Island Watch

40 Years after Tests of Agent Orange, UH Removes Dioxin Wastes from Kaua`i

The legacy of Vietnam continues to haunt Hawai`i. Last month on Kaua`i, more than two dozen barrels of dioxin-contaminated material were hauled from the University of Hawai`i agricultural experimental station at Wailua and shipped to Coffeeville, Kansas, for disposal at a licensed hazardous waste facility.

The primary source of the dioxin was Agent Orange, one of about 50 different defoliants or combinations of them that the University of Hawai`iÍs Department of Agronomy and Soil Science tested in the late 1960s, under a contract with the U.S. Army. Dioxin, which was present in Agent Orange as a contaminant from the manufacturing process, is one of the most dangerous chemicals ever produced. At least three of the workers involved with the UH tests became severely ill with types of cancers and other diseases often seen in cases of high dioxin exposure. According to an attorney for one of the men, the UH workers were never warned of the dangers of the chemicals to which they were exposed, nor were they provided with protective clothing or gear. Altogether some 60 treatments were applied by a charter air firm, MurrayAir, to four test sites on land in east Kaua`i that was, for the most part, state-owned and under the management of the Department of Land and Natural ResourcesÍ Division of Forestry and Wildlife.

After the experiments ended, drums and barrels containing chemicals and other contaminated wastes were simply buried at the universityÍs Kaua`i Agriculture Research Center (KARC) near Kapa`a. This was standard practice at the time. Nearly two decades later, when the Environmental Protection Agency determined the extent of the wastes, the university excavated the material, repacked much of it into larger 55- or 85-gallon drums, and promised – amid extensive media coverage – to dispose of it at a licensed facility. As if to underscore the intention to move the problem out of state, the drums were placed in a Matson shipping container.

And there they sat, for more than a decade. In 1997 and 1997, when the Environmental Protection Agency and state Department of Health were investigating the university for a wide range of problems relating to the illegal storage of hazardous waste, the issue of the Kaua`i dioxin arose. ThatÍs when investigators discovered that the university had failed to dispose of the material it had pledged to remove a decade earlier. Levels of dioxin in some soil samples taken in 1988 were as high as 5.5 parts per billion. The EPAÍs proposed cleanup standards for residential use is 1 part per billion – and even that is a level that critics say is several hundred times higher than what is needed to protect human health.

As a result of the inspectorsÍ discovery of the dioxin wastes at the KARC site, plus the disclosure of caches of improperly stored hazardous materials at the universityÍs Waiakea Agriculture Experiment Station on the Big Island, the university was socked with a $1.8 million fine. In an agreement with the EPA and Department of Health, the university will be able to spend most of that sum on improvements to facilities and staff training in handling hazardous materials.

Jim Manke, spokesman for the university, told Environment Hawai`I that the university had tried to dispose of the waste, but could not because there were no facilities accepting dioxin-contaminated materials until one reopened its doors in February of this year. A staff person at the Department of Health disputed MankeÍs account. While it was true that at the time of the rediscovery of the dioxin waste no mainland U.S. facility was receiving new shipments, one in Canada was in continuous operation. Also, had the university disposed of the waste in the 1980s, there would have been little problem in finding a site to take it, with the last licensed U.S. facility not closing its doors until 1997.

Manke referred further questions to the law firm of Goodsill Anderson, which the university has retained to represent it in administrative hearings related to the hazardous waste infractions.

Grace Simmons, who is head of the Department of HealthÍs Hazardous Waste section, said she is seeing more and more instances of contamination resulting from burial of pesticides and other hazardous chemicals. Some of the most frequently used chemicals break down into dioxin, Simmons said. These products include Silvex, Weed-B-Gone, and pentachlorophenol, one of the most commonly used wood treatment products.

ñWeÍre finding dioxin in soils, and donÍt know what to do with the contaminated sites,î Simmons said. Under EPA regulations, soils are required to be cleaned up to differing standards, depending on what the intended use of the land is. If the highest levels – allowing for unrestricted use – are not reached, ñthen weÍre looking at deed restrictionsî on the land, she said.

