pages: CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2012-11-07 | 5 | Councilmember Johnson stated the City is requesting a different cleanup than proposed. Councilmember deHaan stated the proposed cleanup is to leave probably 95% of the surface area covered; further stated the City would have to pay if it takes the building down and removes the slab; the building was conveniently added to the historical district; that he would prefer the contamination be remediated and not adaptively reused. In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about the City's response, Mr. Russell stated the proposed plan addresses more than radiological contamination; there is sporadic metals contamination in the soil under the slab; the radiological contamination is more important; if the slab were torn down, addressing the metals contamination would be relatively inexpensive; the location of the radiological contamination in the storm drains is known; removing the contamination once the slab is removed would be exceedingly expensive; outlined the proposed plan to address groundwater contamination and the abandoned industrial waste line; the City is asking the Navy to better characterize the location of the contamination and remove the contamination. Expressed concern about development of the site and support of the letter; urged a firmer response: Richard Bangert, Alameda. Noted there was a study of Building 5; suggested beginning with removal of the contamination under West Tower Avenue: Carol Gottstein, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB). In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding cleanup costs, Mr. Russell stated the Navy estimate is $50 million; the letter makes the point that the Navy estimate is biased and elevated. Councilmember deHaan inquired about the cost for the Navy's plan, to which Mr. Russell responded $2 to $5 million; further noted the Navy would be required to conduct 5 year reviews and the City would have to enforce not penetrating the slab; said costs are not included in estimates. In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry about lines which have been remediated, Mr. Russell stated lines under the building have not been remediated; outlined remediation which has been completed. Councilmember Tam inquired about the administrative costs, to which Mr. Russell responded the City's cost would be enforcing the land use restriction and inspecting and maintaining the slab. Councilmember Tam stated City is asking the Navy to remove the contaminated lines. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 November 7, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-11-07.pdf |