pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2008-09-10 | 4 | after characterization. Mr. Humphreys provided a summary of his letter and discussed some of the technical details, highlighting the deficiencies in the Navy's proposed plan to remediate Site 1. Mr. Humphreys explained that his letter is straightforward, stating that Site 1 has been releasing contaminants to the bay for a number of decades and deficiencies in the site need to be remedied. There is uncharacterized industrial-type waste that could be released in event of earthquakes, shoreline erosion, inundation by global warming, and by burrowing animals. The City asked for trenching, with the stated objectives to verify there weren't any intact drums. The trenching report showed that, of the 11 trenches the Navy identified, seven of them showed levels of radioactive contamination. It was concluded that the radium contamination is widespread and scattered. He said a letter was sent from the Navy to the environmental agencies proposing to move portions of Site I to Site 32, to shrink site 1, because they had found radioactive waste deeper. He also described photos of liquefaction and sand boils during the Loma Prieta earthquake, which he explained was a mechanism of how contaminated waste could be released in the future, if left in place. Member Matarrese reiterated that we have expertise on this board and commended the RAB for taking a vote, making a stand and bringing these issues to light. He had two key concerns; first that the material found was not ordinary household waste, rather, it is industrial waste plus radioactive, which appears to be pervasive. It seems the Navy glossed over this in their proposed plan. Secondly, Member Matarrese commented that it was disturbing that the plan was to excavate some of the radioactive material and just bury it on another part of Alameda Point. He requested the Board get a technical recommendation corroborating this report so that the ARRA can take a position with the Navy and the regulators that what is proposed is not acceptable. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, said that staff would have something by the next ARRA meeting. Debbie Potter, in response to Member Matarrese's concern about the waste being relocated, clarified the process. She explained that, at the request of the City, additional trenching was done which identified more radioactive materials than anticipated. The Navy conducted a time- critical removal of hot spots at Site 1, and proposed to move some of the remaining fill to Site 32. The plan was to grow Site 32, continue to test and modify boundaries so that Site 1 boundaries no longer included radioactive material. All this would trigger a brand new public process for comment, new proposed plans, and provide input on how it should be remediated. Member Matarrese viewed the relocation plan as a stall tactic and stated that the Navy should be forced to remove the waste to a secure facility. Ms. Potter stated that the Navy will remove all radioactive waste. Member Matarrese questioned why, if it were safe, does it have to be moved and buried. Ms. Potter explained that it was her understanding that they are moving it in order to excavate along the shoreline to address seismic issues. Dale Smith, RAB member, added that the materials being moved were hazardous, but not radioactive. Chair Johnson stated that she generally doesn't like the idea of moving the waste to another site, even if it's not contaminated. Mr. Humphreys added that a key point is that there was no sampling of the soil inside that cell area, which would determine if there were any non-radioactive materials (i.e., PCBs, heavy metals, etc.). The Board requested that Peter Russell, Alameda Point's environmental consultant, provide a technical analysis of the materials from the RAB regarding Site 1, a written report of highlights after every RAB meeting, and his analysis on Navy documents he's reviewed. | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf |