Cleanup activity at Alameda Point in 2012 started where it left off in 2011 — at the Seaplane Lagoon. The northwest corner of the lagoon was the site of the second and final phase of lagoon dredging, which targeted sediment that had been contaminated near storm drain outfalls. With dredging completed by spring, the sight of Americas Cup racing yachts arriving at their temporary dock in the lagoon seemed to be a harbinger of the approaching end of the Superfund era at the Point.
Dredging northwest corner of Seaplane Lagoon
Just outside the Seaplane Lagoon, another dredging operation was started and finished at one of the maritime ship piers where the Cape Orlando had been docked. By November, the massive ship was back at dockside, hull lights glowing at night.
Dredging Pier 1 wharf area
In one of the most complicated and contaminated areas to the east of the Seaplane Lagoon, cleanup work began at an area 30 feet below ground where a cleaning solvent used on aircraft parts had seeped into the groundwater. After driving a series of metal bars down to the contaminated area, the soil, groundwater, and solvent were heated to just below simmering by means of electricity. This turned the water and solvent into vapor, which was then vacuumed out into a filtering system through a series of pipes.
Heat treatment and vapor extraction – OU-2B
At the far end of Alameda Point on the northwest landfill, the Navy relied on chemicals, rather than heat, to do the cleanup on a small portion of the site. Dozens of hoses snaking around the site to the injection wells delivered an oxidizing mixture of neutralizing chemicals into a pocket of solvents. Without this remediation, the solvents had the potential to reach the Bay.
Injecting oxidizing chemical into solvent plume – Site 1. Navy photo.
The year ends with a cloud of controversy over the Navy’s plan for leaving drain pipes under the old Naval Air Rework Facility — Building 5. Letters from both the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) and the city call for the complete removal of any lines containing radium paint waste. The Navy ruled out a more costly alternative that would remove all the contaminated pipes. The city challenged this decision, in part, on the ground that the Navy’s cost estimates for a thorough job are inflated and have asked that they reconsider.
Building 5
Also in Building 5, plans to remove above-ground radium contamination from floors, walls, and ceilings in the mezzanine area will get underway within weeks. This area is where aircraft dials and markers were painted with radium paint that provided visibility in the dark. A final scanning investigation to detect radium, using sophisticated equipment employed in the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, found dozens of pie-sized irregular areas where radium dust had embedded in the surfaces. This project will conclude two decades of scanning and radium removal efforts in Building 5 and other buildings. Around $50 million has already been spent replacing drain lines leading to the lagoon under the surrounding tarmac, and dredging the lagoon, due to the disposal of radium paint and other chemicals down storm drains.
Scanning a wall for radiological contamination. Navy photo.
2013
2013 will see the long-awaited final soil cover installed on the waste disposal site called Site 2 on the southwest corner of the wildlife refuge. It will be the largest engineering project since the runways were expanded in the 1950s, with over 200,000 cubic yards of clean soil being barged in from Decker Island in the Sacramento River. It will be seeded with California native flowering grasses selected by the RAB. This is the controversial dump that led the US Fish & Wildlife Service to balk at accepting the land for a wildlife refuge ten years ago. Since then, this dump has seen numerous reviews and a new plan that the US Environmental Protection Agency, regional Water Board, and state Department of Toxic Substances Control will be signing off on shortly.
Site 2 underground dump on southwest corner of Alameda Point.
2013 will end with commencement of a similar soil covering operation on the nearby landfill on the northwest corner of Alameda Point called Site 1. Both landfill areas will be safe for open space recreational activities when completed, but will be limited to hiking trails rather than mowed playing fields in order to maintain soil-stabilizing vegetation.
Northwest corner of Alameda Point where soil cover will be installed.
The middle of Building 5, in the mezzanine area, is where radium-226 luminescent paint was applied to aircraft dials and other devices from 1941 to the mid 1950s. The Navy plans to begin removing the radium contamination from the mezzanine area in December of 2012 or January of 2013.
The harmful health effects of radium were not understood in the mid-20th century. In fact, just the opposite was the case. Hundreds of products were marketed that touted the health benefits of radium, including skin creams, bath salts, and even “growth-inducing” plant fertilizers.
It’s no wonder that paint waste was dumped down storm drains in those days. That’s what happened in Building 5. It ended up in storm drains leading to the Seaplane Lagoon and the lagoon itself. By 2010 the Navy had either removed or cleaned the drains leading to the lagoon. By spring of 2012, the dredging of the Seaplane Lagoon was completed.
There remain only three areas of concern for radium contamination at Building 5 – the mezzanine painting area, some storm sewer lines under the ground floor slab, and the old industrial waste line under West Tower Ave. The Navy’s recently-proposed plan for leaving radium contaminated drain lines in place has been criticized by the city and the Restoration Advisory Board for being inadequate.
Plans for removing radium paint stains from floors, walls, and ceiling areas have received little public attention, however.
The scanning survey
Radiological scanning equipment being used in another building at Alameda Point.
The photos that accompany the Navy’s scanning survey say more about the obsolete condition of the mezzanine area than they do about radium. Most of the contaminated areas are small patches, which are marked by spray paint and photo outlines. Class 1 surveys covered 100 percent of floors and walls up to six feet. Class 2 surveys covered 50% of areas above six feet. Floors and walls were scanned with a cart-mounted device designed to eliminate human variations in scanning distances. Hard to reach areas were scanned with handheld devices.
Radiological scanning equipment being used in another building at Alameda Point.
Areas that were scanned included the paint shops, instrument shops, pathways from the instrument shops to the first floor staging areas, as well as buffer areas around those rooms and the ventilation system.
Radium 226 poses a health risk when ingested. The radiation is relatively low, but since the distance to cells within the body is effectively zero, the impact is high. And it’s effects are relentless, since it is not easily expelled from the body.
The mezzanine area is in the area also known as the Breezeway, which runs east to west between the two hangar areas of Building 5. Hopefully this lead paint contaminated architectural oddity will be torn down so that we can more readily attract businesses here and to the surrounding areas. It has an easily identifiable wooden wall on the western side, marking it as one of Alameda Point’s most prominent eyesores.
In the mid 1950s, the radium paint operation was moved across West Tower Avenue to Building 400. This building will undergo radioactive paint remediation at the same time as Building 5.
Photo galleries:
Click on any photo below to enlarge and play slideshow.
Photo sampling of survey areas within Building 5.
Scanning equipment being used in other buildings at Alameda Point.
Radiological scanning equipment being used in another building at Alameda Point.
Scanning a ceiling.
Marking chalk lines on floor for scanner to follow.
Radiological scanning equipment being used in another building at Alameda Point.
Scanning a wall.
Scanning a ceiling.
Fixed-point scanning on wall.
Digitized image of normal background radiation. The scanner looks for “hot spots” that exceed background.
All photos are Navy photos, except for exterior photo of Building 5 Breezeway.
Some of the toxic contamination at Alameda Point is not the result of Naval operations.
The Navy began cleaning up contaminated soil at five hot spots in the airplane runway area of Alameda Point in October. Cleanup Site 33 – on the area commonly referred to as the wildlife refuge – encompasses the southern end of the main north-south runway and adjacent tarmac, and is near the Least Tern nesting site and a wetland area.
The soil here became contaminated with PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) before it ever became part of Alameda Point. The fill material used for creating this land mass was dredged from the Oakland Estuary primarily between 1936 and 1941 by means of a pumping system. It was contaminated by a coal gasification plant, which operated in Oakland around 100 years ago that disposed of waste into the waterway. Some of the sediment contamination may also have originated at the Pacific Coast Oil Refinery that once operated on the west end of Alameda.
Site 33 arresting gear structure remnant
The potential health risk from PAHs, normally through ingestion of dust, has been part of cleanup evaluations for over a decade. The Navy and regulatory agencies agreed to the EPA’s residential soil standard in 2001.
PAH soil sampling began in 2002 at 300 locations throughout Alameda Point, including Site 33, producing over 1,200 samples. The 500-plus acre wildlife refuge parcel had 79 soil borings that produced 316 samples. Five boreholes exceeded residential use standards.
A 2008 report recommended additional testing at Site 33 that was done in 2010, leading to the current cleanup work at the five hot spot areas.
Over the past 22 years, more than 28 environmental studies have been conducted on the “refuge parcel,” looking at everything from volatile organic compounds, petroleum byproducts, PAHs, pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, explosives, metals, and radium. They analyzed surface sediment, soil, surface water, underground water, manhole sediment, and animal and plant tissue samples. Aerial photographs were also reviewed.
Talks between the Navy and US Fish & Wildlife Service for establishing a national wildlife refuge reached an impasse a decade ago, before many of these studies were completed, due to Fish & Wildlife’s concerns about liability for unforeseen cleanup expenses.
Refuge runway – Site 33 – one of five soil excavation areas
Today, the refuge parcel is slated to be transferred to the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Only about 40 acres of the refuge will be needed for their national cemetery and clinic if plans are approved to move most of the project northward onto the city’s Northwest Territories parcel.
The Navy will present an update on Site 33’s soil cleanup at the next Restoration Advisory Board meeting, 6:30 PM, Thursday, Nov. 8 at 950 West Mall Square, Community Conference Room at rear of building.
Site 33 arresting gear structure remnant
Refuge runway – Site 33 – one of five soil excavation areas
Site 1 at the northwestern tip of Alameda Point was used as the principal disposal area for all waste generated at Naval Air Station-Alameda from 1943 to 1956. This disposal area, which was once part of the Bay, was created by sinking pontoons and barges in the Bay and backfilling with dredge soil.
Disposal of cleaning solvents and petroleum products at one unlined pit within the landfill resulted in a groundwater plume that poses a threat of leaching into San Francisco Bay today.
In the 1990s the Navy installed an underground barrier system, called a funnel and gate permeable reactive barrier, to stem the flow of contaminants into the Bay. It was not a permanent solution. In July of this year the permanent solution began with the injection of neutralizing chemicals into the plume.
Protecting marine life
San Francisco Bay at Alameda Point western shoreline where threat of solvent leaching exists.
Most cleanup activities around the base are aimed at eliminating direct health risks to humans, such as from soil or from vapors that could enter a building. In a few cases, the cleanup is focused first on direct impacts to marine life such as fish, which could in turn cause health problems for people who eat them.
The cleanup effort at the Site 1 plume is one of those cases. This effort will keep toxins — solvents, petroleum products, and metals — from ever leaching into the Bay, being ingested by fish, and then consumed by humans. The effort will also reduce unacceptable levels of vapors that are escaping directly above the plume. The future use of the site will be restricted to open space recreational.
The process
July 2012 – Manifold system of hose lines that send oxidant chemicals to individual wells that go into the underground plume contamination area. Navy photo.
The chemical injection process, called In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO), is accomplished by injecting oxidants (catalyzed hydrogen-peroxide and sodium persulfate) into the plume through injection wells. “These oxidants produce short-lived reactions that directly destroy the targeted contaminants,” according to the Navy. Groundwater tests will determine if further treatments are necessary.
Tanks of chemicals for neutralizing solvent plume. Shown as work area being set up in June 2012.
Treatments will continue until either the groundwater is clean enough, or the solvent and petroleum concentration has been reduced by 75%. Once they get to 75% reduction, further injections are more or less a waste of money. From then on, the contaminant concentration is low enough that the remainder will either degrade or disperse and dilute naturally without posing a risk to fish or humans. This process is called natural attenuation and is often relied upon to finish the job when the bulk of contaminants are neutralized and treatment methods no longer yield effective results.
The groundwater plume is also contaminated with metals consisting of arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc. The metals problem will, in theory, be taken care of when the solvents and petroleum products are eliminated. This will cause the chemistry of the groundwater to change, which in turn will cause the metals to no longer remain dissolved in the water. The metals will return to their solid state and remain where they are. That’s the theory.
But to make sure it’s working, there will be a long-term groundwater monitoring program to make sure the metals aren’t moving. If problems arise in the future, the Navy will have to come back and design a new remedy. The Navy is responsible for the landfill’s contents staying in place in perpetuity.
Map of Site 1 disposal area with arrow from left indicating plume treatment area. Map also shows outlines of individual unlined pits that were used for disposal of waste. Half of the area is now covered by runway.
The Navy opted not to remove the landfill contents because of the $93 million price tag and because the risk of contaminant releases was deemed low. A new set of environmental concerns associated with digging up and hauling away a landfill was also cited during the decision process.
