Todd Shipyards/Site 28. Dog Park to left of fence, Port of Oakland on right.

Right next to the Main Street Ferry Terminal, between the Oakland Estuary and the Dog Park, is the Navy’s cleanup Site 28, also known as the Todd Shipyards site.  The contamination at this site — copper and arsenic, and to a lesser extent lead and hydrocarbons — was not the result of Navy activities, even though the Navy owns the property.

Background

Filling in the land with estuary dredge soil contaminated with hydrocarbons from the coal gasification plant that once operated in Oakland was likely responsible for the petroleum-related hydrocarbons in the ground.  The Alameda Mole Railroad operated along this route from 1883 until 1939 and was also a possible contributor to the hydrocarbon residue in the soil.  Non-Navy shipbuilding and repair between 1941 and the 1980s was responsible for lead, arsenic, and copper contamination.

According to the Navy fact sheet, “The property was leased to various entities for non-Navy shipbuilding and repair between 1941 and 1970. The property was purchased from the Navy in 1970 by the Todd Shipyards Corporation, which used the land as an extension of its adjoining shipyard property until 1983, when the property was then sold to Alameda Gateway Limited.  The IR Site 28 portion of the former shipyard reverted to Navy ownership in 1995.”

Paint used on ships

The copper contamination came from paint used on the bottoms of ships.  The paint was an anti-fouling paint that served to prevent the growth of barnacles.  Copper in the paint acted as the biocide, which is why possible leaching into the estuary is a big concern.

Emerging cleanup technology

Todd Shipyard/Site 28 groundwater monitoring well. Alameda Main Street Ferry Terminal in background.

Even though the Navy did not cause the contamination, they are responsible for the cleanup, which it performed in 2010.  They are also responsible for monitoring the groundwater for 10 years to make sure their methods are permanent.  Some of the methods used here were straightforward:  Digging up soil and replacing with new soil.

The copper at groundwater level, however, is being dealt with by an emerging technology called metals immobilization.  In this process a proprietary non-toxic compound is injected into the ground to bind to the copper and cause it to be absorbed into soil particles, which will prevent it from leaching into the estuary and harming aquatic life.  Hence, the term immobilization – the copper is no longer mobile, or able to move.  Water and natural microbes in the ground are what activates this immobilization compound.  A helpful byproduct of this reaction is that food (carbon) for natural microbes is released, further enhancing the effectiveness of this process.

So-called emerging cleanup technologies are halfway between experimental and mainstream.  They have been proven effective in the short term, or in some locations, but have not been in widespread use long enough to be considered 100% effective in every soil type.  No one knows for certain if the binding effect will hold, but pilot lab tests were done on soil from Site 28, and the Navy and regulators fully expect it will work.  If groundwater monitoring indicates that it’s not working, the Navy will have to come up with another plan since there is no statute of limitations on their responsibility for cleanup.

Dredging at Pier 1 - Alameda Point

Designing the workplan for dredging toxic sediment next to Pier 1 at Alameda Point required precision so as not to undermine the stability of the concrete posts supporting the roadway that passes along the pier area.  The ground under the water slopes down nearly 40 feet from the cement parking slab adjacent to Wharf Road.  Six-foot sediment core samples were obtained during investigations.  The varying depths of contamination were charted and used to plot a computer program showing a slope profile that not only would accomplish cleanup, but also maintain the stability of Wharf Road.  This means that in some case they are dredging deeper than the contamination.

Dredging toxic mud at the pier area, in what is known as Site 24, got underway in early January 2012.  The Maritime Administration had to temporarily vacate this berth.  Prior Navy activities east of the pier area, which used solvents, paints, sandblasting materials, and hydrocarbons such as fuels and lubricants, led to contamination when waste products, including pesticides, were disposed of down three storm water drains.  The contamination chemicals of concern are cadmium, pesticides, lead, and PCBs.  The dredging process requires two methods – vacuuming mud from under the wharf road that is supported by concrete posts, and dredging with a clamshell scoop in the open water.

