Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES3.6 Hazardous MaterialsAffected EnvironmentPast and present land used within the watershed could have resulted in the use, storage, and release of hazardousmaterials within the study area. Because development is concentrated within the UGA, and because all of theproposed development alternatives pertain to land uses within the UGA, this area is of primary concern forcontaminants and exposure to contaminants as a result of the proposed project activities.MethodologyMaterials reviewed to collect information on hazardous materials within the UGA or in proximity to the UGA in thewatershed include readily available records, as well as reports from previous investigations.For watershed-level review, an online search of Ecology databases (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/database.html) wasconducted to determine the presence of facilities that generate, transport, store, or dispose of hazardousmaterials. Additionally, a review of regulatory database information for facilities located within 1 mile of the UGAwas conducted. An environmental records database search was contracted to Environmental Data Resources (EDR)and was supplemented by online search of the Ecology and EPA databases to determine whether properties withinthe UGA would appear on lists of entities that generate, transport, store, or dispose of hazardous materials. Thisdatabase review was consistent with the ASTM Practice E1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental SiteAssessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Interviews with current facility operators were notconducted for this analysis.Each identified hazardous materials site was categorized into one of the following groups, based on the review ofrecords, current land use, and other available reports described previously:• Sites with No Apparent Risk. Sites with No Apparent Risk include those sites for which the records indicate noknow releases of hazardous materials, and there suggests little potential for contaminants to migrate into thestudy area.• Reasonably Predictable Sites. Reasonably Predictable Sites are sites where the nature of potentialcontamination is known based on existing investigation data, or where it can be reasonably predicted basedon observations of the site, and/or experience at similar sites, and/or best engineering judgment. Reasonablypredictable sites are typically small to medium in size; the potential contaminants are not extremely toxic ordifficult to treat; and probable remediation approaches are straightforward and well proven.• Substantially Contaminated Sites. Substantially Contaminated Sites warrant additional regulatory review andpossibly additional remediation by either the current owner or new buyers. These sites may represent healthrisks or economic risks for the future developers resulting from a combination of characteristics: highly toxicand/or highly mobile contaminants; difficult or costly site remediation requirements; and potential forconstruction delays. If the site has undergone a detailed investigation and feasibility study, and a remediationstrategy would be available and remediation costs may have already been predicted.Reasonably Predictable Sites and Substantially Contaminated Sites were considered areas of concern for thepurposes of this Draft EIS. Sites with No Apparent Risk are not discussed further in this section.The Final Draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Bremerton Auto Wrecking Landfill – Gorst Creek Site(Ecology and Environment, Inc. 2012) was reviewed to determine the historical land use of this landfill site, and thedocumented condition of soil and groundwater in the study area. The report summarizes proposed removalactions aimed at protecting human health and the environment by preventing human and ecological receptorcontact with landfill contents and associated hazardous substances and to comply with applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements to the extent practicable.Draft | June 2013 3-84