body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, November 2, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:32 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-073) Approve the Minutes of the Special Meetings of September 20, 2011 and the Special
and Regular Meetings of October 5, 2011.
(*11-074) Approve a 47-Year Legally Binding Agreement with Alameda Point Collaborative for
Buildings 802, 803, 806, 809, 810, 811 and 812 (30 Units of Housing) and Authorize the Executive
Director to Execute the Agreement and any Related Documents.
Chair Gilmore pulled Item 3-A (minutes) to make a correction. Member Tam moved for
approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Member Tam moved for approval of Item 3-A with the corrections. Vice Chair Bonta
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (Note: Chair Gilmore and
Member Johnson abstained from approving the Minutes of Sept. 20, as they were not
present at that meeting). [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-075) Presentation on Status Report of Environmental Conditions of the Alameda Point
Site.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point introduced the Environmental Consultant of the
Alameda Point Project, Peter Russell, Russell Resources. Dr. Russell provided a powerpoint
presentation on the status of the remediation and environmental issues of Alameda Point.
Dr. Russell's remediation experience includes numerous sites: Fort Ord, Tustin Air Station, Benicia
Arsenal, Mission Bay clean up, and the Southern and Union Pacific rail yards in Sacramento.
Member deHaan commended Dr. Russell and the RAB for all their efforts in the environmental
program of Alameda Point.
Speakers: Dale Smith, Community Chair of RAB and member for 10+ years. Ms. Smith discussed
soil issues not being addressed and CERCLA sites that are still of concern at Alameda Point.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,2,"Chair Gilmore thanked Dr. Russell and members of the RAB for their technical expertise and
diligence over the decade and more.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-076) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of October 6, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan echoed the statements from Dr. Russell's presentation and reminded the public
that the remediation is ongoing, and that a vast majority of property will be given to the ARRA with
certain restrictions.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,3,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
Comments by Dale Smith, Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair
33:49
The residential standards are for groundwater only, and they
At Alameda Point, cleanup to residential standards means
are not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,
that the health risk and health hazard from both soil and
cadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil that is
groundwater (combined) are health-protective for single-
not being addressed.
family residential land use; which is the most stringent land-
use standard. This principle applies to both the CERCLA
(Full Comment: The talk of residential standards, when I talk
and Petroleum Programs. Accordingly, the concentrations of
to community members, they seem to get confused because
toxic metals in soil are explicitly considered by the Navy
the residential standards are for groundwater only, and they
and the environmental regulatory agencies in deciding
are not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,
whether soil remediation is needed to allow residential land
cadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil, and
use and, if so, the type and extent of that remediation.
that is not being addressed as far as we can tell.)
34:14
Slide 13 represents the CERCLA sites only. There are
Contamination in soil and groundwater at Alameda Point is
petroleum sites that move in and out of CERCLA. One
addressed by either the CERCLA or Petroleum Program,
month they'l be in, and the next month they'l be out. For
whichever appears to be most appropriate. For example, a
example, the plume under Kollmann Circle originally was in
site with petroleum contamination is typically managed
the petroleum site, got put in the CERCLA site.
under the Petroleum Program, unless non-petroleum
contamination also is present. Occasionally, management of
(Full Comment: The graphs in the document, according to
a particular site will transfer from one program to another
the EPA representative, represent the CERCLA sites only,
during the course of investigation and remedial decision
and I don't know if you changed those or you basically used
making. For example, a site may move to the CERCLA
those graphs. You know the tall Yeah,
so
those
are
Program if contamination by a CERCLA substance is found
CERCLA sites only, and there are petroleum sites that move
at a Petroleum Program site. The goals for protection of
in and out of CERCLA. They do a little hula dance. One
human health and the environment are the same with both
month they'll be in, and the next month they'll be out. So
programs.
there are sites that are still of concern, such as the plume
under Kollmann Circle, which originally was in the
petroleum site, but then because of problems in Bayport, it
got put in the CERCLA site. So just bear that in mind. As I
said, the soil is not being remediated.)
