Are Hanjin condos sitting on toxic site?
SUBIC BAY FREEPORT – For nearly a week, the ruckus over two high-rise condominiums of Hanjin Heavy Industries & Construction Philippines Inc. has been confined to issues of their location in the middle of a protected forest at the Subic Bay Freeport and the alleged tree-cutting there.
There are more questions, though. One is related to the health safety of the expected tenants – 180 Korean executives and employees, as well as their families. Another concerns possible future liabilities of the land manager, the government-owned Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA).
A copy of an environmental compliance certificate (ECC) issued by the SBMA to Hanjin identified the condominium site as “Naval Magazine, Ilanin East Forest.” An undated 21-page lease agreement in 2007, however, states “a vacant lot at Subic Apex, Ilanin District.”
A PowerPoint presentation given by SBMA Administrator Armand Arreza to reporters identified the place as within the “Cubi-Triboa District.” The SBMA land-use plan in 2000 shut off any development within the Ilanin Forest East.
Wherever the site is, all those addresses are in the general area of the once US Naval Magazine, one of the 44 locations covered by a 1996 environmental baseline study (EBS) done by the firm Woodward Clyde for the SBMA on a $670,000 loan from the World Bank.
The study’s three maps and executive summary of the final report have been marked “confidential” by the SBMA, but copies were obtained by the Inquirer from the archives of the nongovernment People’s Task Force for Bases Cleanup (PTFBC).
Confidential report
Since the US Navy pulled out in 1992, the task force has demanded the “environmental remediation” of Subic and Clark Air Base from hazardous or toxic substances to make these facilities more viable for economic reuse.
In its study, Woodward Clyde ruled out widespread severe contamination of soils, groundwater or sediments from the activities of the US Navy.
“In general, the nature and extent of the chemical contamination identified by this study should not impede the proposed commercial, industrial, tourist and recreational developments planned by the SBMA,” it said about the implications for land use.
It recommended restricted development and land use in the Subic landfill, basin landfill, and the main explosive ordnance disposal area at Camayan Point.
On human health risks, Woodward Clyde said: “Based on the screening level risk assessment, the concentration of chemicals found in soil at 44 sites in the current study, poses a negligible risk to the health of the current nonresidential occupiers/users of the sites due to lack of an identifiable exposure pathway, and the nonresidential land use of the areas.”
A technical review of the EBS done by the US-based Clearwater Revival Co. (CRC) at the request of the PTFBC, believes otherwise.
Limited scope
“The EBS does not accurately characterize contamination at the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, and the potential for adverse impacts to human health and the environment,” CRC said. The analysis was provided chiefly by civil and chemical engineer Patrick Lynch.
CRC found the study to be limited in scope because:
The EBS did not assess all areas of the free port zone and did not include known environmental hazards, such as unexploded ordnance, asbestos, lead paint and radioactive materials.
Site reconnaissance was not performed inside buildings during the [environmental quality study or EQS].
The EBS did not adequately characterize historical land uses and the potential for contamination, relying instead on incomplete information.
In the absence of complete historical information, it failed to perform a comprehensive sampling plan. Sampling locations were limited to selected sites and sample densities of as low as one sample per six acres.
The sampling plan was technically flawed. Samples were not collected at depths of expected contamination.
The EQS failed to characterize the extent of soil and groundwater pollution.
The risk screening results were not reported. A summary of chemicals of concern did not refer to petroleum hydrocarbon, a pollutive byproduct of oil.
Recommendations and cost estimates for remediation and further investigation should be viewed as preliminary. These proposed actions and associated cost figures could not be accurately determined with the existing investigation area.
The EQS contained numerous misrepresentations, errors and omissions which undermined the credibility of the EBS findings.
Imminent danger
Despite the study’s limited coverage, CRC said the sampling results “indicate that existing environmental conditions within the free port zone present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment.”
Although the free port spans 24,000 hectares, the EQS was “restricted primarily to 10,000 hectares of developed land.” Among the areas where no sampling was conducted were the Redondo Peninsula, Grande Island, housing areas, and other parts of Subic Bay, CRC said.
“These areas were identified as sites of known or potential contamination in previous reports,” it said.
It is off Redondo Bay where Hanjin is building its $1.65-billion shipyard. As for its “apartment complex” project, four sites of its general area, the Naval Magazine, was covered by the Woodward Clyde study – Site 10, the small arms range; Site 11, the ammunition disposal burning pit; Site 12, the demilitarization facility; and Site 13, the wood treatment facility.
Arreza had said that Hanjin’s site used to be “Area B,” where an ammunition storage facility or an AUW (air and underwater) workshop used to be. SBMA officials had not said where Area B actually figures in relation to Sites 10, 11, 12 and 13.
CRC noted, however, that the “EQS indicates that high levels of heavy metals found in SS02 (naval air station) may be related to surface water runoff from the demilitarization facility. The extent of impacts from surface water runoff should be further investigated.”
The ammunition disposal burning pit needed “further action” to remove potential unexploded ordnance which might have been buried there or disposed of in Subic Bay, it said.
ëIsolated pockets’
In an undated “briefing paper on the hazardous wastes issue,” the Philippine government admitted that “testing of other forms of contamination was not carried out, mainly due to a lack of resources and expertise.”
Citing “results of the study commissioned by the SBMA,” it said: “Overall, there is minimal contamination in Subic Bay.”
Nevertheless, it noted “isolated pockets where the level of contamination will require remedial or cleanup action.” These areas “have levels of contamination that place serious restrictions on land use,” it said.
“The areas where unexploded ordnance may be present have been identified by the firm but their presence can only be verified and handled by military experts.”
In 2000, the SBMA closed at least 10 contaminated sites. The Hanjin apartment site was not among or closely near those sites, Ameth dela Llana-Koval, head of the SBMA ecology center, said.
Sitting on a light industrial and residential district, the Korean shipbuilder pays $37 per square meter on that part of the Naval Magazine.
The so-called toxic legacy in this US naval base-turned-free port may have caught up with the SBMA or Hanjin, its biggest investor, but the EBS showed “no contamination” on the site where the Korean firm built its apartments and thus, posed no liabilities on the part of the SBMA, Koval said.
Hanjin watch
Hanjin actually dealt with the toxic waste issue. Its general manager, Pyeong Jong Yu, said this was “well-addressed by the experts that prepared the environmental impact study (EIS) and us during the preparatory stage.”
“The result of those surveys and studies was negative for any ammunition or toxic wastes,” Pyeong said.
Carlito Rufo, the environmental engineer who conducted a technical review of the EIS, said the firm that made the study referred to the Woodward Clyde study and CRC review.
“The risk to the future residents was ruled out either from groundwater or soil/dust inhalation,” Rufo said, citing results of the EIS. Water samples are within the safe standards, according to the EIS.
“I believed a couple of waste oil drums were found stored in the site, but tests showed they contained used motor oil,” Rufo said.
Hanjin president Jeong Sup Shim said excavations and metal detectors found no signs of unexploded ordnance on the site. “It will be a nightmare if the place is not safe,” he told the Inquirer by phone.
The safety of its tenants has always been the “direction” of the project, he added. What was clear was that Hanjin made its own investigation on toxic waste.
According to Arreza and Koval, it was Hanjin that chose the site after the SBMA recommended possible locations. But minus a clean-up at the free port 16 years after the base conversion process started and with the 1992 warning of the US General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the US Congress, that “Air Force and Navy officials had identified contaminated sites with significant environmental damage” and that the cost of cleanup “could approach Superfund proportions,” how can any firm for that matter be really sure about health safety? Philippine Daily Inquirer
There are more questions, though. One is related to the health safety of the expected tenants – 180 Korean executives and employees, as well as their families. Another concerns possible future liabilities of the land manager, the government-owned Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA).
A copy of an environmental compliance certificate (ECC) issued by the SBMA to Hanjin identified the condominium site as “Naval Magazine, Ilanin East Forest.” An undated 21-page lease agreement in 2007, however, states “a vacant lot at Subic Apex, Ilanin District.”
A PowerPoint presentation given by SBMA Administrator Armand Arreza to reporters identified the place as within the “Cubi-Triboa District.” The SBMA land-use plan in 2000 shut off any development within the Ilanin Forest East.
Wherever the site is, all those addresses are in the general area of the once US Naval Magazine, one of the 44 locations covered by a 1996 environmental baseline study (EBS) done by the firm Woodward Clyde for the SBMA on a $670,000 loan from the World Bank.
The study’s three maps and executive summary of the final report have been marked “confidential” by the SBMA, but copies were obtained by the Inquirer from the archives of the nongovernment People’s Task Force for Bases Cleanup (PTFBC).
Confidential report
Since the US Navy pulled out in 1992, the task force has demanded the “environmental remediation” of Subic and Clark Air Base from hazardous or toxic substances to make these facilities more viable for economic reuse.
In its study, Woodward Clyde ruled out widespread severe contamination of soils, groundwater or sediments from the activities of the US Navy.
“In general, the nature and extent of the chemical contamination identified by this study should not impede the proposed commercial, industrial, tourist and recreational developments planned by the SBMA,” it said about the implications for land use.
It recommended restricted development and land use in the Subic landfill, basin landfill, and the main explosive ordnance disposal area at Camayan Point.
On human health risks, Woodward Clyde said: “Based on the screening level risk assessment, the concentration of chemicals found in soil at 44 sites in the current study, poses a negligible risk to the health of the current nonresidential occupiers/users of the sites due to lack of an identifiable exposure pathway, and the nonresidential land use of the areas.”
A technical review of the EBS done by the US-based Clearwater Revival Co. (CRC) at the request of the PTFBC, believes otherwise.
Limited scope
“The EBS does not accurately characterize contamination at the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, and the potential for adverse impacts to human health and the environment,” CRC said. The analysis was provided chiefly by civil and chemical engineer Patrick Lynch.
CRC found the study to be limited in scope because:
The EBS did not assess all areas of the free port zone and did not include known environmental hazards, such as unexploded ordnance, asbestos, lead paint and radioactive materials.