Today, if land is known to be contaminated with dioxin or other chemical hazards, the Department of Health can make sure that it is not used for purposes that would result in exposure of the civilian population. However, Simmons acknowledged, some lands that would not meet todayÍs standards may have been converted years ago into residential and other uses.

In addition, Simmons noted that many of the most dangerous chemicals continue to be used. ñTake chlordane. ItÍs pervasive, and although sales have been banned, people can still use it – if they have it – on their houses,î Simmons said. ChlordaneÍs toxic properties are well established, but – or perhaps because of this – it has no equal as a termite treatment.

ñThere are high levels of chlordane in the Ala Wai canal,î Simmons noted. ñAnd it almost certainly comes from Manoa, where houses continue to be treated with chlordane. ItÍs a rainy area, and the runoff from the residential area goes straight into the canal.î

–Patricia Tummons

The Department of Land and Natural Resources has applied to the Army Corps of Engineers for permits to dredge the Ala Wai canal and the Manoa-Palolo Drainage canal to remove sediment and restore water depth. If the project is approved, 3,500 cubic yards of contaminated soil from these waterways will be taken to an area alongside the reef runway at Honolulu International Airport because they do not meet standards for disposal at sea.

Soil samples were taken from the areas to be dredged and were sent to the Environmental Protection AgencyÍs Region 9 laboratory for testing of contaminants. Most of the samples of soil to be dredged passed the EPA tests and will be disposed of at sea off O`ahu. But in an area known as ñArea 3î of the Ala Wai (adjacent to the golf course), where 3,500 cubic yards are planned to be removed, samples failed the tests.

The precise nature of the contaminants at Area 3 are not known, says the airportÍs environmental engineer Terry Kearny. They almost certainly include metals, he said, but beyond that, the composition is a mystery not disclosed by the EPAÍs tests. When the samples are tested, the EPA exposes a standard selection of organisms to the soil and measures their die-off rate. The number of organisms killed by soil from Area 3 exceeded the EPAÍs acceptable level.

ñUsing the organisms is a kind of fail-safe method,î Kearny explains. The range of possible chemical contaminants is so great, ñyou could make lists and listsî of chemicals and still not include the particular contaminants in a given soil sample, he said. The use of organisms ñseems to be viable when you donÍt know exactly what you have,î he added.

The Ala Wai is a case in point. A wide variety of materials and chemicals have been deposited into the water and have ended up in the sediment. Runoff that drains into the canal can contain ñresidues of all the land the rainwater has landed on,î Kearny says, adding that in the past, even soil that has passed the EPA toxicity test and has been dumped at sea has ended up poisoning nearby sea life.

Whether the Area 3 soil will be shipped by barge or trucked to the reef runway has yet to be decided. If itÍs by barge, the soil slurry will be pumped to land. Once there, it will be put in a lined cell so the water can evaporate. After dewatering, the soil will be placed in another cell, to be mixed with concrete. The concrete stabilizes the chemicals and ties up any metal ions to prevent leaching, Kearny said.

When the concrete has hardened, it will be added to a buffer zone at the edge of the reef runway area. The runway itself is 200 feet wide, surrounded by a ñclear zoneî of 250 feet on either side. The total width of the reef runway area is 2,000 feet. The Department of TransportationÍs ñsoil management facilityî at the reef runway is about 1,000 feet seaward of the runway proper.

ñWe want a buffer zone,î Kearny says. After Hurricane `Iniki damaged the runway, the airport has wanted to increase the buffer zone that will hold up to such events. The ideal height is 10 feet, and the elevation now is between 4 and 6 feet.

The footing for the existing buffer was constructed with dredged material from the construction of the airport terminal. When that section of the reef runway was under construction, the dredged material did not settle in as engineers had calculated. Several million tons of fill material was put in, and when it dewatered and settled, it wasnÍt at the grade the engineers had designed. The footing still needs a few million more cubic yards of fill, Kearny said.

During excavation for the terminal, the soil was found to be contaminated with petroleum. To deal with the soil, the airport obtained a Department of Health permit to ñremediateî – clean up – any petroleum-contaminated soils found at the airport. Today, the ñsoil management facilityî can receive soil from outside the airport provided the Department of Health approves. Earthen berms are made to hold the soil and are reinforced with liners designed to withstand a 25-year rainfall or a 24-hour storm event.