35:09
According to the presentation, ""cleanup"" means active
This comment primarily applies to cleanup of groundwater
Page 1 of 1
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,4,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
remediation. However, the cleanup is going on for much
contamination. The remediation of many Alameda Point
longer than that. For example, the RAB had a presentation
groundwater contamination sites follows two principal
on one site (groundwater at OU-2B), where the cleanup was
steps. The first is an initial phase, during which the
going to take 22 to 35 years, and there'll be severe
contamination, especially the source area, is treated, for
restrictions on the use of that site.
example by injection of chemicals or by heating. The
second phase typically consists of periodic groundwater
(Full Comment: Cleanup as defined in the presentation, as I
sampling to monitor progress of natural processes in further
read it or I hear it, means the active remediation done by the
reducing contamination concentrations. The first phase often
military, meaning trucks and things are out there. Scoops are
takes three years or less. The second phase lasts until clean-
digging up dirt. Otherwise the cleanup is going on for much
up goals are reached. The commenter is correct in that the
longer than that. We had a presentation on one site two
second phase can last for several decades, as in the example
months ago where the cleanup was going to take 22 to 35
of Operable Unit 2B (OU-2B).
years, and there'll be severe restrictions on the use of that
site. So bear that in mind.)
During the second phase, land-use restrictions may be
applied to protect monitoring wells and to prevent use of the
groundwater. Depending on the type of groundwater
contamination, land-use restrictions may also require that
building designs include vapor barriers, special ventilation,
etc. to safeguard public health. Land-use restrictions during
the second phase typically do not preclude most uses of the
site. Thus, ""severe restrictions"" on land use typically apply
only to the first few years of cleanup.
35:44
Quite a bit of money is spent on cleanup using innovative
CERCLA requires that clean-up decision making evaluate
technologies. But the Navy is using experimental
the extent to which each remedial alterative under
technologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of
consideration reduces the amount, toxicity, or mobility of
money, so the Navy is able to make presentations to
contaminants through treatment. This statutory preference
scientific boards.
implies that innovative technologies sometimes will be
selected as the preferred clean-up alternative.
(Full Comment: One of the RAB's concerns has been that
there has been quite a bit of money spent on cleanup using
Sometimes it is unclear whether a promising emerging
innovative technologies. But they' re using experimental
technology will be effective under conditions found at
Page 2 of 2
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,5,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
technologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of
Alameda Point. In such cases, a pilot test (a form of
money. So, but they, the Navy then is able to make
experiment) typically is conducted to evaluate how well the
presentations to scientific boards saying that they tried this
technology would work. A pilot test of in-situ thermal
technology and it did not work.)
treatment to treat groundwater was tried at OU-2C and
found to be very cost-effective. Alternatively, a pilot test of
nano-zerovalent-iron injection was tried at OU-2B and
found not to be effective. In both cases, the Navy and the
environmental regulatory agencies unanimously agreed the
pilot testing (experimenting) was a prudent way to evaluate
the promising technology.
The principal instance where experimentation with
technologies has occurred at Alameda Point is regarding
groundwater in another area of OU-2B. In this case, a
university and an EPA national laboratory approached the
Navy for permission to conduct an experiment on
groundwater contamination. The experiment was primarily
funded externally, and the information obtained by the
project has improved clean-up decision making for OU-2B
groundwater.
36:16
An ""active cleanup"" site on Slide 13 means a site for which
The ""Active Cleanup"" column in the graph on Slide 13
the regulators have signed off on site characterization and
includes sites which have completed their RODs and design
remedial investigation, and is to move on to Proposed Plans,
or implementation of the active remediation is in progress.
RODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of sites in that category
Sites that are in the Proposed Plan or draft ROD stages are
don't have those in place yet, but they're put in the active
categorized on Slide 13 as ""Under Investigation"" CERCLA
cleanup column anyway.
requires that remedial activities in the field begin within
fifteen months of completing the ROD.
(Full Comment: So active cleanup on that slide show means
anything that has moved to the point where the regulators
The distinctions the comment focuses on will be explained
have signed off on site characterization and remedial
more explicitly on future versions of this slide.
investigation, and now and has moved into a place where
Page 3 of 3
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,6,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
there are Proposed Plans, RODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of
it doesn't have those in place yet, but they're put in the
active cleanup column.)
36:46
The presentation (Slide 15) indicated portions of the
The IR Site boundaries on Slide 15 accurately reflect the
Northwest Territories are white (outside of IR Sites). But
BCT's current understanding of the extent of radium in soil
most of these areas have recently been found to have radium
at Northwest Territories. Within the last few years, the
contamination in soil. There is no plan for remediation of
boundaries of the site in the area the comment references
this contamination.
(IR Site 32) were expanded to account for low-level radium
contamination in soil extending over a greater area than was
(Full Comment: The map showed the Northwest Territories
originally recognized. The Navy is currently completing an
to be white, but they have recently been found to be covered
extensive radiological survey of soil in this area. The
with radium to a depth of a half foot to a foot and a half, as I
preliminary results from this investigation indicate that the
recall, in most of it. And there has been no plan as to how
extent of radium in soil does not extend beyond the current
that's going to be remediated, as far as we know.)
IR Site boundaries (into the white areas shown on Slide 15).
37:09
Natural attenuation hasn't occurred for 60 years. Why expect
Natural attenuation consists of a variety of natural processes
it to occur in the next five or ten years?
that reduce contaminant concentrations over time, usually
relatively slowly: biochemical degradation, dispersion,
(Full Comment: And one of, George Humphries, who is my
volatilization, etc. These are commonly effective in
cohort in this battle, likes to point out that natural attenuation
reducing contaminant concentrations to remedial goals after
hasn't occurred for 60 years. Why do you think it's going to
the initial active-cleanup phase.
occur in the next five or ten years?)
A fundamental component of the monitored natural
attenuation part of a clean-up alternative is ongoing
groundwater sampling and analysis to verify that
contaminant concentrations drop as expected. If the levels
do not drop, CERCLA requires that the ROD be changed to
ensure clean-up goals are achieved.
More technical response: Two factors support the
expectation that natural attenuation will work well after
active remediation.
Page 4 of 4
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,7,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
First, underground bacteria and other microbes degrade
many contaminants, often an important component of
natural attenuation. However, initial site conditions may
include contaminant levels that are so high that they are
toxic to the very microorganisms that, with more dilute
concentrations, would readily consume the contamination as
food. Thus, following an initial phase of active cleanup of
the higher concentration zones, natural attenuation can
proceed more effectively.
Second, with initial high contaminant concentrations, the
effect of natural attenuation often is not discernible. This is
because of the inherent variability of sampling and analysis.
A simple example illustrates this point. With an initial
contaminant concentration of 10,000 micrograms per liter
(ug/L) and an inherent sampling variability of plus or minus
ten percent, duplicate sampling and analysis of the same
groundwater could yield analytical results anywhere
between 9,000 ug/L and 11,000 ug/L. Say for discussion
purposes, that natural attenuation reduces the contaminant
concentration by 10 ug/L each year. This rate of natural
attenuation would be difficult to detect in a reasonable
period of time by sampling. On the other hand, after an
initial phase of active remediation that reduces contaminant
levels, to say 300 ug/L, then analysis of duplicate samples
would yield results between 330 ug/L and 270 ug/L (+/-
10%). Now, natural attenuation at a rate of 10 ug/L would
be both meaningful and discernible by sampling and
analysis.
37:25
Planting trees will not be allowed. Gardening and fruit
Restrictions on digging are used sparingly at Alameda
Page 5 of 5
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,8,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
growing will be allowed, but digging a hole in the soil will
Point: in only three instances.
not.
First, the Marsh Crust Ordinance restricts digging below the
(Full Comment: And then to answer, I think, your question
Threshold Depth, unless a permit is obtained first.
about planting trees: no, you will not be able to plant trees.
You'll be able to plant You'l be able to have a garden,
Second, soil cleanup at North Housing (IR Site 25) was
and you' 'll be able to grow fruit, but you will not be able to
conducted in landscaped areas, but not under buildings or
dig a hole in the soil.)
pavement. Accordingly, major site work is restricted
without first obtaining approval from the BCT.
Additionally, digging deeper than four feet below ground
surface at North Housing is prohibited without approval
from the BCT. These restrictions may affect tree planting. In
any case, BCT approval would be granted provided digging
were conducted while following a site management plan
that appropriately manages potential encounters with
contaminated soil.
Third, at Todd Shipyards (IR Site 28), a non-residential
area, digging deeper than two feet below ground surface is
restricted without first obtaining approval from the BCT.
Page 6 of 6
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf