{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWEDNESDAY, November 2, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:32 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-073) Approve the Minutes of the Special Meetings of September 20, 2011 and the Special\nand Regular Meetings of October 5, 2011.\n(*11-074) Approve a 47-Year Legally Binding Agreement with Alameda Point Collaborative for\nBuildings 802, 803, 806, 809, 810, 811 and 812 (30 Units of Housing) and Authorize the Executive\nDirector to Execute the Agreement and any Related Documents.\nChair Gilmore pulled Item 3-A (minutes) to make a correction. Member Tam moved for\napproval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion,\nwhich carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMember Tam moved for approval of Item 3-A with the corrections. Vice Chair Bonta\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (Note: Chair Gilmore and\nMember Johnson abstained from approving the Minutes of Sept. 20, as they were not\npresent at that meeting). [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-075) Presentation on Status Report of Environmental Conditions of the Alameda Point\nSite.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point introduced the Environmental Consultant of the\nAlameda Point Project, Peter Russell, Russell Resources. Dr. Russell provided a powerpoint\npresentation on the status of the remediation and environmental issues of Alameda Point.\nDr. Russell's remediation experience includes numerous sites: Fort Ord, Tustin Air Station, Benicia\nArsenal, Mission Bay clean up, and the Southern and Union Pacific rail yards in Sacramento.\nMember deHaan commended Dr. Russell and the RAB for all their efforts in the environmental\nprogram of Alameda Point.\nSpeakers: Dale Smith, Community Chair of RAB and member for 10+ years. Ms. Smith discussed\nsoil issues not being addressed and CERCLA sites that are still of concern at Alameda Point.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nNovember 2, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Gilmore thanked Dr. Russell and members of the RAB for their technical expertise and\ndiligence over the decade and more.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-076) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -\nHighlights of October 6, 2011 RAB Meetings.\nMember deHaan echoed the statements from Dr. Russell's presentation and reminded the public\nthat the remediation is ongoing, and that a vast majority of property will be given to the ARRA with\ncertain restrictions.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nNovember 2, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 3, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\nComments by Dale Smith, Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair\n33:49\nThe residential standards are for groundwater only, and they\nAt Alameda Point, cleanup to residential standards means\nare not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,\nthat the health risk and health hazard from both soil and\ncadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil that is\ngroundwater (combined) are health-protective for single-\nnot being addressed.\nfamily residential land use; which is the most stringent land-\nuse standard. This principle applies to both the CERCLA\n(Full Comment: The talk of residential standards, when I talk\nand Petroleum Programs. Accordingly, the concentrations of\nto community members, they seem to get confused because\ntoxic metals in soil are explicitly considered by the Navy\nthe residential standards are for groundwater only, and they\nand the environmental regulatory agencies in deciding\nare not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,\nwhether soil remediation is needed to allow residential land\ncadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil, and\nuse and, if so, the type and extent of that remediation.\nthat is not being addressed as far as we can tell.)\n34:14\nSlide 13 represents the CERCLA sites only. There are\nContamination in soil and groundwater at Alameda Point is\npetroleum sites that move in and out of CERCLA. One\naddressed by either the CERCLA or Petroleum Program,\nmonth they'l be in, and the next month they'l be out. For\nwhichever appears to be most appropriate. For example, a\nexample, the plume under Kollmann Circle originally was in\nsite with petroleum contamination is typically managed\nthe petroleum site, got put in the CERCLA site.\nunder the Petroleum Program, unless non-petroleum\ncontamination also is present. Occasionally, management of\n(Full Comment: The graphs in the document, according to\na particular site will transfer from one program to another\nthe EPA representative, represent the CERCLA sites only,\nduring the course of investigation and remedial decision\nand I don't know if you changed those or you basically used\nmaking. For example, a site may move to the CERCLA\nthose graphs. You know the tall Yeah,\nso\nthose\nare\nProgram if contamination by a CERCLA substance is found\nCERCLA sites only, and there are petroleum sites that move\nat a Petroleum Program site. The goals for protection of\nin and out of CERCLA. They do a little hula dance. One\nhuman health and the environment are the same with both\nmonth they'll be in, and the next month they'll be out. So\nprograms.\nthere are sites that are still of concern, such as the plume\nunder Kollmann Circle, which originally was in the\npetroleum site, but then because of problems in Bayport, it\ngot put in the CERCLA site. So just bear that in mind. As I\nsaid, the soil is not being remediated.)\n35:09\nAccording to the presentation, \"cleanup\" means active\nThis comment primarily applies to cleanup of groundwater\nPage 1 of 1\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 4, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\nremediation. However, the cleanup is going on for much\ncontamination. The remediation of many Alameda Point\nlonger than that. For example, the RAB had a presentation\ngroundwater contamination sites follows two principal\non one site (groundwater at OU-2B), where the cleanup was\nsteps. The first is an initial phase, during which the\ngoing to take 22 to 35 years, and there'll be severe\ncontamination, especially the source area, is treated, for\nrestrictions on the use of that site.\nexample by injection of chemicals or by heating. The\nsecond phase typically consists of periodic groundwater\n(Full Comment: Cleanup as defined in the presentation, as I\nsampling to monitor progress of natural processes in further\nread it or I hear it, means the active remediation done by the\nreducing contamination concentrations. The first phase often\nmilitary, meaning trucks and things are out there. Scoops are\ntakes three years or less. The second phase lasts until clean-\ndigging up dirt. Otherwise the cleanup is going on for much\nup goals are reached. The commenter is correct in that the\nlonger than that. We had a presentation on one site two\nsecond phase can last for several decades, as in the example\nmonths ago where the cleanup was going to take 22 to 35\nof Operable Unit 2B (OU-2B).\nyears, and there'll be severe restrictions on the use of that\nsite. So bear that in mind.)\nDuring the second phase, land-use restrictions may be\napplied to protect monitoring wells and to prevent use of the\ngroundwater. Depending on the type of groundwater\ncontamination, land-use restrictions may also require that\nbuilding designs include vapor barriers, special ventilation,\netc. to safeguard public health. Land-use restrictions during\nthe second phase typically do not preclude most uses of the\nsite. Thus, \"severe restrictions\" on land use typically apply\nonly to the first few years of cleanup.\n35:44\nQuite a bit of money is spent on cleanup using innovative\nCERCLA requires that clean-up decision making evaluate\ntechnologies. But the Navy is using experimental\nthe extent to which each remedial alterative under\ntechnologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of\nconsideration reduces the amount, toxicity, or mobility of\nmoney, so the Navy is able to make presentations to\ncontaminants through treatment. This statutory preference\nscientific boards.\nimplies that innovative technologies sometimes will be\nselected as the preferred clean-up alternative.\n(Full Comment: One of the RAB's concerns has been that\nthere has been quite a bit of money spent on cleanup using\nSometimes it is unclear whether a promising emerging\ninnovative technologies. But they' re using experimental\ntechnology will be effective under conditions found at\nPage 2 of 2\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 5, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\ntechnologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of\nAlameda Point. In such cases, a pilot test (a form of\nmoney. So, but they, the Navy then is able to make\nexperiment) typically is conducted to evaluate how well the\npresentations to scientific boards saying that they tried this\ntechnology would work. A pilot test of in-situ thermal\ntechnology and it did not work.)\ntreatment to treat groundwater was tried at OU-2C and\nfound to be very cost-effective. Alternatively, a pilot test of\nnano-zerovalent-iron injection was tried at OU-2B and\nfound not to be effective. In both cases, the Navy and the\nenvironmental regulatory agencies unanimously agreed the\npilot testing (experimenting) was a prudent way to evaluate\nthe promising technology.\nThe principal instance where experimentation with\ntechnologies has occurred at Alameda Point is regarding\ngroundwater in another area of OU-2B. In this case, a\nuniversity and an EPA national laboratory approached the\nNavy for permission to conduct an experiment on\ngroundwater contamination. The experiment was primarily\nfunded externally, and the information obtained by the\nproject has improved clean-up decision making for OU-2B\ngroundwater.\n36:16\nAn \"active cleanup\" site on Slide 13 means a site for which\nThe \"Active Cleanup\" column in the graph on Slide 13\nthe regulators have signed off on site characterization and\nincludes sites which have completed their RODs and design\nremedial investigation, and is to move on to Proposed Plans,\nor implementation of the active remediation is in progress.\nRODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of sites in that category\nSites that are in the Proposed Plan or draft ROD stages are\ndon't have those in place yet, but they're put in the active\ncategorized on Slide 13 as \"Under Investigation\" CERCLA\ncleanup column anyway.\nrequires that remedial activities in the field begin within\nfifteen months of completing the ROD.\n(Full Comment: So active cleanup on that slide show means\nanything that has moved to the point where the regulators\nThe distinctions the comment focuses on will be explained\nhave signed off on site characterization and remedial\nmore explicitly on future versions of this slide.\ninvestigation, and now and has moved into a place where\nPage 3 of 3\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 6, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\nthere are Proposed Plans, RODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of\nit doesn't have those in place yet, but they're put in the\nactive cleanup column.)