The groundwater plume being treated is approximately 30 feet wide by 160 feet long, and it occurs mainly between depths of 5 and 10 feet below the ground surface.
Site 1 groundwater treatment work underway in July. San Francisco in background. Navy photo.
Delay on soil cover
All of 30-acre Site 1 will eventually be covered with soil and seeded with native grasses. Work on the soil cover was delayed when the contractor discovered that the part of the landfill once used for burning waste was larger than expected. The documentation has to go back through the review process, with a work plan for the soil cover hopefully prepared and ready to implement by 2014.
The 4.18-acre cleanup Site 34 in the old runway area next to the Oakland estuary looks barren from a distance. But up close there are concrete slabs and pavement, reminders of its bygone days as a bustling workshop area.
This area was once part of the division known as the Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF). Everything from sandblasting and painting, to metal working, woodworking, and scaffold maintenance went on out there. More than 40 years of activity left soil around buildings contaminated with lead, arsenic, pesticides, PCBs, and aircraft and diesel fuel. Above ground fuel storage tanks and electrical transformers contributed to the contamination.
The Navy will clean up the soil in this area next year. Their draft work plan, which will be released on July 31, was discussed during a Navy presentation at the July 2012 Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meeting.
Site 34 aerial view. Old fuel dock to left of site. Runway at bottom is part of area where antiques faire is held. Navy photo/graphic.
Based on more than 200 soil samples taken in prior years and this year, the contractor created the draft work plan. Separate groundwater samples indicate contamination from the solvent trichloroethane. No remedial action is being taken on the trichloroethane, however, because 1) vapor intrusion into residences is not a factor, as this land will become Public Trust Land on which housing is not permitted; and 2) water monitoring has shown that the chemical is not migrating toward the estuary.
The northern edge of this site is part of the early westward land extension of Alameda, which allowed trains carrying freight and passengers to get out to a point where the water was deep enough for ferry connections. More fill was later added to the area. According to the Navy’s Remedial Investigation report, “In the 1920s, most of IR Site 34 was filled with estuary dredging material during construction of the Posey Tube.”
Site 34 starts at concrete slab on far side of tree. Port of Oakland on right. In late 1800s and early 1900s, trains travelled on tracks along the estuary where tree and slab are.
By the time the closure of the Navy base was announced in 1993, this workshop area had 12 buildings, 7 aboveground storage tanks, 2 “generator accumulation points” (waste storage), 15 transformers, and over 7,000 feet of aviation fuel line. Between 1996 and 2000 everything except the concrete pads and pavement was removed.
Building demolitions ended shortly after Alameda Point became a Superfund site in July 1999. The Superfund program, officially called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), does not allow for land improvements such as building demolition.
Most of the soil cleanup locations are adjacent to the exterior edges of old building slabs. Much of the lead in the soil came from sandblasting lead-based paint. Other contamination came from lubricants used for metals fabrications, and the use of oils and solvents for woodwork and metal work. In addition to removing soil next to the slabs, the contractor will dig under the slabs at the hot spots to take what is called a sidewall sample to confirm that all contaminated soil is removed. They have to keep digging as long as contamination is found. Clean soil will be brought in to the areas where soil is removed.
A strip of coastal marshland running along the Oakland Estuary on the north end of the site has no contamination. Its habitat quality, however, is marred by discarded concrete, wood, and trash. It will be up to the city to initiate wetlands restoration efforts there.
Coastal marsh on Oakland estuary at Alameda Point Site 34. Port of Oakland on left. Old runway area on right. Looking east toward Alameda Main Ferry Terminal.
A 60-day public comment period on the work plan begins when it’s released on July 31. The work plan will be finalized in January 2013. Fieldwork is anticipated to take place January through April 2013.
Site 34, located in the Northwest Territories, is expected to be given to the City of Alameda in 2014.
Looking north across Site 2 with Port of Oakland and Bay Bridge in background. Area to the left of landfill embankment will be covered with clean soil. Unlined industrial waste disposal pits lie underground.
The environmental remediation work plan for the Site 2 waste disposal area was finally introduced for public comment in early May after a decade on the Superfund list. During the 60-day public comment period that ended July 9, numerous agencies, groups, and individuals offered their critique of the Navy’s plans to install a suitable soil cover over the substandard soil cover that currently overlays the waste. Digging up the waste and hauling it away was ruled out in 2010 because of the $900 million price tag. Exclusionary security fencing, soil gas vents, wetlands, and geological/seismic stability due to close proximity to the Bay are issues receiving attention.
Taking samples of Site 2 landfill contents in 2005. Navy contractor photo.
The Navy’s industrial waste dump on Alameda Point’s southwestern corner has been the subject of environmental concern since the 1980s when the Water Board ordered the dump closed. The mid-1980s were a little more than a decade after passage of the federal Clean Water Act and the emerging environmental awareness and new regulations requiring underground waste sites to be lined. The Alameda Point dump is composed of various unlined cells, or pits, where all manner of aircraft parts and maintenance chemicals and debris were dumped, along with waste material from the luminescent dial and marker painting that used radium-226.
Exclusionary fencing
The Navy’s work plan includes a security fence and tall PVC pipes to vent methane gas. Golden Gate University’s Center on Urban Environmental Law (CUEL) has been following open space planning at Alameda Point and offered comments on the proposed security fence and the 10-foot tall soil gas vents. With collaboration from UCLA’s Landscape Architecture Department they created two composite drawings illustrating the stigmatizing effect that a fence would have on this wild open space with the Bay and San Francisco skyline in the background. The Navy has proposed the fence, even though the newly seeded clean soil cap will be safe to walk on. Protection of the soil, gas vents, and monitoring equipment was the reason given for the fence.
Composite drawing illustrating fence and 10-foot tall soil gas vents at Site 2 when Navy completes work. Image simulations produced for Center on Urban Environmental Law by Janet Wolsborn and Natural Resource Planning and Design.Image simulation of Site 2 without security fence. Showing two-foot gas vents, trail, and soil cover and embankment seeded with native grasses and wildflowers. Produced for Center on Urban Environmental Law by Janet Wolsborn and Natural Resource Planning and Design.
The law group also secured the help of Pangea Environmental Services to investigate the necessity of the security fence and obtrusive gas vents. Pangea interviewed city employees and other personnel responsible for oversight of four closed Bay Area landfills that have been converted to open space and recreational uses: Shoreline Park in the City of Mountain View; Sunnyvale Landfill in Sunnyvale; Oyster Point Park in San Leandro; and Cesar Chavez Park in Berkeley. Only the Sunnyvale site has a fence, but the gates are open during the day and allow free access. “The interviewees all reported that they could not recall encountering any vandalism or other damage associated with public use to either monitoring wells/vapor probes, landfill cover materials or landfill gas venting systems during the periods (generally exceeding a decade) for which they had roles in managing the landfills.”
Pangea goes on to say, “[T]he proposed post-construction installation of permanent exclusionary fencing surrounding Site 2 is considered to contradict the ‘open space and recreational use’ land use restriction proposed in the RAWP (Remedial Action Work Plan), since a closed fenced area cannot be considered open space or be used for recreation. [T]here appears to be no technical basis for installation of a permanent exclusionary fence restricting public access to Site 2.”
The City of Alameda pointed to the Record of Decision for Site 2 that specifies certain land use restrictions such as “land disturbing activities,” which would prohibit digging, disturbing monitoring equipment, or building construction. Referring to the proposed fence, the city said that these restrictions “explicitly do not prohibit recreational uses.”
Site 2 (outlined in yellow on map above), comprising 110 acres, lies within the larger 549-acre parcel commonly known as the wildlife refuge in the runway area of the former Naval Air Station. The refuge is home to a nesting site for the endangered California Least Tern, which lies a few hundred yards east of Site 2. The US Fish & Wildlife Service currently manages the refuge and the tern colony. Continuing management of the refuge to protect the terns and their nesting area will mean that a fence and gates will always be necessary around the greater refuge boundaries to limit the introduction of mammals such as raccoons, opossums, skunks, and feral cats that could pose a threat to the terns during nesting season. The perimeter fence will also serve to control human access. Thus, a secondary fence within the refuge would be redundant in controlling access.
Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) called on the Navy to look for alternatives to the fence. The Water Board stated, “Although protection of human health and the environment is our primary goal, we request that alternatives be evaluated for the fence line and methane gas venting so that public concerns and environmental health might more naturally coexist with the other beneficial uses that are planned for the area.”
