Alameda Point – Page 30 – Alameda Point Environmental Report

Alameda Point 2012 environmental cleanup review, and busy year ahead

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.

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 — 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. — 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.

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.

Navy and VA ignore economics, environment in killing Alameda National Wildlife Refuge

Once upon a time there was talk about a national wildlife refuge at Alameda Point. It was included in the reuse plan for Naval Air Station (NAS)-Alameda that was accepted by the Department of Defense. It was added to Alameda’s General Plan. The US Fish & Wildlife Service was poised to be the owner and caretaker of the refuge.

But after talks broke down between the Navy and US Fish & Wildlife Service nearly a decade ago, the Navy arbitrarily decided to give the land to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for a clinic and columbarium. The VA is counting on the City of Alameda to give them an additional 70 acres of land early next year so that their clinic can be located further away from the nesting site of the endangered California least terns. This would bring the VA’s property to roughly 620 acres, even though they need only 110 acres.

The city should impose a condition on this land deal: Before the city changes its reuse plan footprint to accommodate the VA, the city should insist that the Navy place a conservation easement on the 511 acres that the VA does not need. A conservation easement would lay the groundwork for creation of a wildlife refuge or wildlife conservation area to be operated by another agency.

Golden Gate Audubon Society 1995 study examines economic value

The benefits of creating a wildlife refuge at Alameda Point go beyond environmental stewardship. They also include economic benefits to Alameda and the region. The Golden Gate Audubon Society (GGAS) understood the economic angle back in 1995 when they were advocating for creation of a wildlife refuge. To provide substance to their views, they commissioned a study by Robert Hrubes and Associates that was released in March of 1995. It’s called “The Potential Economic Benefits of the Proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge: An Overview.” The conclusion of the 1995 study—that a wildlife refuge will complement economic development—still holds true today.

The study went on to extol the intersecting virtues of wildlife habitat protection and economic value. “While important in their own right, the benefits that would be generated by establishment of the wildlife refuge are not limited to habitat and species protection,” stated Hrubes and Associates. “[T]here are indeed potential economic benefits that could derive from a wildlife refuge/day-use recreation area located in the central Bay Area. That is, the wildlife refuge proposal is not an ‘either/or’ choice between environmental quality and economic development. Rather, it constitutes a land use that not only will take optimal advantage of the environmental attributes the site has to offer but also will generate economic activity that benefits the local region. Further, it will enhance the economic value for development of the remainder of the NAS.”

VA’s project requires further study of impacts

The current proposal for the VA to own and control the 511-acre refuge area next to their 110-acre medical clinic and columbarium makes it all but impossible for this area to become the urban wildlife oasis that it could be. The VA’s proposed project map makes this clear by wiping out the words “Wildlife Refuge” and replacing them with “VA Undeveloped Area.”

At this stage of the environmental review process, the only significant environmental requirement that has been imposed on the VA is that they provide predator management, housekeeping, and record-keeping for the California least terns during their four-and-a-half-month nesting season at Alameda Point from April to mid-August. This is because the Biological Opinion issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service in the summer of 2012 focused only on one species – the least tern – due to its listing as an Endangered Species. It remains to be seen whether the VA and Navy will prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as typically required for a federal project of this size and scope. The National Environmental Policy Act provides for an impact report that is similar to California’s Environmental Impact Report. If the Navy and VA perform an EIS, they will then have to look at impacts to other species (such as the burrowing owl), habitat values, climate and traffic impacts, as well as identify alternative sites for all or part of their project.

However, based on public statements from the VA about their timeline for construction, it does not appear that they have any intention of doing a full EIS, and thus their environmental commitment will be limited. This will mean that rather than adding grasslands to perimeter areas that already have pockets of grasslands between runways and taxiways in order to divert hawks and other avian predators away from nesting terns, they will keep the refuge looking as much like a fenced-in stadium parking lot as possible (like it has been for the past decade). The pretext is that it removes habitat for predators, but in this case they would be torturing the concept by making the tern nesting site so conspicuous that it will invite predation. Virtually all of the least tern predation events have been from flying predators—like the peregrine falcons that come from miles away on the other side of Alameda.

The real reasons for maintaining the industrial look are to reduce maintenance and capital costs, and to exploit the paved areas for revenue-generating uses that don’t require construction. They have already said they will use the area for emergency preparedness training, disaster staging, and storage of supplies.

Over 180 different species of bird have been spotted on the refuge at one time or another. Some of the wetland area can easily be expanded and linked permanently to the Bay. Grasslands could be added. Instead, what we can expect to see added are auto driving events and RV shows.

Early in 2013, the Alameda city council will play a pivotal role on whether the VA is able to permanently kill the wildlife refuge vision. The city council must vote on an amendment to its no-cost conveyance deal with the Navy in order to allow the VA project to move forward. By their action, the city will decide whether the 1996 Community Reuse Plan for Alameda Point will be amended to remove the wildlife refuge as a goal, or if it remains.

Killing the wildlife refuge is not only a bad idea for the environment. It’s a bad idea for the economy.

Read more in the Conservation Action section of the Alameda Point Environmental Report.

Cleaning up radium paint contamination at Building 5

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-20^th 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.

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.

Marking chalk lines on floor for scanner to follow.

Digitized image of normal background radiation. The scanner looks for "hot spots" that exceed background. — 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.

Related story published on the Alameda Patch.

Runway soil cleanup underway on wildlife refuge

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.

Soil excavation area on Site 33 — 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.