\n36:46\nThe presentation (Slide 15) indicated portions of the\nThe IR Site boundaries on Slide 15 accurately reflect the\nNorthwest Territories are white (outside of IR Sites). But\nBCT's current understanding of the extent of radium in soil\nmost of these areas have recently been found to have radium\nat Northwest Territories. Within the last few years, the\ncontamination in soil. There is no plan for remediation of\nboundaries of the site in the area the comment references\nthis contamination.\n(IR Site 32) were expanded to account for low-level radium\ncontamination in soil extending over a greater area than was\n(Full Comment: The map showed the Northwest Territories\noriginally recognized. The Navy is currently completing an\nto be white, but they have recently been found to be covered\nextensive radiological survey of soil in this area. The\nwith radium to a depth of a half foot to a foot and a half, as I\npreliminary results from this investigation indicate that the\nrecall, in most of it. And there has been no plan as to how\nextent of radium in soil does not extend beyond the current\nthat's going to be remediated, as far as we know.)\nIR Site boundaries (into the white areas shown on Slide 15).\n37:09\nNatural attenuation hasn't occurred for 60 years. Why expect\nNatural attenuation consists of a variety of natural processes\nit to occur in the next five or ten years?\nthat reduce contaminant concentrations over time, usually\nrelatively slowly: biochemical degradation, dispersion,\n(Full Comment: And one of, George Humphries, who is my\nvolatilization, etc. These are commonly effective in\ncohort in this battle, likes to point out that natural attenuation\nreducing contaminant concentrations to remedial goals after\nhasn't occurred for 60 years. Why do you think it's going to\nthe initial active-cleanup phase.\noccur in the next five or ten years?)\nA fundamental component of the monitored natural\nattenuation part of a clean-up alternative is ongoing\ngroundwater sampling and analysis to verify that\ncontaminant concentrations drop as expected. If the levels\ndo not drop, CERCLA requires that the ROD be changed to\nensure clean-up goals are achieved.\nMore technical response: Two factors support the\nexpectation that natural attenuation will work well after\nactive remediation.\nPage 4 of 4\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 7, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\nFirst, underground bacteria and other microbes degrade\nmany contaminants, often an important component of\nnatural attenuation. However, initial site conditions may\ninclude contaminant levels that are so high that they are\ntoxic to the very microorganisms that, with more dilute\nconcentrations, would readily consume the contamination as\nfood. Thus, following an initial phase of active cleanup of\nthe higher concentration zones, natural attenuation can\nproceed more effectively.\nSecond, with initial high contaminant concentrations, the\neffect of natural attenuation often is not discernible. This is\nbecause of the inherent variability of sampling and analysis.\nA simple example illustrates this point. With an initial\ncontaminant concentration of 10,000 micrograms per liter\n(ug/L) and an inherent sampling variability of plus or minus\nten percent, duplicate sampling and analysis of the same\ngroundwater could yield analytical results anywhere\nbetween 9,000 ug/L and 11,000 ug/L. Say for discussion\npurposes, that natural attenuation reduces the contaminant\nconcentration by 10 ug/L each year. This rate of natural\nattenuation would be difficult to detect in a reasonable\nperiod of time by sampling. On the other hand, after an\ninitial phase of active remediation that reduces contaminant\nlevels, to say 300 ug/L, then analysis of duplicate samples\nwould yield results between 330 ug/L and 270 ug/L (+/-\n10%). Now, natural attenuation at a rate of 10 ug/L would\nbe both meaningful and discernible by sampling and\nanalysis.\n37:25\nPlanting trees will not be allowed. Gardening and fruit\nRestrictions on digging are used sparingly at Alameda\nPage 5 of 5\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 8, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\ngrowing will be allowed, but digging a hole in the soil will\nPoint: in only three instances.\nnot.\nFirst, the Marsh Crust Ordinance restricts digging below the\n(Full Comment: And then to answer, I think, your question\nThreshold Depth, unless a permit is obtained first.\nabout planting trees: no, you will not be able to plant trees.\nYou'll be able to plant You'l be able to have a garden,\nSecond, soil cleanup at North Housing (IR Site 25) was\nand you' 'll be able to grow fruit, but you will not be able to\nconducted in landscaped areas, but not under buildings or\ndig a hole in the soil.)\npavement. Accordingly, major site work is restricted\nwithout first obtaining approval from the BCT.\nAdditionally, digging deeper than four feet below ground\nsurface at North Housing is prohibited without approval\nfrom the BCT. These restrictions may affect tree planting. In\nany case, BCT approval would be granted provided digging\nwere conducted while following a site management plan\nthat appropriately manages potential encounters with\ncontaminated soil.\nThird, at Todd Shipyards (IR Site 28), a non-residential\narea, digging deeper than two feet below ground surface is\nrestricted without first obtaining approval from the BCT.\nPage 6 of 6\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}