Honorable Gary Gill
Deputy Director
Environmental Health Administration
State of Hawaii, Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Mr. Steven Chang
Branch Chief
Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch
919 Ala Moana Boulevard
Room 300
Honolulu, HI 96814-4920

Ms. Joanna L Seto
Acting Branch Chief
Clean Water Branch
919 Ala Moana Boulevard
Room 300
Honolulu, HI 96814-4920

Re: Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill (WGSL)
Storm Water Drainage

Deputy Director Gary Gill and Mr. Chang and Ms. Seto:

I am writing in response to Department of Health (DOH), Clean Water Branch's
(CWB's) recent directive to the Department of Environmental Services (ENV) and Waste
Management Hawaii (WMH) from Mike Tsuji to post signage relating to releases of
allegedly contaminated wastewater. The City contends that such signage is not required
by the law. However, in order to explain this position, I need to review the recent events
and understandings leading to this recent CWB directive.

Storm Event and Resultant Accumulation of Storm Water:
On December 19,2010, there were heavy rains on Oahu that resulted in storm water
runoff at WGSL. On December 20, 2010, WMH contacted the DOH, Solid and
Hazardous Waste Branch (SHWB) as a courtesy to notify them of the established practice
of draining storm flows from as heavy as a 24-hour, 25-year storm into the storm water
drain systems required by the WGSL Solid Waste Management Permit No. LF-0182-09
(SWM Permit).

On Tuesday, December 21,2010, CWB inspectors inspected WGSL, with the assistance
of Justin Lottig of WMH who fully disclosed to the CWB inspectors WMH's actions in
response to the storm. The CWB inspectors left without indicating to WMH that they
had any concerns regarding WMH's actions.

Two days after the CWB inspection, on December 23, 2010, in response to WMH's
courtesy notification fours days earlier, SHWB inspectors conducted an inspection of
WGSL and expressed concern that they observed that the storm water had touched
municipal solid waste. After speaking with Mr. Lottig, the SHWB inspectors appeared to
be less concerned with WMH's treatment of the storm water, commenting that it was
less of a concern given the fact that the entire island was under a brown water advisory.

Later that same afternoon, CWB inspectors returned for a second inspection, during
which they talked again with Mr. Lottig and then requested that WMH take samples of
the storm water and discontinue the discharge of the storm water into the storm water
drain systems. WMH complied with both requests. The test results have since been
obtained and confirm that the storm water met state and federal standards for storm water
run off, except for naturally-occurring background concentrations of iron and zinc, which
are typically found in storm water discharges throughout Oahu.

Also that afternoon on December 23,2010, Joanna Seto from the CWB contacted ENV
and instructed ENV to issue a press release stating that there had been a release of storm
water that is potentially contaminated with leachate into the Ko Olina coastal area. She
said that this reporting requirement was similar to the requirement to issue a press release
when there is a sewer spill. Ms. Seto did not explain the basis for, her conclusion that the
storm water was potentially contaminated with leachate, and also mistakenly equated this
event with a wastewater discharge. ENV therefore declined, explaining that the storm
water was not leachate under the law, that draining the storm water flows was an
established practice with which DOH was familiar, and that there was no basis for
requiring the press release. At approximately 9:41 p.m. that night, DOH issued its own
press release advising that WGSL had "discharged a large quantity of storm water
potentially contaminated with landfill waste to the Pacific Ocean."

On January 12,2011, twenty-four days after the initial discharge of storm water, Mike
Tsuji from CWB contacted ENV, Division of Environmental Quality, and WMH,
directing them to post signage regarding "contaminated water" from WGSL if an event
similar to the December 19,2010 storm occurred during the currently pending flood
advisory issued for Oahu.

ENV's understanding is that the storm water from the December 19, 2010 event had not
"percolated or passed through or emerged from solid waste" as defined in Hawaii
Administrative Rules section 11-58.1 and was therefore not leachate under the law.
Instead, DOH believes that the storm water had some (unquantified) contact with solid
waste and that pursuant to Section G, entitled "Surface Water Management," number 2 of
the SWM Permit "[s]tormwater that comes in contact with solid waste shall be managed
and disposed of as leachate." Therefore, although the storm water itself was not leachate

under the law, DOH asserts that it was to be treated as leachate as provided in the SWM
Permit.

Potential Public Health Emergency Created by Closure ofWGSL Averted - Storm Water
Disposed of into Wastewater Treatment Facilities:
If the subject storm water is not drained from the areas of accumulation, WMH will not
be able to continue to operate WGSL, resulting in a potential public health emergency
due to restricted waste collection and disposal options for the entire island of Oahu.
Therefore, notwithstanding its belief that the storm water is not leachate, at DOH's
insistence, ENV agreed to assist WMH in its disposal of the accumulated storm water, via
the wastewater collection system, into the Waianae and Kailua wastewater treatment
facilities, thus enabling WMH to move forward with the continued operation of WGSL.
This disposal requires ENV to closely coordinate and monitor the discharge to ensure that
the collection system has capacity to accommodate the additional volume, and that the
storm water does not impede the capacity or effective operation of the treatment plants.
Because the storm water was not leachate under the law and cannot generally be disposed
of in the collection system, I exercised my discretion to invoke an exception to Revised
Ordinance of Honolulu (ROH) Sec. 14-1.9, "Use of public sewers--Restrictions-
Violations," to justify the disposal at the treatment facilities.[l]

I conferred with the SHWB and CWB on January 11,2011 and all parties agreed to a
plan of action to ensure continued use of WGSL via the draining of the accumulated
storm water into the treatment plants so as to facilitate incremental re-opening of the
impacted E-6 Cell.