Petroleum is volatile, Kearny says, and the sea breezes and sun at the runway break down petroleum molecules quickly. ñAfter a couple of months of baking, the petroleum in the soil remediates,î he says. Afterward, the liners are removed and the berms are graded.î

–Teresa Dawson

Mary Evanson, MauiÍs grande dame of the environment, has proposed a new national park for Maui along its remote, rugged southeast coast. ItÍs a project Evanson has undertaken on her own, saying she wants to see ñif one person can make a difference.î
The area lying within EvansonÍs proposed park boundaries extends from the southeastern boundary of the stateÍs Anihi-Kina`u Natural Area Reserve east to Kanaloa Point, a distance of about five miles. It boasts a wealth of archaeological sites, natural beauty, pocket beaches, and historic trails.

In 1977, the state proposed turning the area into a state park, which would also have included the Ahihi-Kina`u Natural Area Reserve. Nothing came of that proposal, but it did, indirectly, spark the effort to save Big Beach.

Evanson recalls: ñWay back in 1983, at a Sierra Club meeting, Rick Sands was saying we had to save Alaska. I had just recently come across the Makena-La Perouse State Park plan, extending from Big Beach to Kanaloa. God, it was such a wonderful plan, so visionary. I said, ïletÍs make it happen,Í and gave it to Rick. ïWeÍve got to do something about this,Í I said, and he agreed. He worked for years acquiring support from Senator Inouye and others to get state and federal money to buy that. ThatÍs now a state park at Makena. But beyond that, the plan was never developed.î

Since then, development at Makena has proceeded rapidly. Most recently, Evans has been involved in protesting plans for building a large residence at La Perouse. That proposal is pending before the state Board of Land and Natural Resources, which must issue a Conservation District Use Permit before it can proceed.

Evanson worries that without the National Park ServiceÍs involvement, the archaeological riches of the area could be further harmed. ñIÍve been after the state to protect the sites at La Perouse,î she says. ñBut the state just canÍt do it.î

ñThereÍs camping everywhere,î she says, with almost all of it by people who are not residents and show little respect for local customs and archaeology. Evanson describes some of the impacts in her proposal: ñThe rapid growth of Kihei and Wailea and the paving of the road to La Perouse Bay have dramatically drawn attention to this once isolated place. Hundreds of visitors come to La Perouse every day. Four-wheel drive vehicles are making their own roads beyond the paved road, and are impacting and destroying archaeological sites. There is critical need for management and protection of this important area. There is a need for the many natural and cultural resources to be interpreted so the public can better understand their value and need for protection. The National Park Service protects and interprets better than any other public or private entity.î

Evanson says the proposal has received the support of nearly everyone who has heard about it. ñThis has been very interesting,î she told Environment Hawai`i. ñItÍs the first issue IÍve ever been involved with where IÍve received 100 percent approval. No one has said ïIt wonÍt workÍ or ñI donÍt like the idea.Íî Even fishers and representatives of MauiÍs tourist industry have fallen in line behind the project, she said.

Most of the area is state-owned land. A small portion is privately owned by Ulupalakua Ranch, but, says Evanson, this is land that is of no practical value for ranching.

Turning the area into a national park is a process that Evanson knows will take years. People wanting to help with the effort may write her at P.O. Box 694, Makawao, Hawai`i 96768.

–P.T.

The Mariana crow, much like its Hawaiian cousin, the `alala, is in trouble. Once common throughout Guam, the birdÍs range today is restricted to a few patches of forest. The Mariana fruit bat is in similar dire straits. Other flighted species are in worse condition yet. The Guam rail and the Guam Micronesian kingfisher owe their survival to a program of captive propagation, with the rail having been recently reintroduced to the wild.

These animals plus the Guam broadbill, the Guam bridled white-eye, and the little Mariana fruit bat are at the heart of a lawsuit filed last month in federal court in Honolulu by the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund on behalf of the Marianas Audubon Society and the Center for Biological Diversity. Named as defendants are the Secretary of the Interior and the head of the Fish and Wildlife Service, who, the lawsuit alleges, have failed to carry out the statutory requirement to designate critical habitat for these endangered species.

— Patricia Tummons

Volume 10, Number 11 May 2000