Vacuuming mud under roadway

Raft with dredging pump. Hose connects to 4" valve at rear for vacuum dredging under wharf.

The first stage of work, now completed, was vacuuming mud from under the roadway. The specially built dredge pump, equipped with an agitator where the hose contacts the mud, was held in position by a barge-mounted crane that was custom built for this application.  The mud went through a large hose, across the roadway, into a drainage basin and into special geotextile tubes that retain the mud.

The water that drained off of the mud, however, was too muddy to immediately send to a filtration system.  It was first pumped into a large above ground pool of water in order to dilute it.  From there the water was pumped through a series of filtration tanks.  The water is being used for dust control and can also be pumped back into the harbor.

Open water precision dredging

Open water dredging. Sediment deposited into dump truck.

The open water dredging is conducted from a barge using a special clamshell scoop that allows virtually no mud to drip out of the jaws when hoisted out of the water.  This helps to minimize dispersing fine contaminated sediment in surrounding water, which could necessitate repeat dredging.  The scoops of mud are held in the air for about 30 seconds to drain the water before being hoisted over to a dump truck.  The trucks are driven a few hundred yards to a special drying pad to dump the mud.  As the dredge barge moves out of arms length of the wharf, it will have to deposit the mud in a hopper barge that will then be moved next to the wharf where the mud will be unloaded and put into the dump trucks.

Yellow boom holding turbidity curtain to contain disturbed mud, with raft containing turbidity sensors.

The operator of the dredging rig has a real time computer picture of the contour of the underwater ground surface.  The image is aided by positioning sensors on the scoop.  This allows the operator to follow precisely the slope design.  There is also a floating curtain to keep any disturbed contamination within the work area.  At the curtain boom and outside the work area are two floating rafts that detect turbidity, or muddiness, in the water.  These rafts send real time measurements to the dredge operator.  If the turbidity exceeds a certain limit, the dredging is temporarily halted.

Although the Navy periodically dredged the berthing areas for ship and submarine access when the base was open, their dredging was not able to get close to the wharf or under it, leaving the current legacy of contamination.   In the health risk assessment conducted by the Navy, they used the Least Tern as an indicator species since they are the most sensitive birds to forage here, and protecting them would therefore protect all other birds.  Fish consumption by humans was also used to determine that remediation was warranted.  The investigation process that led to this dredging project began with sediment core samples collected in 2005 and 2006.  About 4,000 cubic yards of mud will be dredged.

The past year had some high points and low points in the cleanup process at Alameda Point.  Added delays, including a pile-driving surprise, were balanced out by steady progress.

The year saw, among other things, completion of a second Point-wide radiological survey of buildings and structures that identified two building interiors needing radium remediation, a new soil scan for radium on a section of the western runway area, replacement of a storm drain segment next to the Seaplane Lagoon, and preparation of the environmental document for the Berkeley Lab site, which will be useful whether we get the Lab or not.

Northwest Territories - Site 1 dump area, partly covered by runway

The contractor preparing to cover the old dump with rocks and soil at the northwest tip of Alameda Point delivered some embarrassing news to the Navy.  In the normal course of their duties, work-plan design testing revealed that the shape of part of the contamination did not match the official description.  You would think they could just process a work-order change.  But the Superfund law requires an additional two-year review process, which will push the completion of this open space opportunity to 2015.

At another cleanup project, the Navy drove over four dozen 30-foot steel electrodes into the ground to heat up the toxins and capture the vapor.  But before turning on the electricity, the contractor discovered they had hit a sewer line.  The project has since been idle for months awaiting a decision on how to proceed.

Seaplane Lagoon dredge dewatering pad - northwest corner

The big Seaplane Lagoon dredging project that began in January is certainly one of the most dramatic displays of cleanup.  Both the northeast and northwest corners of the lagoon were supposed to have been dredged by April and final soil disposal completed by year’s end.  But the contractor failed to meet the deadline and was let go.  A new contractor has been testing and removing existing soil, as well as doing extensive set-up over the past two months for the dredging of the northwest corner that will begin in January.

Another dredging project has just begun under the dock area next to the maritime ships.  They’re removing mud contaminated from two storm drain lines.  That project is on schedule.  It’s worth visiting the area to get a glimpse of the elaborate engineering needed to capture and clean water runoff from the mud.

Shinsei Gardens low-income housing located above ongoing groundwater cleanup

Less dramatic and seldom seen work is always ongoing.  Groundwater is monitored at cleanup sites to ensure cleanup goals are being met.  One example is the monitoring of the removal of benzene and naphthalene under Shinsei Gardens and vicinity.

Evidence of the Petroleum Program is also seldom seen, other than some white PVC pipes in the ground.  But besides the big fuel extraction projects, there is ongoing testing of pipelines and oil/water separators in order to develop a remedial plan.

Finally, and perhaps most important, getting the first, very large, no-cost land conveyance from the Navy next year appears to be on schedule.  To help make it happen, the Navy and regulators are planning on modifying cleanup goals by enacting restrictions against future ground-floor residential development near the east entrance to Alameda Point.

Originally published in the Alameda Journal.

Radiation scanner with Seaplane Lagoon in background

Testing compartments for metals, PCBs, and DDT

Every scoop of dirt that was dredged from the Seaplane Lagoon earlier this year is first sorted into premeasured compartments.  The piles are then tested for heavy metals, PCBs, and pesticides.  But the piles cannot be tested for radium 226.

In order to test for radium, every pile has to be scooped back into a dump truck, dumped into a screening area the size of a tennis court, and graded smooth to a depth no greater than 12 inches.

Grading soil for the radiation scanner

Then an electric vehicle with a scanning rig and GPS mapping system drives back and forth over every inch at the pace of a turtle.  If any radiation is detected, it is mapped onto a computer, and then this area is scooped up and placed in a special dumpster.  This already time-consuming process was slowed even more with unexpected rains in the fall because the soil cannot be scanned for radiation when it’s wet.

There are no final numbers on how many dumpster loads have gone to a radiological disposal facility.  Most of the other soil, however, that was tested for heavy metals, PCBs, and pesticides is not even leaving Alameda Point —it now meets screening standards for clean soil, and it’s being hauled out to the runway area to eventually be reused to cover the old dump known as Site 2.

Recycled soil stockpiled on Wildlife Refuge for use on Site 2 dump.

2012 – More Dredging

When the existing piles of dirt are all gone in a few weeks, it might seem like they are finally done.  But they won’t be.  In January, the second phase of dredging begins on the northwest corner of the Seaplane Lagoon.

Dredging Alameda Point Channel around the clock

On Sunday, November 11, 2011, Dutra Dredging wrapped up five weeks of maintenance dredging in the channel leading to the Alameda Point docks.  This channel is on the south side of Alameda Point where the maritime ships and USS Hornet are docked.  Half of the dredge soil went to the in-bay disposal site at Alcatraz.  The other half, unfortunately, was towed 50 miles out into the ocean—past the Farallon Islands—for disposal at a federally approved disposal site.  A multi-agency effort to divert dredge material to beneficial reuse in the Bay and Delta proved ineffective in this case.

Looking at channel from USS Hornet. Breakwater in middle of image is southern boundary of channel. Old runways are to the right..

Alameda leases dock space to the Maritime Administration (MARAD) for their ready reserve ships.  Part of the agreement is that Alameda hires a company at MARAD’s expense to periodically dredge the channel.  The recent contract approved in September called for 50 percent of dredge material to be disposed of at the Alcatraz site, and 50 percent in the ocean.

In late November, however, a request by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to send the ocean portion to the Montezuma Wetlands restoration project in Solana County raised hopes for beneficial reuse.  Dutra Dredging agreed, but Montezuma said they were unable to take material at this time due to a problem with the pipeline that the dredge slurry is pumped through.

There are several other beneficial reuse sites in the Bay Area listed in the long-term plan created by the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture.  Even though this new policy of reducing dredge disposal within San Francisco Bay has been around since 1996, the joint venture failed to use Alameda’s dredging project to advance their goals.  Instead, more fuel and good dredge soil was wasted.

