3.14 NAVSTA14 - Suspected Old Dump Site
No historical information is available about this Site.
All historical information provided by the EQS could be determined from the name of the facility. The years that Site 14 operated as a landfill are not available.
Subic Bay Marina project will require significant earthwork at Site 14.
In 1990, construction activities in the area unearthed paint and oil containers. The Marina project calls for additional earthwork in the area of Site 14.
The depth of samples collected from within the suspected landfill footprint were likely collected from the landfill cover and not from any deposited waste. It is also likely that any construction project would extend deeper than the shallow 12-inch sample depth. A more detailed investigation at Site 14, including deeper sampling, is necessary to support worker health and safety on the Marina project.
Potential for UXO and Radioactive Material at Site 14 should be evaluated.
The unknown years of operation indicate that UXO and radioactive material may have been disposed of in the landfill. Proper precautions should be taken during any future earthwork at Site 14 to evaluate UXO and radiation hazards.
Boundaries of landfill need to be determined.
The boundaries of the landfill need to be determined. The locations of roads and other structures do not rule out the presence of landfilled wastes beneath these locations. These structures may have been constructed after the landfill was closed.
Landfill gas analysis was not performed during the EQS.
The potential formation and migration of methane and toxic gases in areas around the landfill need to be assessed. The crawl-spaces and wall-spaces of buildings constructed within 2,000 feet of the landfill should be evaluated for methane, and toxic landfill gases to ensure that an explosion or health impact is not imminent.
Further investigation of landfill leachate is necessary.
Groundwater sample analysis indicates that landfill leachate containing high levels of metals are present in groundwater near the landfill. The highest levels of metals were detected in MW-1 which is located the greatest distance from the indicated landfill boundaries.
Recommendations to excavate landfill represent serious short-term impacts.
The recommendation to excavate the old landfill and relocate the waste to the main landfill (Site 45) may "...release extra contaminants into the atmosphere..." and cause other short term impacts. The cost of this alternative may not have considered the costs of safety precaution to screen for UXO and radioactive material during waste excavation. Potential contingency plans should be developed in case these materials are encountered.
Recommendations to cap landfill for recreational uses.
The alternative recommendation to cap the landfill and to install a leachate interceptor does not address the issue of landfill gas generation. Any landfill rehabilitation project should address the installation of a landfill gas venting and treatment system.
3.15 NAVSTA15 - Former Navy Exchange Taxi Compound
No site history is provided.
All the site history information provided by the EQS could be gathered from the name of the site. Potential for contaminant migration from nearby sites.
The potential for contaminant migration from nearby sites was not considered. Site 15 is located downgradient of the POL tank farm and adjacent to Site 34, Deltic Yard.
Volatile Organic results in soils are inconclusive.
Only surface soil samples were collected from this site.
Soil sample locations do not target most likely areas of contamination.
The EQS provide no rationale for sample locations. Samples targeting buried piping and tanks were not collected from a depth below these sources (typically four feet).
Location of monitoring well.
The inferred groundwater flow direction is to the west. Monitoring well, MW-1, is not located in the inferred down-gradient direction of groundwater flow from the underground tank locations. The location of MW-1 is not related to any known landmarks on the "not-to-scale" Figure 15.1.
Leaking Tank is likely present at facility.
The results reported in the two groundwater sample events differ by three orders of magnitude indicating an ongoing release of petroleum from underground fuel storage tank system. The TPH results for C10 to C14 fraction were 150 µg/L and 121,400 µg/L during the November 1995 and February 1996 sampling events, respectively. The fuel tanks and piping at this facility need to be tested for leaks.
Remediation costs are based on little data and appear to be to low.
The EQS recommends completing an investigation to determine the extent of contamination requiring remediation at this site. Site 15 and the nearby Site 25 and Site 34 contain similar levels of petroleum contamination. The combined cost for remediation at Site 15, Site 25, and Site 34 was estimated by the EQS to be $270,000 US dollars. Given the area potentially affected by these three sites is approximately 50 hectares, this cost estimate seems extremely low.
3.16 NAVSTA16 - Spanish Wharf
No site history is provided.
All the site history information provided by the EQS could be gathered from the name of the site. In light of the lack of historical information an inadequate level of sampling was performed.