CWB Directive to Post Contaminated Water Signage Not Required by Law:
Today, the CWB contacted ENV and WMH to demand the posting of signs warning of
contaminated water discharges from WGSL, given the predicted rainfall. CWB cited no
authority for this demand. but the directive implies that the storm water be treated as
though it were wastewater The City finds no basis for this conclusion in law. HAR
section 11-62-06(g)(5) provides in relevant part that, "[n]o person or the owner shall
cause or allow any wastewater system to create or contribute to ... [w]astewater spill,
overflow, or discharge into surface waters or the contamination or pollution of state
waters[.]" HAR chapter 11-62, Appendix C, section 2.e requires that when there are
spills from a facility, warning signs are to be posted in the areas likely to be affected by
the spill and where public access is possible. We are assuming that this is the purported
legal basis for CWB's directive to ENV and WMH.

However, this is not applicable to the present circumstances because WGSL is not a
"wastewater system" as defined by HAR section 11-62-03:

"Wastewater system" means the category of all wastewater and wastewater sludge
treatment, use, and disposal systems, including all wastewater treatment works,

collection systems, wastewater sludge facilities, recycled water systems, and
individual wastewater systems.

The drainage system at WGSL is not a wastewater treatment, use or disposal system. In
fact, as indicated above, pursuant to its SWM Permit, WGSL is required to and does have
a surface water management system in place. SHWB recognized that there would be
runoff resulting from storm events at WGSL and therefore required the "design,
construction and maintenance of a surface water run-on and run-off control system." If,
as eWB contends, all runoff from WGSL is automatically "wastewater" then there would
have been no provision for a surface water drainage system, but instead, all surface water
runoff would have been directed to the sewer system. The fact that DOH instead required
the surface water drainage system directly negates the characterization of runoff as
wastewater.

eWB's requirement to post signs is particularly unsettling to ENV because it is the first
time since WGSL began operations that eWB is communicating to ENV and WMH what
appears to be its conclusion that storm water runoff from WGSL is leachate, therefore
wastewater, and therefore requires regulation pursuant to HAR chapter 11-62.

We are concerned by what we perceive as a series of unreasonable demands without any
articulated basis in DOH's legitimate regulatory authority. SHWB asserted first, that
accumulated storm water is leachate that may not be pumped into the storm drain system,
but must be disposed of at the treatment plants. Then, today, eWB asserts even more
broadly that WGSL's storm water runoff requires the posting ofwaming signs as ifit
were wastewater. These conclusions are not supported by the facts or the law, and are
contrary to the measures that ENV and WMH have taken over the years, at DOH's
direction and/or with DOH's approval. (We are in possession ofeWB's latest email,
sent at approximately 4:00 today, which incorrectly purports to reiterate matters
discussed and agreed upon between DOH and ENV, including additional requirements
relating to storm water management at WGSL. We will address the contents of this email
tomorrow.)

ENV and WMH sincerely appreciate SHWB's and eWB's cooperation to the extent that
it is directed at facilitating removal of the accumulated storm water to enable continued
use ofWGSL and to avert the public health disaster of having to shut down solid waste
collection and disposal due to closure ofWGSL. To this end, so that we may most
appropriately dispense with the accumulated storm water and manage future runoff in a
way that ensures continued operation of WGSL, we request that the eWB consult with
SHWB and vice versa and that both DOH branches consult with their respective deputy
attorneys general prior to imposing requirements upon ENV and WMH. We remain
ready, willing, and able to meet with DOH, and look forward to all parties working from
the same set of assumptions and understandings, for maximum protection of public health
and safety.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 768-3486.

Very truly yours,

Timothy Steinberger

From: Seto, Joanna L
To: "tsteinberger@honolulu.gov";
cc: "whamada@honolulu.gov"; "]Whelanl@wm.com"; Kurano, Matthew;
Tsuji, Michael; Wong, Alec Y; Gill, Gary L.; Ichinotsubo, Lene K; Chang, Steven Y;
Yamada, Stuart H;
Subject: Contingency Plan for Discharge from Waimanalo Gulch sanitary Landfill (HIR50A533)
Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 3:59:00 PM
Attachments: 0020109.fnl.pdf

Subject: Contingency Plan for Discharge of Contaminated Storm Water
from Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill, Kapolei, Island of Oahu, Hawaii
NGPC File No. HI RSOAS33

Dear Mr. Steinberger,

Thank you for speaking with the Department of Health (DOH), Environmental
Management Division (EMD), Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch (SHWB) and Clean
Water Branch (CWB) on January 10 and 11, 2011. We'd like to take this opportunity to
reiterate the main points of the conversations.

1. Regarding the potential need to discharge contaminated storm water from the E6
cell and/or the sedimentation basin in the event of another rain event which
inundates the cell with contaminated storm water:

If the CCH and Waste Management makes the decision that contaminated storm
water MUST be discharged from the E6 cell, the decision will be considered a
"business decision" by the responsible persons. In preparation for the potential
discharge of contaminated storm water, please submit a Contingency Plan which, at a
minimum, includes the following elements:

a. Notification to Michael (Mike) Tsuji of DOH-CWB at 586-4309 (during work
hours) or (after work hours) or via email to michael.tsuji@doh.hawaii.
gov before any unpermitted discharge so a coordinated effort can be made to
manage the event by CCH and Waste Management.

b. Notification to the public of the discharge of potentially contaminated storm
water via a press release.

c. Posting of "contaminated water" signs in the vicinity of the discharge to State
waters.

d. As the facility will still be subject to Hawaii and Federal Water Pollution rules
and regulations and should make every good faith effort to mitigate any potential
human or environmental harm potentially associated with the unpermitted
discharge.

Efforts should be made to monitor discharge and receiving water to insure human

and environmental health. The monitoring plan should take into consideration the
standard leachate sampling parameters as detailed in the facility's quarterly
monitoring report, as well as the Waianae WWTP's Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring Requirements in Part A, including whole effluent toxicity tests (NPDES
Permit No. HI 0020109, issued March 19, 2004 - attached).

Please be aware that under typical conditions, the contaminated storm water can only
be treated for disposal at a secondary wastewater treatment plant (i.e., Waianae
WWTP or Kailua Regional WWTP).