Landfill gas venting
PVC piping will be installed to vent methane gas created by decay of organic matter. Thirty of the proposed vents will be 10 feet high. However, since the predominant waste is industrial and not organic, the amount of methane produced is minimal. And after more than 25 years, methane production would be expected to be near the end of its life. The Navy’s project manager recently said that the current methane out-gassing is so low that it wouldn’t keep a flame lit if there was a flaring system, calling into question the number of vents required and their height.
The Water Board questioned the gas vents saying, “[I]t is unclear why the methane vents need to be so high.” The EPA, Pangea, and the City of Alameda echoed this concern suggesting that the methane gas venting system could be reengineered into a lower profile system.
The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) had similar concerns about shoreline access and the visual experience of future trail users. They also called for more specifics on the overall design, including how the shoreline is suited to withstand sea level rise impacts, and specifics about drainage and other impacts on the wetlands from the new soil cover.
Wetlands connection to Bay
Western shore of Alameda Point looking south with San Francisco Bay on right. Site 2 begins where beach ends. Culvert connecting wetlands is in rip rap shore levee further south.
When the Navy extended the size of the base over 50 years ago to create the landfill site, they installed an underground 36” metal culvert that connects the North Pond on Site 2 to San Francisco Bay. Because the aging culvert does not enter the landfill portion of the site, the Navy is not addressing the soundness of the culvert, even though they are addressing wetlands issues at the site. The Navy’s presumed argument is that culvert improvements would be a “land improvement” that is outside the scope of environmental remediation requirements.
Both the Water Board and the EPA are arguing for the Navy to address the culvert issue. The Water Board stated, “We are very concerned about the age and integrity of the culvert that is the sole source of Bay water to the tidal wetlands. It is our understanding that the aged culvert is in very poor shape and may collapse any time. The value of this culvert became painfully apparent a year ago when some driftwood or other material clogged it up and impeded all tidal flow of brackish water to the wetland. In a matter of days the tidal wetland started drying up. Should that culvert collapse, the delays in rebuilding, from getting contracts to actual physical work, could be devastating and even fatal to the wetland flora and fauna.”
Partial view of Site 2 wetlands. Navy contractor photo.
The EPA said, “[T]here is no evaluation of the culvert to demonstrate that the culvert is appropriately sized or constructed to minimize the potential for future blockages, nor is there any provision for the periodic inspection and maintenance.” EPA went on to say, “Either the connection to the Bay needs to be reconstructed to reduce the potential for blockage or an obligation to periodically inspect the culvert and clear blockages needs to be included in the Operations and Maintenance plan. The details for the inspection and maintenance should be reviewed with BCDC as part of the Navy’s compliance with the substantive provisions of Bay Plan.”
Further addressing wetlands issues, the Water Board questioned, “Will there be an adequate number of wells effectively placed to monitor landfill leachate concentrations that might adversely affect the adjacent wetland species?”
Seismic stability
The hazardous waste pits on the south end of the site come within a few dozen yards of the Bay. The two longstanding concerns about proximity to the Bay have been chemical leaching into the water table, and failure of the seawall during an earthquake along the Hayward Fault. Well monitoring over the past 16 years shows that toxic chemical leaching is not a problem. However, the EPA is questioning the stability of the seawall and the earthen berm that surrounds the landfill containment area.
The EPA said, “It should be noted that based on the presented analyses the seawall along the southern coastal margin which is founded on liquefiable hydraulic fill and coarse-grained Young Bay Mud is prone to edge failure and lateral spreading.” They go on to say, “No remedial actions are proposed in the [Work Plan] to address these issues,” and they continue by saying, “[I]f the seawall is prone to failure and lateral spreading, it is unclear how further lateral spreading will be localized and will not distort the cover and result in depressions, drainage reversals or similar effects. Please address potential edge failure on spreading on southern coastal margin.” They also point out that the soil make-up of the berm around the landfill has not been characterized, leaving another question mark about seismic stability.
Site 2 geology cross section depicting western shoreline with features similar to southern shoreline addressed in EPA comments. 1 of 2 images. Navy illustration from 2007.Illustration of geologic features looking north along western shoreline showing features similar to southern shoreline that raised concerns with EPA over seismic readiness. Navy illustration from 2007.