Site reconnaissance was not performed inside buildings during the [environmental quality study or EQS].
The EBS did not adequately characterize historical land uses and the potential for contamination, relying instead on incomplete information.
In the absence of complete historical information, it failed to perform a comprehensive sampling plan. Sampling locations were limited to selected sites and sample densities of as low as one sample per six acres.
The sampling plan was technically flawed. Samples were not collected at depths of expected contamination.
The EQS failed to characterize the extent of soil and groundwater pollution.
The risk screening results were not reported. A summary of chemicals of concern did not refer to petroleum hydrocarbon, a pollutive byproduct of oil.
Recommendations and cost estimates for remediation and further investigation should be viewed as preliminary. These proposed actions and associated cost figures could not be accurately determined with the existing investigation area.
The EQS contained numerous misrepresentations, errors and omissions which undermined the credibility of the EBS findings.
Imminent danger
Despite the study’s limited coverage, CRC said the sampling results “indicate that existing environmental conditions within the free port zone present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment.”
Although the free port spans 24,000 hectares, the EQS was “restricted primarily to 10,000 hectares of developed land.” Among the areas where no sampling was conducted were the Redondo Peninsula, Grande Island, housing areas, and other parts of Subic Bay, CRC said.
“These areas were identified as sites of known or potential contamination in previous reports,” it said.
It is off Redondo Bay where Hanjin is building its $1.65-billion shipyard. As for its “apartment complex” project, four sites of its general area, the Naval Magazine, was covered by the Woodward Clyde study – Site 10, the small arms range; Site 11, the ammunition disposal burning pit; Site 12, the demilitarization facility; and Site 13, the wood treatment facility.
Arreza had said that Hanjin’s site used to be “Area B,” where an ammunition storage facility or an AUW (air and underwater) workshop used to be. SBMA officials had not said where Area B actually figures in relation to Sites 10, 11, 12 and 13.
CRC noted, however, that the “EQS indicates that high levels of heavy metals found in SS02 (naval air station) may be related to surface water runoff from the demilitarization facility. The extent of impacts from surface water runoff should be further investigated.”
The ammunition disposal burning pit needed “further action” to remove potential unexploded ordnance which might have been buried there or disposed of in Subic Bay, it said.
ëIsolated pockets’
In an undated “briefing paper on the hazardous wastes issue,” the Philippine government admitted that “testing of other forms of contamination was not carried out, mainly due to a lack of resources and expertise.”
Citing “results of the study commissioned by the SBMA,” it said: “Overall, there is minimal contamination in Subic Bay.”
Nevertheless, it noted “isolated pockets where the level of contamination will require remedial or cleanup action.” These areas “have levels of contamination that place serious restrictions on land use,” it said.
“The areas where unexploded ordnance may be present have been identified by the firm but their presence can only be verified and handled by military experts.”
In 2000, the SBMA closed at least 10 contaminated sites. The Hanjin apartment site was not among or closely near those sites, Ameth dela Llana-Koval, head of the SBMA ecology center, said.
Sitting on a light industrial and residential district, the Korean shipbuilder pays $37 per square meter on that part of the Naval Magazine.
The so-called toxic legacy in this US naval base-turned-free port may have caught up with the SBMA or Hanjin, its biggest investor, but the EBS showed “no contamination” on the site where the Korean firm built its apartments and thus, posed no liabilities on the part of the SBMA, Koval said.
Hanjin watch
Hanjin actually dealt with the toxic waste issue. Its general manager, Pyeong Jong Yu, said this was “well-addressed by the experts that prepared the environmental impact study (EIS) and us during the preparatory stage.”
“The result of those surveys and studies was negative for any ammunition or toxic wastes,” Pyeong said.
Carlito Rufo, the environmental engineer who conducted a technical review of the EIS, said the firm that made the study referred to the Woodward Clyde study and CRC review.
“The risk to the future residents was ruled out either from groundwater or soil/dust inhalation,” Rufo said, citing results of the EIS. Water samples are within the safe standards, according to the EIS.
“I believed a couple of waste oil drums were found stored in the site, but tests showed they contained used motor oil,” Rufo said.
Hanjin president Jeong Sup Shim said excavations and metal detectors found no signs of unexploded ordnance on the site. “It will be a nightmare if the place is not safe,” he told the Inquirer by phone.
The safety of its tenants has always been the “direction” of the project, he added. What was clear was that Hanjin made its own investigation on toxic waste.
According to Arreza and Koval, it was Hanjin that chose the site after the SBMA recommended possible locations. But minus a clean-up at the free port 16 years after the base conversion process started and with the 1992 warning of the US General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the US Congress, that “Air Force and Navy officials had identified contaminated sites with significant environmental damage” and that the cost of cleanup “could approach Superfund proportions,” how can any firm for that matter be really sure about health safety? Philippine Daily Inquirer
Labels: condominium towers, denr, ecology, environment, hanjin, sbma, Subic Bay
posted by OlongapoCity Zambales at
7:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home