2. Regarding the landfill's need to continue receiving solid waste.

The DOH-SHWB will acknowledge Waste Management's informal request to start
operating in the upper E6 cell area. That opening of the upper E6 area should allow
for an additional six (6) weeks of operational capacity. During the next 4-6 weeks, it is
expected that the landfill will continue to reduce the contaminated storm water
currently impounded on the E6 cell through its leachate handling protocols. The
following points are for your consideration:

a. The CCH and Waste Management estimate that approximately 240,000
gallons of the impounded storm water can be hauled from the landfill to the
Waianae and/or Kailua Regional WWTPs per day.

b. DOH-SHWB understands that you have completed an engineering assessment
on a portion of Cell E-6 in response to the flooding and plan to utilize this portion
of E-6 as soon as tomorrow.

c. Barring an unforeseen event, the landfill should have adequate space to
continue operating while addressing the impounded water in the E6 cell.

d. The landfill needs to take actions to prevent run-on from filling the E6 cell.
That means keeping the 36" storm drain line located above the E6 cell open and
free from becoming impacted. The DOH recognizes that the current design on the
36/1 storm drain line has become unviable during the previous two (2) rain events
and has serious concerns that it will plug again exacerbating the problem.

e. The western drainage system will take about two (2) more weeks of
construction to prevent hillside runoff into the E6 cell.

f. The landfill is prohibited from bulk liquid disposal by State and federal
regulations.

3. The Deputy Director has requested that the DOH-CWB, CCH, and Waste
Management coordinate a response to any potential event which may jeopardize
human/environmental health associated with the current landfill situation. DOH
offers its assistance for any public safety type responses (e.g., posting signs, notifying
the public), or coordination efforts.

We are anxious to see your contingency plans for rerouting storm water run-on from
the mauka lands away or around the landfill to avoid interfering with landfill
operation and introducing contaminants into the storm water.

Please call or email if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Joanna

Joanna l. Seto
Acting Chief and
Engineering Section Supervisor
Clean Water Branch
State of Hawaii Department of Health
Phone: (808) 586 - 4309
Fax: (808) 586-4352

Notice: This information and allachments are intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying of thiS communication is strictly
prohibited and may be punishable under state and federal law. If you have received this communication and/or attachments In error. please notify the sender via e·
mail immediately and destroy all electroniC and paper copies.

Yamada, Stuart H
From: Seto, Joanna L
To: 'tsteinberger@honolulu.gov'
Cc: 'whamada@honolulu.gov'; 'JWhelan1 @wm.com'; Kurano, Matthew; Tsuji, Michael; Wong,
Alec Y; Gill, Gary L.; Ichinotsubo, Lene K; Chang, Steven Y; Yamada, Stuart H
Subject: Contingency Plan for Discharge from Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill (HIR50A533)
Attachments: 0020109.fnl.pdf

Subject: Contingency Plan for Discharge of Contaminated Storm Water from Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill,
Kapolei, Island of Oahu, Hawaii
NGPC File No. HI R50AS33

Dear Mr. Steinberger,

Thank you for speaking with the Department of Health (DOH), Environmental Management Division (EM D), Solid and
Hazardous Waste Branch (SHWB) and Clean Water Branch (CWB) on January 10 and 11,2011. We'd like to take this
opportunity to reiterate the main points of the conversations.

1. Regarding the potential need to discharge contaminated storm water from the E6 cell and/or the sedimentation
basin in the event of another rain event which inundates the cell with contaminated storm water:

If the CCH and Waste Management makes the decision that contaminated storm water MUST be discharged from
the E6 cell, the decision will be considered a "business decision" by the responsible persons. In preparation for the
potential discharge of contaminated storm water, please submit a Contingency Plan which, at a minimum, includes
the following elements:

a. Notification to Michael (Mike) Tsuji of DOH-CWB at 586-4309 (during work hours) or (after work
hours) or via email to michael.tsuji@doh.hawaiLgov before any unpermitted discharge so a coordinated effort
can be made to manage the event by CCH and Waste Management.

b. Notification to the public of the discharge of potentially contaminated storm water via a press release.

c. Posting of "contaminated water" signs in the vicinity of the discharge to State waters.

d. As the facility will still be subject to Hawaii and Federal Water Pollution rules and regulations and should make
every good faith effort to mitigate any potential human or environmental harm potentially associated with the
unpermitted discharge.

Efforts should be made to monitor discharge and receiving water to insure human and environmental health.
The monitoring plan should take into consideration the standard leachate sampling parameters as detailed in
the facility's quarterly monitoring report, as well as the Waianae WWTP's Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements in Part A, including whole effluent toxicity tests (NPDES Permit No. HI 0020109, issued March 19,
2004 - attached).

Please be aware that under typical conditions, the contaminated storm water can only be treated for disposal at a
secondary wastewater treatment plant (Le., Waianae WWTP or Kailua Regional WWTP).

2. Regarding the landfill's need to continue receiving solid waste.

1

The DOH-SHWB will acknowledge Waste Management's informal request to start operating in the upper E6 cell
area. That opening of the upper E6 area should allow for an additional six (6) weeks of operational capacity. During
the next 4-6 weeks, it is expected that the landfill will continue to reduce the contaminated storm water currently
impounded on the E6 cell through its leachate handling protocols. The following points are for your consideration:

a. The CCH and Waste Management estimate that approximately 240,000 gallons of the impounded storm water
can be hauled from the landfill to the Waianae and/or Kailua Regional WWTPs per day.

b. DOH-SHWB understands that you have completed an engineering assessment on a portion of Cell E-6 in
response to the flooding and plan to utilize this portion of E-6 as soon as tomorrow.

c. Barring an unforeseen event, the landfill should have adequate space to continue operating while addressing
the impounded water in the E6 cell.

d. The landfill needs to take actions to prevent run-on from filling the E6 cell. That means keeping the 36" storm
drain line located above the E6 cell open and free from becoming impacted. The DOH recognizes that the
current design on the 36" storm drain line has become unviable during the previous two (2) rain events and has
serious concerns that it will plug again exacerbating the problem.

e. The western drainage system will take about two (2) more weeks of construction to prevent hillside runoff into
the E6 cell.

f. The landfill is prohibited from bulk liquid disposal by State and federal regulations.