Potential for contaminant migration from nearby sites.
The potential for contaminant migration from nearby sites was not considered. Site 16 is located downgradient from Site 1, Fire Fighting Training Area and located adjacent to Site 17, Lower Marine Auxiliary Unit (MAU).
Volatile Organic results in soils are inconclusive.
Only shallow soil samples were collected from this site.
Metals exceed screening criteria and background levels?
"All of the metal concentrations are within the normal background level for the type of soil found at the area. The concentration ranges of the metals are: arsenic from 2 mg/kg to 36 mg/kg; barium from 8 mg/kg to 549 mg/kg; chromium from 3 mg/kg to 145 mg/kg; copper from 13 mg/kg to 128 mg/kg; manganese from 134 mg/kg to 270 mg/kg; and zinc from 4 to 1,070 mg/kg."26 (p. 17-2). These concentrations are in disagreement with Table 16.1.3 which provides analytical results for three surface soils collected from Site 16 and analyzed for 12 metals. Table 16.1.3 shows all metals below screening limits and within background ranges determined by the EQS.
Petroleum contamination warrants further investigation.
One of three surface soil samples contained total petroleum hydrocarbons at 1,618.76 mg/kg in the C14-C20 fraction. The screening level for this petroleum fraction is 1,000 mg/kg. Despite exceeding the screening level, Site 16 was not recommended for remediation or further investigation. Given the high levels of TPH in soil samples a groundwater investigation is warranted at Site 16.
3.17 NAVSTA17 - Lower MAU
History is vague.
The EQS's brief discussion of site history indicates former and current building uses only. The EQS does not provide dates of building construction or operation. The EQS provides no specific information on hazardous material storage and handling at Site 17. In light of the lack of historical information an inadequate level of sampling was performed.
Volatile Organic results in soils are inconclusive.
Only shallow soil samples were collected from this site.
Petroleum and metals contamination warrants further investigation.
Three of 10 surface soil samples contained TPH in excess of screening levels. Arsenic and lead also exceeded soil screening levels. Groundwater contained arsenic in excess of screening levels as wells as petroleum contamination. Despite the significant contamination during the EQS further investigation was recommended at Site 17 only if a change in site use occurs.
3.18 NAVSTA18 - Boton Valley Dredge Spoil Stockpile Areas
The sampling performed at Site 18 evaluated the contamination in dredge spoils.
The samples collected from Site 18 were from the surface of dredge spoil piles. Sampling to evaluate the impact of stockpiling dredge material on Site 18 were not collected.
Characterization of dredge spoil contamination was poorly done.
Dredge spoils appear to occupy a large area. It would appear from sample locations on Figure 18.1 that one dredge spoil stockpile stretches for over 100 meters and the second stockpile stretches for 50 meters. It would appear that the two stockpiles each contain over 1,000 cubic meters of soil. The collection of five discrete samples does not adequately characterize the potential for contamination in these dredge spoils because contamination could be highly variable.
Volatile organic sampling inconclusive.
VOCs are not anticipated to be found in surface samples. Provides information on environmental conditions in Harbor.
Sample analysis results show that petroleum contamination exists in dredge stockpiles and therefore is likely present in the areas which were dredged. Further investigation of both the stockpile area and the sources of the dredge and fill material should be performed. The need for environmental controls in areas where dredge material is stockpiled should be evaluated.
Use of contaminated dredged material for fill should be restricted.
The use of dredged material for fill should be restricted. Contamination present in the dredge material represents a potential human health and environmental threat.
3.19 NAVSTA19 - Naval Hospital
Incinerator is only contaminant source at hospital that has been investigated.
Additional environmental concerns likely exist at Site 19. Hospitals use backup generators which require on-site storage of fuel and generally operate industrial laundry services. Given the limited site history that was provided an inadequate level of sampling was performed during the EQS.
Further investigation of high mercury levels should be investigated.
The EQS recommend removal of high levels of mercury and other metals found near the incinerator. The EQS estimates 5 to 10 cubic meters of ash/soil will require removal at a cost of less than $200 US dollars. Further investigation is needed to determine the extent of metal contamination at Site 19 before remedial action is performed.