The EPA mentions reinforcement options such as “cement deep soil mixing and jet-grouting,” and calls on the Navy to clarify whether they think perimeter slope failure in an earthquake is an acceptable long term risk, in lieu of underground seismic reinforcements. They also point out that the work plan does not analyze consequences of future expected sea level rise.
The Navy has until August 24 to respond to comments and incorporate changes or additions to the plan in their final draft. The regulators and the Navy will meet periodically prior to the August 24 deadline. A 30-day final review by the Navy and regulatory agencies will follow. Work on the site is scheduled to begin on October 1 and be completed by summer of 2013. Completion could be delayed if the seeding of the soil cover cannot be accomplished during the rainy season.
Below is a photo gallery of Palo Alto’s Byxbee Park, which is built over a landfill waste site at the edge of San Francisco Bay. No exclusionary fencing.
“The Navy provided a more current explanation of the future redevelopment of IR Site 2, indicating that even under Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ownership that IR Site 2 would be a wildlife refuge.”
“[T]he purpose of the multilayer soil cover is to control specific site risk through the prevention of direct contact by either humans or ecological receptors (e.g., burrowing animals).”
January 15, 2008, Minutes from regulatory agency and Navy “Resolution Meeting” on the Feasibility Study for Site 2
In the southwestern corner of Alameda Point – on the wildlife refuge – are 30 acres of wetlands. They lie within the cleanup area known as Site 2. The wetlands themselves are not contaminated, but due to protracted cleanup efforts and studies elsewhere on the site, the entire area has been off limits since the base was closed in 1997.
In May 2012, the Navy released a draft plan for covering the old underground waste disposal area on Site 2 with clean soil and seeding it with native grasses.The plan also includes a study of the wetlands on the site. Here are some highlights from the wetlands report, and also some photos taken by a Navy contractor a few years ago during investigative work.
The wetland delineation report prepared for the Navy identified three distinct wetland and water features:
Site 2 wetlands. Navy contractor photo.
Open Water/Mudflat – Open water/mudflat is found in two large ponds, the North Pond and the South Pond.
The North Pond is connected to San Francisco Bay by a 36-inch-diameter culvert that penetrates the perimeter berm and seawall. “The culvert appears to be appropriately sized to allow full tidal exchange on a diurnal basis, as the tidal wetland drains and fills completely twice a day,” according to the report.
Of the South Pond, the report said, “Most of this pond is either shallow standing water or mudflats, with a fringe of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) forming the transitional plant community between the mudflats and nearby uplands. Freshwater seasonal pond and transitional mudflat habitats such as this have been identified in theBaylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Project(SFEI 2001) as rare and important habitat components.”
The Navy’s summary of the wetlands report goes on to say, “The South Pond and mudflat matrix is high-value habitat in that it offers high tide refugia for wading shorebirds, and low tide refugia for ducks and geese. Because pond water surface elevations in this area are maintained by groundwater and precipitation, they do not fluctuate on a diurnal basis as they do in the northern (tidal) pond. Since this area normally has both mudflats and open water, it is available as foraging habitat year-round. At the time of the reconnaissance survey in late October [2011], an estimated 500 birds representing at least eight species were observed foraging in this pond and mudflat.”
Seasonal wetlands – One area on the north side of the site is considered low quality and will be covered by the soil cap. The lost wetland acreage will be replaced at other locations on the site. At the south end of the site is another seasonal wetland.
Tidal wetlands are found surrounding the North Pond that is connected to San Francisco Bay.
Seasonal wetlands, Site 2, Alameda Point. Navy contractor photo.Site 2 wetlands, Alameda Point, southwestern corner. Navy contractor photo.Wetland Mitigation Plan Proposed Site 2. Navy graphic.Wetland Mitigation Plan Proposed Site 2, with legend. Navy graphic.
The mezzanine area is in the area also known as the Breezeway, which runs east to west between the two hangar areas of Building 5. Hopefully this lead paint contaminated architectural oddity will be torn down so that we can more readily attract businesses here and to the surrounding areas. It has an easily identifiable wooden wall on the western side, marking it as one of Alameda Point’s most prominent eyesores. 
Alameda Point Environmental Report 