3. The Deputy Director has requested that the DOH-CWB, CCH, and Waste Management coordinate a response to any
potential event which may jeopardize human/environmental health associated with the current landfill situation.
DOH offers its assistance for any public safety type responses (e.g., posting signs, notifying the public), or
coordination efforts.

We are anxious to see your contingency plans for rerouting storm water run-on from the mauka lands away or
around the landfill to avoid interfering with landfill operation and introducing contaminants into the storm water.

Please call or email if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Joanna

Joanna L. Seto
Acting Chief and
Engineering Section Supervisor
Clean Water Branch
State of Hawaii Department of Health
Phone: (808) S86 - 4309
Fax: (808) 586-4352

Notice: This information and attachments are intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain Information that is privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, oreopving of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be punishable under state and federal law. If you have received this communication and/or
attachments in error, please notify the sender via e-mail immediately and destroy all electronic and paper copies.

2

PERMIT NO. HI 0020109

AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. § 1251
et seq.; the "Act") and Chapter 342D, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and Chapters 11-54 and 11-55,
Administrative Rules, Department of Health, State of Hawaii,

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

(hereinafter "PERMITTEE"),

is authorized to discharge secondary treated wastewater,

to the receiving waters named the Pacific Ocean through Outfall Serial No. 001 at
Latitude 2l o 25'36"N, Longitude l58°l2'01"W,

from its Waianae Wastewater Treatment Plant (hereinafter "FACILITY"),

located at 86-100 Farrington Highway, Waianae, Oahu, Hawaii,

in accordance with the eflluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set
forth herein, and in the permit attachments, including the Department of Health "Standard
NPDES Permit Conditions," dated December 31,2002.

All references to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) are to regulations
that are in effect on July 1,2001, except as otherwise specified. Unless otherwise specified
herein, all terms are defined as provided in the applicable regulations in 40 CFR.

This permit will become effective 30 days after the date of issuance.

This permit and the authorization to discharge will expire at midnight, June 30, 2008.

Signed this 19th day of March, 2004

(For) Director of Health

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1. Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
2. Sampling Locations

B. WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
1. Chronic Toxicity Testing
2. Alternate Monitoring
3. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
4. Reporting
5. Sampling Frequency Reduction

C. SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR RECREATIONAL AREAS
2. Exceptions

D. ZONE OF MIXING LIMITAnONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1. Design Criteria
4. Ocean Outfall Monitoring
5. Exceptions

E. SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Monitoring Requirements
2. Initial Investigation Evaluation Plan
3. Increase in Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
4. Reduction Evaluation Plan

F. SLUDGE REQUIREMENTS
1. General Conditions and Requirements
2. Sludge Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
3. Requirements for Sludge Disposed of in Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
4. Requirements for Sludge Disposed of in Surface Disposal Sites
5. Requirements for Sludge that is Land-Applied
6. Notification Requirements
7. Annual Report

G. PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

Page 3

H. WASTEWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
1. Annual Report
2. Flow Rate Notification
3. Implementation of the Schedule of Compliance

I. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Monitoring Results
2. Noncompliance and Other Incidents
3. Other Reporting Requirements

J. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Schedule of Submission
2. Operation and Maintenance
3. Power Failures

K. APPENDIX

L. LOCATION MAP

ATTACHMENT A: LOCATION MAP

NPDES STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS (Updated as of December 31,2002)

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PART A
Page 4

A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (based upon a
design treatment capacity of 5.2 million gallons per day)

1. Limitations and ¥onitoring Requirements

During the period beginning with the effective date of this permit and lasting through
June 30, 2008, the Permittee is authorized to discharge secondary-treated wastewater
from Outfall Serial No. 001. The discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Permittee as specified below:

Minimum
Parameter Discharge Limitation Unit Monitoring Sample Type
Frequency
Recorder or
Flow l NIL MGD Continuous
Totalizer
30 mg/I
2
30-day Average 590 kg/day
Biochemical
24-Hour
Oxygen Demand 85 3 % Removal 5 Days/Week 4
Composite
(5-day)l
45 mg/I
7-day Average
2
885 kg/day
30 mg/I
2
30-day Average 590 kg/day
Total Suspended 3 24-Hour
85 % Removal 5 Days/Week 4
Solids l Composite
45 mg/I
7-day Average
885 2 kg/day
5
pH Range 6.0 - 9.0 Standard Unit 5 Days/Week 4 Grab

24-Hour
Total Nitrogen N/L mgll Once/Month 6
Composite

24-Hour
Ammonia Nitrogen N/L mg/I Once/Month 6
Composite

Nitrate + Nitrite 24-Hour
N/L mg/I Once/Month6
Nitrogen Composite

24-Hour
Total Phosphorus N/L mg/I Once/Month6
Composite

24-Hour
Turbidity N/L NTU Once/Month 6
Composite
8
Whole Effluent Chronic 117.84 TU. 24-Hour
Once/Month 6
Toxicity' Acute II. 78 8 TU. Composite

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PART A
PageS

Minimum
Parameter Discharge Limitation Unit Monitoring Sample Type
Frequency
Enterococci NIL #/100 ml OncelMonth' Grab
24-Hour
Priority Pollutants lO N/L f.Lg/ 1 OnceNearll Composite/
Grab lZ
N/L No limitation at this time. Monitoring and reporting required only.
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
mg/l Milligrams Per Liter
f.Lg/1 Micrograms Per Liter
kg/day Kilograms Per Day
ml Milliliters
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
TU c Chronic Toxicity Units
TU. Acute Toxicity Units

The Permittee shall monitor both the influent and effluent.

The mass emission rates are based on a discharge flow of 5.2 MGD.

The 30-day average percent removal shall not be less than 85%.

4
The Permittee shall sample each day of the week (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) at least once every two months.

The Permittee shall maintain the pH of the effluent within the limits of6.0 and 9.0 unless the
Permittee demonstrates that: (I) inorganic chemicals are not added to the waste stream as part
of the treatment process; and (2) contributions from the industrial sources do not cause the
effluent discharge to be less than 6.0 or greater than 9.0.

"Once/Month" shall mean once per calendar month.

The Permittee shall conduct whole effluent toxicity monitoring in accordance with the
provisions in Part B of this permit.

Limitation does not apply to monitoring results using trypneustes gratilla.

If the limitation in Part C.l.a is exceeded, then the Permittee shall increase monitoring to five
days per month, where samples shall be equally spaced at six day intervals or unequally spaced
at five, six, seven, or eight day intervals, provided that the total period covered is between 25
and 30 days. The Permittee shall not collect consecutive samples on the same day of the week.
The Permittee shall continue this sampling frequency until the conditions in Part C.1.b are met.

10
Priority pollutants are listed under the Act Section 307(a). The priority pollutant scan shall
exclude asbestos. Detection levels shall be reported and shall meet the requirements of 40 CFR
Part 136.

11
"Once/Year" shall mean once per calendar year.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PART A
Page 6

12
The Permittee shall analyze for cyanide and the volatile fraction of the toxic organic compounds
with a grab sample. The Permittee shall analyze all other pollutants with composite sample.


a. The Permittee shall take all influent samples downstream of any additions to the
trunk sewer, upstream of any in-plant return flows, and prior to treatment.

b. The Permittee shall take all effluent samples downstream from any additions to
the facility and any in-plant return flows or disinfection units, and prior to
mixing with the receiving waters.

c. The Permittee shall not change sampling locations without the notification to
and the approval from the Director of Health.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PARTB
Page 7

B. WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS

1. Chronic Toxicity Testing

The Permittee shall conduct monthly chronic toxicity tests on flow-weighted 24-hour
composite effluent samples in accordance with the procedures outlined below.

a. Definition Toxicity

(1) Chronic Toxicity

Chronic toxicity measures a sublethal effect (e.g., reduced growth) to
experimental test organisms exposed to an effluent compared to that of the
control organisms. The no observed effect concentration (NOEC) is the
highest effluent concentration to which organisms are exposed in a chronic
test, that causes no observable adverse effect on the test organisms (e.g.,
the highest concentration of toxicant to which the values for the observed
responses are not statistically significantly different from the controls).
Test results shall be reported in TUe , where TUe =100INOEC. For this
discharge, chronic toxicity for Ceriodaphnia dubia is defined by an
exceedance of the chronic toxicity discharge limitation specified in
Part A.l of this permit. This chronic toxicity discharge limitation does not
apply to monitoring results for toxicity tests using Trypneustes gratilla.
Rather, for the purposes of additional (accelerated) testing, toxicity
reduction evaluation/toxicity identification evaluation, and reporting
requirements below, chronic toxicity for Trypneustes gratilla is defined by
an exceedance of a chronic toxicity threshold value of 117.84 TUe, applied
as a daily maximum.

(2) Acute Toxicity

Acute toxicity is defmed by an exceedance of the acute toxicity discharge
limitation specified in Part A.l of this permit.

b. Test Species and Methods

The Permittee shall conduct chronic toxicity testing on the following species
using the methods specified:

(1) Ceriodaphnia dubia using Short-Term Methods for Estimating the
Chronic Toxicity of Effluent and Receiving Waters to Freshwater
Organisms (EPA-821-R-02-013, Fourth Edition, October 2002).

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PARTB
PageS

(2) Trypneustes gratilla using Hawaiian Collector Urchin, Trypneustes
Gratilla (Hawa'e) Fertilization Test Method 3/16/98 (Adapted by Amy
Wagner, EPA Region 9 Laboratory, Richmond, CA from a method
developed by George Morrison, EPA, ORD Narragansett, RI and Diane
Nacci, Science Applications International Corporation, ORD Narragansett,
RI). The Permittee shall use updated versions of this method as they
become available from the EP A.

c. Quality Assurance

(1) A series of five dilutions and a control shall be tested. The series shall
include the in-stream waste concentration (IWC), two dilutions below the
IWC, and two dilutions above the IWC (e.g., 12.5,25,50,75, and 100
percent effluent, where IWC = 50). The chronic IWC for this discharge is
0.85 percent effluent.

(2) Concurrent testing with reference toxicants shall be conducted for
Trypneustes gratilla.

(3) Reference toxicant tests shall be conducted using the same test conditions
as effluent toxicity tests (i.e., same test duration, etc.).

(4) If either the reference toxicant tests or the effluent tests do not meet all test
acceptability criteria as specified in the test methods manual, then the
Permittee must re-sample and re-test within approximately 14 days.

(5) Control and dilution water should be receiving water or lab water, as
described in the test methods manual. If dilution water is different from
culture water, then a second control using culture water shall also be
tested. To maintain acceptable salinity when conducting effluent tests
with Trypneustes gratilla, effluent dilutions shall be adjusted by adding
hypersaline brine/GP2 salts and a third control using brine shall also be
tested.

d. Exceptions

(I) If the Permittee experiences difficulty in obtaining gametes or has
unacceptable control performance while conducting the sea urchin
sperm/fertilization bioassay during a monitoring period, the Permittee
shall document its efforts, communicate all attempts to the Director of
Health, and report all attempts on the discharge monitoring report for that
monitoring period.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19, 2004

PARTB
PERMIT NO. m 0020109
Page 9

(2) It shall not be a violation of this pennit if it can be proven to the Director
of Health's satisfaction that the inability to perfonn the tests as described
above was due to circumstances beyond the Pennittee's control.

(3) If the Pennittee demonstrates that the chronic toxicity tests cannot be
perfonned reliably, the Permittee may petition the Director of Health to
perfonn acute toxicity tests in lieu of the chronic tests specified above.
The Pennittee shall perfonn acute toxicity tests in accordance with the
methods identified in Part B.2 below.

2. Alternate Monitoring (Acute Toxicity Testing)

Beginning 30 days after written approval from the Director of Health to perfonn acute
toxicity tests, the Pennittee shall conduct, or have a contract laboratory conduct,
monthly static or flow-through acute bioassays on composite effluent samples.

a. Limitation

The acute toxicity discharge limitation is specified in Part A.l of this pennit and
becomes effective for the most sensitive species one year after the
commencement of acute toxicity tests.

b. Test Procedures

(1) The Pennittee shall conduct the acute toxicity testing in accordance with
Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms (EPA-821-R-02-012, Fifth Edition, October 2002).

(2) If necessary, the Permittee may adjust the salinity of a discharge using
salts to allow testing with marine species.

(3) The Permittee shall conduct tests in 8.5 percent effluent for a period of 96
hours unless the methods specify a shorter period for a definitive test for a
particular species (e.g., 48 hours for daphnia).

(4) The Permittee shall test a series of five dilutions and a control. The series
shall include the instream waste concentration (IWC), two dilutions below
the IWC, and two dilutions above the IWC. The acute IWC for this
discharge shall be 8.5 percent effluent.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PARTB
Page 10

c. Species Selection

(1) The Permittee shall select three species for monitoring from the EPA
manual identified in Part B.2.a(I). The Permittee may use Ceriodaphnia
dubia (life stage - 24 hours) in freshwater only. The Permittee shall
submit the selection to the Director of Health for approval within 30 days
after receiving written approval from the Director of Health to perform
acute toxicity tests.

(2) The Permittee shall obtain written approval from the Director of Health
before changing any of the three selected species after the initial
notification.

(3) The Permittee shall conduct monitoring, at a minimum, on one of the three
selected species each month. The Permittee shall rotate the three selected
species on a monthly basis.

3. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE)

a. Preparation of Initial Investigation TRE Workplan

The Permittee shall submit an initial investigation TRE workplan
(approximately 1-2 pages) within 120 days of the effective date of this permit.
This workplan shall describe steps which the Permittee intends to follow in the
event that toxicity (as defined) is detected, and at a minimum, shall include the
following:

(1) Description of the investigation and evaluation techniques that would be
used to identify potential causes/sources of toxicity, effluent variability,
and treatment system efficiency.

(2) Description of the facility's method of maximizing in-house treatment
efficiency, good housekeeping practices, and a list of all chemicals used in
operation of the facility.

(3) Identification of the organization (e.g. contract laboratory, etc.) that will
conduct the evaluation if a toxicity identification evaluation (TIE)
becomes necessary.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PARTB
Page 11

b. Additional (Accelerated) Toxicity Testing

(1) If toxicity (as defined) is detected, then the Permittee shall conduct six
additional tests, one approximately every 14 days, over a 12-week period.
Effluent sampling for the first test of the six additional tests shall
commence within approximately 24 hours of receipt of the test results
exceeding a toxicity discharge limitation (or threshold value).

(2) However, if implementation of the initial investigation TRE workplan
indicates the source oftoxicity (e.g., a temporary plant upset, etc.), then
the Permittee shall conduct only the first test of the six additional tests
required above. If toxicity (as defined) is not detected in this first test, the
Permittee may return to the normal sampling frequency required in
Part A.1.of this permit. If toxicity (as defined) is detected in this first test,
then Part B.3.c. of this permit shall apply.

(3) If toxicity (as defined) is not detected in any of the six additional tests
required above, then the Permittee may return to the normal sampling
frequency required in Part A.1 of this permit.

c. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation/Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TRE/TIE)

(1) If toxicity (as defined) is detected in any of the six additional tests, then,
based on an evaluation of the test results and additional available
information, the Director of Health may determine that the Permittee shall
initiate a TRE, in accordance with the Permittee's initial investigation
TRE workplan and Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Guidance for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants (EPA 833-B-99-002, 1999). Moreover, the
Permittee shall develop and submit to the Director of Health for approval a
detailed TRE workplan which includes:

(a) Further actions to investigatelidentify the cause(s) of toxicity.

(b) Actions the Permittee has taken/will take to mitigate the impact of
the discharge, to correct the noncompliance, and to prevent the
recurrence of toxicity.

(c) Schedule under which these actions will be implemented.

(2) As part of this TRE process, the Permittee may initiate a TIE using the test
methods manuals, EPA/600/6-911005F (Phase I), EPA/6001R-92/080
(Phase II), and EPA/6001R-92/081 (Phase III), to identify the cause(s) of
toxicity.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PARTB
Page 12

(3) If a TREffIE is initiated prior to completion of the accelerated testing
schedule required by Part B.3.b of this permit, then the accelerated testing
schedule may be terminated, or used as necessary in performing the
TREffIE.

4. Reporting

a. The Permittee shall submit a full report of toxicity test results, including any
toxicity testing required by Parts B.3.b and B.3.c of this permit, with the DMR
for the month in which the toxicity tests are conducted. A full report shall
consist of: (1) toxicity test results; (2) dates of sample collection and initiation
of each toxicity test; and (3) toxicity discharge limitation (or threshold value).
Toxicity test results shall be reported according to the test methods manual
chapter on Report Preparation.

If the initial investigation TRE workplan is used to determine that additional
(accelerated) toxicity testing is unnecessary, these results shall be submitted
with the DMR for the month in which investigations conducted under the TRE
workplan occurred.

b. Within 14 days of receipt of test results exceeding a toxicity discharge limitation
(or threshold value), the Permittee shall provide written notification to the
Director of Health of:

(1) Findings of the TRE or other investigation to identify the cause(s) of
toxicity.

(2) Actions the Permittee has taken/will take, to mitigate the impact of the
discharge and to prevent the recurrence of toxicity.

(3) Implementation schedule for corrective actions when corrective actions,
including a TRE, have not been completed.

(4) Reason for not taking corrective action, if no action has been taken.

5. Sampling Frequency Reduction

a. If the Permittee has not violated the whole effluent toxicity limitation after
completing 24 consecutive months of testing, the Permittee may request a
reduction in monitoring frequency.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PARTB
Page 13

b. Any such reduction of the monitoring frequency' must be approved by the
Director of Health in writing, and shall be at the Director of Health's sole
discretion.

c. A reduction in frequency to once per year or more frequent shall be considered a
minor modification for the purposes of 40 CFR Part 124.

d. If the Permittee violates the whole effluent toxicity limitation after a reduction
in monitoring frequency becomes in effect, the monitoring frequency shall
return to once per month for the duration of the permit.

Nothing in Part B waives any remedy or penalty applicable under Chapter 342D, Hawaii
Revised Statutes.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PARTC
Page 14

C. SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR RECREATIONAL AREAS


a. Within 300 meters (1000 feet) of the shoreline, including natural public bathing
or wading areas, the enterococci content shall be limited and monitored by the

Minimum
Sample
Parameter Limitation Unit Monitoring
Type
Frequency
Enterococci 70 #/100 ml Once/Month1 Grab
ml Milliliters
1
Monitoring shall be conducted on the same day that effluent sampling for
enterococci is conducted.

b. If the enterococci limitation in Part C.l.a above is exceeded, then the Permittee
shall conduct monitoring as described below:

Limitation Minimum
Sample
Parameter (Geometric Unit Monitoring
Type
Mean) Frequency
Enterococci 7 #1100 ml 5 Days/Month1 Grab
ml Milliliters
1
Monitoring shall be conducted on the same day that effluent sampling for
enterococci is conducted. Samples shall be equally spaced at six day
intervals or unequally spaced at five, six, seven, or eight day intervals,
provided that the total period covered is between 25 and 30 days.
Consecutive samples shall not be collected on the same day of the week.

c. The Permittee shall conduct monitoring in accordance with Part C.l.b until the
geometric mean limitation can be met at least three consecutive times and the
cause of the high bacterial counts can be determined, or unless otherwise
instructed by the Director of Health.

d. Marine recreational waters along sections of coastline where enterococci content
does not exceed the standard, as shown by the geometric mean test described
above, shall not be lowered in quality.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PARTe
Page 15

e. The Permittee shall conduct enterococci analyses in accordance with the
following procedures:

(1) Standard Methods, 20th Edition.

(2) Method 1600: Membrane Filter Test Method for Enterococci in Water,
EPA-821-R97-004, May 1997.

(3) Method 1106.1: Test Method for Enterococci in Water by the Membrane
Filter Method, EPA-600/4-85/076, 1985.

2. Exceptions

Inability to conduct enterococci monitoring due to inclement weather or hazardous
conditions which may endanger the lives of the Permittee's personnel shall not
constitute a violation of this permit.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19, 2004

PARTD
Page 16

D. ZONE OF MIXING LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

1. Design Criteria

a. The Zone of Mixing shall be established for the assimilation of secondary
treated wastewater at a design flow of 5.2 MGD.

b. The Zone of Mixing shall consist of a rectangular prism. The length and width
of the rectangle at the surface of the receiving water are 746.0 feet and
218.5 feet, respectively. The Zone of Mixing extends from the surface of the
receiving waters to the ocean bottom. The diffuser is centered on the
longitudinal axis of the Zone of Mixing.


The boundaries of the Zone of Mixing shall be limited and monitored by the

Not to Exceed Not to Exceed
Geometric the Given the Given
Minimum
Mean Not to Value More Value More Sample
Parameter Unit Monitoring
E:s:ceed the than Ten than Two Type
Given Value Percent of the Percent of the Frequency
Time Time
Once/
Total Nitrogen 110.00 180.00 250.00 Grab 2
Quarter l
Ammonia Once/
2.00 5.00 9.00 Grab 2
Nitrogen Quarter 1

Nitrate + Nitrite Once/
3.50 10.00 20.00 Grab 2
Nitrogen Quarter 1

Total Once/
16.00 30.00 45.00 Grab 2
Phosphorous Quarter 1

Once"!
Chlorophyl 0.15 0.50 1.00 Grab 2
Quarter1

Once/
Turbidity 0.20 0.50 1.00 NTU Grab 2
Quarter 1

Standard Once/
pH Range 7.6-8.6 CDP
Unit Quarter 1

Dissolved % Once/
Not less than 75% Saturation CDP
Oxygen Saturation Quarter 1

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PARTD
Page 17

Not to Exceed Not to Exceed
Geometric the Given the Given Minimum
Mean Not to Value More Value More Sample
Parameter Unit Monitoring
Exceed the than Ten tbanTwo Type
Given Value Percent of the Percent of the Frequency
Time Time
Shall not vary more than 10 C from ambient Once/
Temperature °C CDP
conditions Quarter l

Shall not vary more than 10% from natural
Once/
Salinity or seasonal changes considering hydrologic PPT CDP
Quarter l
input and oceanographic factors
I!g/I Micrograms Per Liter
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
CDP Continuous Depth Profile
°C Degrees Celsius
PPT Parts Per Thousand

The Permittee shall conduct Zone of Mixing monitoring on the same day that the recreational
area and effluent sampling are conducted.

The Permittee shall monitor surface, mid-depth and bottom.


The Permittee shall establish at least four sampling stations along the boundaries of
the Zone of Mixing.

4. Ocean Outfall Monitoring

At least once during the term of this permit, the Permittee shall inspect the ocean
outfall and submit the investigation findings to the Director of Health. The outfall
inspection shall include, but not be limited to, the investigation of the structural
integrity, operational status, and maintenance needs.