A long list of agencies are on board for this new approach, from the Corps of Engineers to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which cites habitat restoration, levee maintenance, and construction fill as beneficial uses.  Apparently the message from agency advocates in a March 2011 PowerPoint (slide #5) about dredge diversion is not being heeded:   “Upland or wetland beneficial re-use sites must come on line, and be practicable for enough dredgers to use.”

Partnering Opportunities for Alameda Point Wetlands Creation

Northwest Territories at Alameda Point - looking toward San Francisco - Port of Oakland directly to the right

On a positive note, it came to light in doing research that there may be opportunities in the San Francisco Bay estuary enhancement effort for Alameda to get some support for wetlands creation at Alameda Point.  One of the “Restoring the Estuary” objectives is “pursuit of military base closure opportunities for wetland enhancement and restoration.”  This objective got traction during the past four years at the Hamilton Army Airfield wetland restoration project where thousands of cubic yards of dredge material were deposited.

At Alameda Point, we don’t need more soil to create wetlands in the runway area – we need to dig some out.  We could use some regional help.

Story also appeared in San Francisco Bay Crossings

Island High School

A Case Study in How the Cleanup Process Works

In November of 2008, after years of testing, evaluation, and one emergency soil removal action, the Navy issued the final report on what to do in the area where Island High School and Woodstock Child Development Center are located.  The area is designated Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30. The Navy’s conclusion, or proposed plan, was that no further action is required.

The following description of the process is taken from the Navy’s 2008 report and proposed plan.  It serves as a case study in how the cleanup process is conducted with regard to soil. Highlighted terms are defined in the “Cleanup Glossary” located on the tab bar above.

Summary of Findings

The remedial investigation (RI), which included the environmental investigation and technical investigations, was conducted in accordance with the governing federal regulation known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The RI evaluated the nature and extent of potential contaminants in the soil and the risk to current and future receptors (humans and animals).

Based on the RI evaluations, the soil does not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment under the current or future conditions. No land-use restrictions, environmental monitoring, or other cleanup actions are required at this site for soil. The RI also concluded that the soil at IR Site 30 is not a source of benzene and naphthalene in the Operable Unit 5/ IR-02 groundwater plume, which lies beneath IR Site 30 and is being addressed separately.

Three regulatory agencies (USEPA, DTSC, Water Board) concurred with the findings.

The CERCLA Process

In accordance with the CERCLA process, the Proposed Plan comes after the Remedial Investigation when the results of the risk assessment show that cleanup or other remedial actions are not needed. In this case, a Feasibility Study (FS) evaluating different options for cleanup or other remedial action is not required. When cleanup or other remedial actions are needed, then the Proposed Plan follows the Feasibility Study. A Time-Critical Removal Action (TCRA) of one area of soil was implemented in 2004 because it posed an immediate threat to health.

The Proposed Plan summarizes information detailed in the RI report (October 2005) and Addendum (July 2008).  A final official decision, documented in the Record of Decision (ROD), was made after completion of the public comment period.

Site Description and Background

Island High School parcel

Woodstock Child Development Center

IR Site 30 is a 6.6-acre site located in the northwestern portion of the former San Francisco Bay Airdrome property, which was an airfield that was operational from 1929 to 1941, before the Navy arrived. By 1947, the site was used for military housing; by 1959, the site was paved and used for storage. In 1975, the high school was constructed and in 1985, the child development center was built.

In 2004, one area of this site was deemed to pose an immediate threat to health and was cleaned up immediately under what is known as a Time-Critical Removal Action (TCRA).

Site Investigations

A soil RI was performed to expand upon previous investigations. The August 2004 RI sampling included the collection of soil and groundwater samples. These samples were collected and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals.

The RI report evaluated the nature and extent of potential chemicals of concern in the soil and included human health and ecological risk assessments. The investigation also evaluated the shallow groundwater beneath IR Site 30 to determine whether the soil at the Site has contributed to a potential release of contamination to groundwater. The RI evaluations incorporated data from previous soil and groundwater investigations. The 2005 RI report calculated risk and HI numbers based on pre-TCRA data, so the assessment of risk is conservative. The human health and ecological risk assessments are summarized in subsequent sections.