Refuge runway – Site 33 – one of five soil excavation areas

California Brown Pelicans roosting at Alameda Point

Breakwater Island at Alameda Point — L-shaped Breakwater Island – largest brown pelican roosting site in San Francisco Bay – with San Francisco in background. Breakwater rocks in foreground extend back to Encinal Boat Ramp. Former Naval Air Station is located to the right.

The successful recovery effort for the once endangered California brown pelican is evident every summer through fall on Breakwater Island, an area which forms the beginning of the Alameda Point Channel leading to the ship docks and Seaplane Lagoon. The breakwater is a wall of boulders built up from the Bay floor to reduce wave action in the harbor.

California brown pelicans were listed as an endangered species in 1970. The pesticide DDT was identified as the cause of their decline. It caused reproductive harm, and altered the birds’ calcium absorption, which led to thin eggshells that would break under the parents’ weight. Use of DDT was banned in the United States 1972.

A recovery effort was launched in the 1970s on Channel Islands National Park off the coast of Santa Barbara. The only breeding colonies of California brown pelicans in the western United States are within Channel Islands National Park on West Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands.

Brown pelican preening — California brown pelican preening on Breakwater Island.

In the summer and fall, the brown pelicans can range from nesting colonies in Mexico and the Channel Islands all the way up to British Columbia. Alameda Point’s Breakwater Island is the largest roosting site in San Francisco Bay. A safe, secure roosting area is essential for pelicans to rest, preen, dry their feathers, maintain body temperature, and socialize.

When the Naval Air Station was still active, the Navy enforced restrictions against boats landing on the Island and posted signs that warn against disturbing the birds. Since the base closed, there has been no one to enforce regulations against disturbing the pelicans.

California brown pelicans with mouths open — California brown pelicans relaxing on Breakwater Island on sunny fall day. Their mouth sack is the largest of any bird and is used to scoop fish when they plunge into the water.

The California Brown Pelican was removed from the Endangered Species List in 2009 after an almost 40-year recovery. There is currently no plan to look out for the welfare of these magnificent birds after the base is transferred out of Navy ownership. One way to ensure adequate protection and provide public education and appreciation of this unique ecological asset is to have it be part of an “Alameda Point Wildlife Conservation Area.” The East Bay Regional Park District would be an excellent agency to manage it; they already have a marine conservation area at nearby Crab Cove.

Young California brown pelican with leg band.

California brown pelican — Old-timer. Brown pelicans can live to 30 years.

Close-up photos of Breakwater Island pelicans were taken in October 2012 from a kayak.

View more Breakwater Island pelican photos in the Flickr photo set.

More information is available on the Channel Islands National Park website.

This story is reprinted on the Golden Gate Audubon Society’s blog Golden Gate Birder.

Update – October 23, 2012

The brown pelican pictured above with a leg band reading “K69” was brought to the International Bird Rescue clinic in Cordelia near Fairfield, CA on July 9, 2012 in a thin and weak condition. It is less than a year old. After a one-month rehab, it was released at the Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Reserve near Watsonville on August 10. A blue band on a pelican leg means it was given a helping hand at one of the two clinics operated by International Bird Rescue – located in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. Some of their released pelicans have been spotted in Oregon and Washington. If you see a pelican with a blue leg band, they’d like to hear about it.

Least terns depart – volunteers move in at Alameda Point refuge

The last egg - left behind — The last egg, abandoned at the end of the season.

The least tern nesting season ended in mid-August much as it usually does – a lonely and dangerous place for young terns. There were three of four pairs of adults flying back and forth with food for their young chicks. These late nesters are often the ones whose eggs or chicks were attacked by avian predators and have re-nested. Their vulnerability is only compounded as the weeks wear on because the rest of the adults and their flight-ready young have left, leaving the remaining families without the strength of numbers to mob a predator.

Volunteers arrived at the nesting site on September 9^th to begin gathering up the oyster shells, wooden A-frame shelters, and clay tiles randomly arrayed about the site that serve as camouflage and chick shelters from predators.

They also carefully gathered up over 300 numbered nest markers that were placed near the nests by the US Fish & Wildlife biologist. A tern nest consists of a small depression in the gravel – no twigs. The four-inch white nest marker rings are set upright in a plaster base and each have a number. This allows Fish & Wildlife to monitor breeding success and record predator activity such as taking of eggs. Between now and next April when the terns return, the site’s substrate of gravel will be groomed and weeds removed.

On September 16^th, volunteers returned to continue gathering oyster shells and taking care of another task: Removing a pernicious weed call stinkwort. It is virtually impossible to eradicate stinkwort with herbicides and must be removed by hand. Pulling the tough sticky weed out by its roots is usually not successful, and volunteers were limited to chopping the weed off at its base. If not removed by fall, the weed would begin releasing seeds that find their way through the gravel and into small crevices in the old pavement underneath. The weed is so prolific that it can quickly inundate an area.

It is undesirable to have any weeds in the nesting site or in the immediate vicinity of the nesting site. The historic nesting habitat of the terns is on beaches. The presence of vegetation in close proximity to the nesting area signals possible hiding places for predators and may cause the terns to look elsewhere for safe nesting.

On both days, volunteers included members of the Key Club at Encinal High School in Alameda, a student organization that encourages volunteerism.

Monthly work parties organized by the Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge will continue through March of next year. The terns arrive in April. To get involved, contact FAWR.

The last egg, abandoned at the end of the season.

Least Tern chick sheltering next to clay tile – Summer 2012

Ending threat of solvents in groundwater leaching into San Francisco Bay

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

Manifold system for chemical injections — 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.

Site 1 landfill groundwater treatment area — 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.