5. Exceptions

The following circumstances shall not constitute violations to this permit:

a. Exceedances of limitations specified in Part D.2 within the boundaries of the
Zone of Mixing.

b. Inability to conduct Zone of Mixing monitoring due to inclement weather or
hazardous conditions which may endanger the lives of the Permittee's personnel.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19, 2004

PARTE
Page 18

E. SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS

1. Monitoring Requirements

The Permittee shall monitor the effluent for total nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate
+ nitrite nitrogen, and total phosphorus in accordance with Part A of this permit. The
specific water quality parameters monitored shall not exceed the following operations
performance threshold values more than once in 12 consecutive months:

Threshold Monitoring
Parameter Units Type of Sample
Value Frequency

Total Nitrogen 35.0 mg/l OncelMonth l 24-Hour Composite

Ammonia Nitrogen 25.0 mg/l Once/Month l 24-Hour Composite

Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen 30.0 mg/l Once/Month l 24-Hour Composite

Total Phosphorus 7.0 mg/l OncelM onth 1 24-Hour Composite
mgll Milligrams Per Liter

"Once/Month" shall mean once per calendar month.

2. Initial Investigation Evaluation Plan

a. Within 120 days after the effective date of this permit, the Permittee shall
submit an initial investigation evaluation plan. At a minimum, the plan shall
include a brief description of the investigation and evaluation techniques that
would be used to identify potential causes of the following:

(1) Any exceedance of the parameters listed in the table under Part E.!.

(2) Effluent variability.

(3) Treatment system efficiency.

b. If the monitoring results exceed any of the threshold values specified in
Part E.l, the Permittee shall immediately report the initial exceedance and
conduct an initial investigation evaluation in with their plan and
submit the results of the evaluation with the Discharge Monitoring Report for
that monitoring period.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19, 2004

PARTE
Page 19

3. Increase in Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

If the Permittee exceeds or will exceed the criteria for any parameter specified in
Part E.l more than once in 12 consecutive months, the Permittee shall increase the
monitoring frequency of those parameters in exceedance to once per week. The
monitoring frequency shall remain at once per week until the monitoring results are
below the threshold value for three consecutive weeks. After this is achieved,
monitoring and reporting for those parameters shall return to once per month. The
Permittee shall submit the monitoring results with the Discharge Monitoring Report
for the month in which the exceedances occurred.

4. Reduction Evaluation Plan

a. If the Permittee exceeds or will exceed the criteria for any parameter specified in
Part E.l more than twice in 12 consecutive months, or if requested by the
Director of Health, the Permittee shall submit a reduction evaluation plan and
implementation schedule within 45 calendar days after the third exceedance or
request by the Director of Health.

b. The reduction evaluation shall determine the cause of exceedance, outline
measures that will be or have been implemented to ensure compliance with the
criteria, and include an implementation schedule.

c. Upon completion of the reduction evaluation, this permit may be modified, or
alternatively revoked and reissued, in order to incorporate appropriate permit
conditions and implementation schedules.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19, 2004

PARTF
Page 20

F. SLUDGE REQUIREMENTS

1. General Conditions and Requirements

a. Acceptable Sludge Use/Disposal Practices

(1) The Permittee shall dispose of all sludge generated at the facility at a
municipal solid waste landfill, at a sludge surface disposal site, by land
application, or by transferring the sludge to another party for further
treatment, use, or disposal in accordance with all applicable portions of
40 CFR Parts 257, 258, 503 and HAR, Chapters 11-58.1 and 11-62.

(2) Storage of sludge for over two years from the time it is generated shall be
considered to be surface disposal. The storage site shall meet all the
requirements of a surface disposal site under 40 CFR Part 503 Subpart C
and HAR, Chapters 11-58.1 and 11-62. If the Permittee desires to store
sludge for longer periods of time prior to final disposal, the Permittee shall
submit a written request to the EPA Regional Sludge Coordinator and
Director of Health containing the information required under
40 CFR Section 503.20(b).

(3) The Permittee shall dispose of sludge containing more than 50 mg/kg of
PCBs in accordance with 40 CFR Part 761.

(4) If the Permittee desires to dispose of sludge using a method not listed
above, the Permittee shall submit a request for permit modification to EPA
Regional Sludge Coordinator and Director of Health 180 days prior to the
commencement of the alternate disposal practice.

b. Duty to Mitigate

(l) The Permittee shall be responsible for ensuring the following:

(a) All sludge produced at its facility is used/disposed of in accordance
with 40 CFR Parts 257, 258, 503, and HAR, Chapters 11-58.1 and
11-62, whether the Permittee uses/disposes of the sludge itself or
transfers it to another party for further treatment, use, or disposal.

(b) Subsequent preparers, appliers, or disposers of the sludge are
informed of the requirements under 40 CFR Parts 257, 258,503, and
HAR, Chapters 11-58.1 and 11-62.

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

PARTF
Page 21

(c) Sludge is not allowed to enter waters of the United States, or to
contaminate an underground drinking water source.

(d) Sludge treatment, storage, use, and disposal does not create a public
nUIsance.

(e) Haulers who ship non-Class A sludge off-site for additional
treatment, use, or disposal take all necessary measures to keep sludge
contained.

(2) The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to prevent or minimize any
sludge use or disposal which has a likelihood of adversely affecting human
health or the environment.

c. Other Conditions

(1) The Director of Health may promptly modify or revoke and reissue this
permit to incorporate any applicable standard for sewage sludge use or
disposal promulgated under the Act Section 405(d), or adopted under
HRS, Chapter 342D or HAR, Chapter 11-62, if the standard is more
stringent than the standard in this permit or covers a pollutant or practice
not covered in this permit.

(2) The sludge requirements in this part are supplemental to the other
conditions of this permit. In the event of a conflict, those requirements
more protective of the environment shall apply.

(3) The requirements in 40 CFR Part 503 are enforceable by the EPA
independently of being included in this permit.

2. Sludge Limitations and Monitoring Requirements

a. Sludge shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:

(1) Sludge Disposed of in Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

Monitoring
Monitoring Parameter/ Test Proeedures Limitation
Frequeuey

Paint Filter Test (SW -486,
No "Free Liquids"] Once/Year
EP A Method 9095)

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 2
Once/Year
Procedure(TCLP) Test 2

PERMIT ISSUED
March 19,2004

2011 01-12

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (11)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à 2011 01-12

Similaire à 2011 01-12 (18)

Plus de Honolulu Civil Beat

Plus de Honolulu Civil Beat (20)

2011 01-12