Groundwater monitoring well on Island High School grounds

A Brief Summary of Remedial Investigations - VOCs, SVOCs (other than polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]), pesticides, and PCBs were detected infrequently in the soil (in 15 percent or fewer of samples) and at concentrations lower than levels established by the regulatory agencies for residential use, except for PCBs at one location where the soil was subsequently removed. Because a school and daycare center are located on this IR site, the Navy conducted a TCRA in 2004 as a protective measure until the remedial investigation and associated human health and ecological risk assessments could be completed. During the TCRA in November 2004, soil cover materials were installed in six areas at the site. Also, soil at one location was removed to 2 feet below ground surface because of elevated concentrations of several organic compounds, including PCBs and metals. The surface was then restored to pre-removal action conditions.

The RI report identified arsenic as the cancer risk driver. Subsequently, in an Addendum to the RI report, an in-depth statistical analysis of arsenic in the soil showed that arsenic was ambient (naturally occurring), and not the result of a release to the environment from Navy activities.

The groundwater investigation determined that no site-specific releases of VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, metals, or PAHs had occurred here. The investigation also evaluated benzene and naphthalene, the chemicals present in the OU 5/IR-02 groundwater plume, and concluded that no site-specific releases had occurred and that the soil at IR Site 30 was not a source of these chemicals in the groundwater plume.

Human Health Risk Assessment

Within the context of environmental investigations and actions, “risk” is the likelihood that a hazardous substance, when released to the environment, will cause adverse effects on exposed people and the environment. For humans, risk is further classified as carcinogenic (causes cancer) or noncarcinogenic (causes other illnesses).

Risk assessments are designed to provide a margin of safety to protect public health and the environment by using conservative assumptions that assure risks are not underestimated. Actual human exposures and associated risks are likely to be lower than those calculated for the risk assessment. Therefore, health risk estimates do not predict actual health effects, but are a tool for making risk management decisions on the need for action to reduce possible exposure.

A human health risk assessment was performed for IR Site 30 as part of the RI evaluation. The Navy used EPA guidance to evaluate the different ways in which people could be exposed to the chemicals in soil, possible concentrations of the chemicals that potentially could be encountered in those exposures, and the potential frequency and duration of exposure. Exposure pathways for children and adults at IR Site 30 are shown in Table 1.

These exposure pathways are based on current and reasonable future exposure scenarios. To account for uncertainty, and to be representative, the risk calculations used statistical methods and a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) to assure that risks are not underestimated. This risk assessment included inhalation of vapors in indoor air from volatile chemicals in groundwater for all receptors, but not ingestion of groundwater. Groundwater beneath IR Site 30 is not used for drinking water. Water services to the school and child care center are provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Groundwater at IR Site 30 is within the Operable Unit 5/IR-02 plume and is part of a separate remedial action.

As part of the CERCLA risk assessment process, ambient metals are included in the calculation of total risk. An in- depth statistical analysis of potential site-related arsenic in the RI Addendum showed that this metal was ambient (naturally occurring), and was not the result of a release to the environment from Navy activities. Therefore, risks were also calculated without arsenic.

Cancer Risk Assessment - Cancer risk is expressed as a statistical probability that an individual could have an increased risk of cancer incidence. A 1 in 10,000 chance is a risk of 1 x 10-4 (10-to-the-minus-4). For every 10,000 people, one additional cancer risk may occur as a result of exposure. A 1 in 1,000,000 chance is expressed as 1 x 10-6. In this case, for every 1,000,000 people, one additional cancer case may occur as a result of exposure. Therefore, a 1 x 10-4 cancer risk is a higher risk than 1 x 10-6.

