In response to the 14 million gallons of sewage leaked from naval barracks into San Diego Bay over the course of two years, the Navy released a report Dec. 20, 2006, detailing safeguards and procedures that should have prevented such a discharge. The document does not, however, address why such measures failed to detect the improperly connected sewage pipe.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board, the state agency charged with enforcing the Clean Water Act, requested the report in response to a Notice of Violation issued Dec. 1, 2006.
In the document, the Navy outlined the incident “” which took place at Palmer Hall, a housing facility at 32nd Street Naval Station “” as well as repair and clean-up actions.
In 2004, builders constructing the barracks mistakenly connected a 10-inch sewer line to a storm drain. The error was finally detected Nov. 17, 2006, by a team of Seabees working on an unrelated construction project nearby.
Soltek Pacific, the Navy’s general contractor for Palmer Hall, fixed the connection the same day and supervised the subsequent cleanup.
The Navy and Soltek Pacific are each conducting their own investigations into the incident: Soltek Pacific is looking into which of the more than 30 subcontractors involved in Palmer Hall’s construction is to blame, while the Navy is investigating the failure of surveys and visual inspections to detect the outflow.
As of press time, the Navy had not responded to questions regarding the time of completion for its investigation.
Soltek Pacific Chief Executive Officer Steve Thompson is not putting a timeline on his company’s own internal analysis.
“Right now, I do not have a definitive answer on what caused it. That is the easiest way to say it,” said Thompson.
The Navy did not pay for the repairs or cleanup; Soltek Pacific directed this at its own cost. The company has been contracted with the Navy since 1978.
In its response to the water board, the Navy disclosed standard operating procedures, which, if properly conducted, “should have prevented the cross-connection at Palmer Hall.”
Six procedures are intended to prevent cross-connections, including a site approval process prior to construction, a technical review of contractor construction plans, utility marking prior to construction, “quality assurance/quality control to ensure construction,” illicit connection surveys to ensure no historical cross-connections exist and quarterly visual inspections of industrial storm drain outfalls for dry weather discharges.
Three storm drain illicit connection surveys have been conducted at the naval base since 1995, with the latest survey conducted in 2002 “” two years prior to the construction of Palmer Hall. However, it was not known as of press time how often surveys are carried out or for when the next one was scheduled.
“It is not known, at this time, which of the procedures … was conducted in error. This is currently under investigation,” according to the Navy’s submittal.
But most alarming is the failure of visual inspections to spot dry-weather discharges averaging 19,000 gallons daily for two years.
When asked whether the Navy is considering legal action against its contractors, Scott Sutherland, public information officer for Navy Region Southwest, remarked, “The Navy won’t discuss legal actions, supposed or otherwise, at this juncture.”