In accordance with EPA guidance, the risk management range is 10-4 to 10-6. The risk management range was established by EPA to set guidelines for making risk management decisions. EPA guidance states, “Where the cumulative carcinogenic site risk to an individual based on reasonable maximum exposure for both current and future land use is less than 10-4 and the noncarcinogenic hazard quotient (HQ) is less than 1, action generally is not warranted unless there are adverse environmental impacts.” Site-specific factors are typically considered at sites where the cancer risks are in the 10-4 to 10-6 range when decisions are being made about whether action will be taken. Cancer risks below 10-6 are generally considered insignificant. For cancer risks above the risk management range of 10-4 to 10-6, action is generally required.

For noncancer effects, an HQ is calculated. An HQ of 1 or greater indicates that a lifetime of exposure may have potential for causing adverse health effects. The HQ is based upon effects of a single chemical. To express health effects for multiple chemicals, the HQs are added together to obtain the hazard index (HI).

In accordance with CERCLA rules defined in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), site-specific factors including exposure factors, uncertainty, and other technical site-specific information were evaluated during the risk management decision-making process. The estimated risks associated with soil for IR Site 30 have a high level of confidence based upon numerous soil samples (more than 400) and the evaluation of comprehensive exposures. For potential future residents, the evaluation included ingestion of soil for 350 days per year for 30 years and ingestion of home-grown produce.

Because of the high confidence level in the risk values, extensive site characterization, and other site-specific factors, risks within the risk management range are protective of human health at IR Site 30. Most of the potential noncancer hazard was associated with the contaminant concentrations in a single soil sample, which was removed during the TCRA. This sample contained elevated concentrations of PCBs, metals, and other organic compounds.

Therefore, the human health risk assessment concluded that there are no unacceptable risks for soil at IR Site 30.

Table 2 below shows the post-TCRA cancer risks for IR Site 30 soil with and without the inclusion of arsenic. As shown in this table, the risks are within the risk management range, and current conditions are protective for adults and children.

Ecological Risk Assessment

The ecological risk assessment presented in the RI report was conducted following EPA and Navy guidelines to estimate potential risk for adverse effects from chemicals to ecological receptors at IR Site 30. Ecological receptors include birds and small mammals; however, no native habitat is present at the site.

Most of the site is paved or covered by buildings and an urban habitat consisting of ornamental shrubs, trees, and landscaped areas are present. The current and future use of the site as a school facility will maintain the urban habitat of the area.

The ecological risk assessment did not find a significant risk to ecological receptors.

Conclusions

Results of the human health and ecological risk assessments show that soil does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Additional information on the evaluation of IR Site 30 can be found in the RI report and Addendum, which are available for public review at the information repository at City Hall West.

No further action for soil at IR Site 30 is proposed for the following reasons:

 Results of the human health and ecological risk assessments show that site conditions are protective of human health and the environment.

 There is no evidence of a release of hazardous substances related to Navy activities based on evaluation of current site data.

 There is no evidence that the soil at the site has contributed to a release to groundwater, and groundwater is being addressed in the Operable Unit 5/IR-02 groundwater remedial program.

Link to official Navy document:  Proposed Plan for Installation Restoration Site 30 Soil 

Looking toward Berkeley Lab site.

Conceptual buildout for Lab 2nd campus

The Site Management Plan (SMP) for the proposed site of the Berkeley Lab Second Campus at Alameda Point was finalized on November 18.  Prepared by the city’s longtime environmental consultant, and signed off on by the Navy and regulatory agencies, the document was prepared in order to mitigate potential risks associated with development of the 45-acre parcel near the ship docks. Its primary purpose is to provide direction to construction contractors and workers so that their digging, dewatering, and soil handling activities do not jeopardize the environment or the health of the surrounding community.

Crash Course on Cleanup

The document offers a crash course on the 20-plus years of environmental cleanup of the area, including areas that barely intersect the Site on the margins.  Even if the area were never to have been polluted by Navy activities, the SMP would still be required because of a decade-old city ordinance governing digging into a subsurface layer called the Marsh Crust that contains petroleum-related pollution.

What is the Marsh Crust?

Before 1900, the areas now occupied by Alameda Point and Bayport were tidal marshlands. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, before the health effects of industrial pollution were known, two industries nearby dumped their waste into the water. One of those industries was a coal gasification plant in Oakland.  The other was the Pacific

Alameda in 1915

Coast Oil Refinery located at what was then the tip of Alameda, not far from Encinal High School. Much of the petroleum-related waste, classified as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), settled in the marsh.  Between 1900 and 1940, these marshlands were filled with dredge material to create more land.

PAH contamination created the “marsh crust” layer at four to fifteen feet below ground surface, which is a thin layer of PAHs and oil believed to come from historical waste discharges prior to infill.

No one was concerned about this marsh crust caused by former private industrial activity until the Navy decided to close down the base.

Underground testing

By the time the Navy was ready to close down the base, including the area that is now Bayport and the future Alameda Landing, soil boring and groundwater testing was routine.  Underground tests in the late 1990s are what led to the Remedial Action Plan and Record of Decision that were signed in 2000.  (If these documents were drafted today, they would probably have the term “carbon sequestration” in them because this carbon waste is best left where it is – sequestered in the earth.)

Those two documents led to the creation of Alameda’s “permit-before-you-dig” Marsh Crust Ordinance.  The city’s ordinance requires a permit only for digging projects that dig deep enough to potentially encounter the marsh crust — that is, for digging deeper than the threshold depth.  The ordinance is in place so that excavated soil containing petroleum-related waste is properly handled.  The Marsh Crust extends from the Bayport/Main Street area about halfway out onto the Point at 4 to 15 foot depths.  A significant portion of the proposed Lab site (see maps below) does not have any Marsh Crust underneath.

Cleanup of Navy contamination at Site in final stages

Some work, including groundwater remediation, is in the final stages.  And some groundwater is past the active remediation stage and now in the stage during which contaminants will be degraded by natural processes.

The land will be cleaned to commercial standards ahead of the Lab’s timeline for occupancy. If any digging, trenching or excavating encounters a treatment zone, then more stringent handling procedures and protocols would come into play.

It will be the duty of the contractors to develop a site-specific Health and Safety Plan for their workers based on the disclosures in the Site Management Plan.  These health and safety plans have to be submitted to the Navy and regulatory agencies for review.

The Protocols

The SMP describes the protocols for handling soils from the Marsh Crust, such as dust and erosion control.  The SMP includes protocols for dewatering excavated soil, handling of asbestos and lead-based paint during building demolition, and an air monitoring system.  In certain areas, vapor intrusion measures will be required, which could include a vapor barrier, passive venting systems under slabs, and podium-level (partially above-ground) garages with natural venting.

Navy’s Environmental Investigations

The Navy began comprehensive investigations of the area being offered to the Lab starting in the late 1980s.  They analyzed for metals, petroleum-related compounds, PCBs, pesticides, chemicals that evaporate, and a form of hydrocarbon called PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.)  More than a dozen above ground storage tanks containing paint stripping chemicals and fuel were removed from the area.  Underground fuel storage tanks from an adjacent area were excavated.  Soil has been excavated.  Leaked jet and diesel fuel has been removed using vapor extraction, chemical neutralizers, and bioremediation.  Monitoring wells and former injection/extraction wells (evident as PVC stubs in the ground) dot the area.

Concerted Cleanup Effort

Considering the contamination history, the concerted cleanup effort over the past two decades, starting before the EPA became involved, has come a long way.  The suitability of the site for commercial or residential uses has been, or will be, satisfied by the remediation programs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Petroleum Program.  Furthermore, when discounting the fact that no groundwater would ever be used for drinking water, the site would meet the even higher unrestricted residential use standard much sooner.

Alameda’s Proposal for Berkeley Lab 2nd Campus at Alameda Point

Site Management Plan for proposed Berkeley Lab 2nd Campus at Alameda Point

Berkeley Lab parcel at Alameda Point. Top of outline area designated for first phase of Lab buildout; red area is for second phase.

City of Alameda Marsh Crust Page

Marsh Crust Map - Four irregular outlines emanating from right side indicate various depths.

This video is an edited version with added images.

(Note:  The phrase “closed site” used in the presentation does not mean off limits.  It means active cleanup is finished.)