Radium-226 paint use left widespread cleanup legacy

Work ends at Building 5 where painting began

The Navy has completed the final round of inspections and cleanup of the last traces of the radioactive metal called radium-226 in Building 5 at Alameda Point.  The aircraft hangar complex is where the Navy refurbished its planes, including repainting tiny instrument dials, switches, and markers with glow-in-the-dark paint that contained radium.

Radium is a naturally-occurring element found in miniscule amounts in soil and water posing no health risk.  Its risk comes from ingesting the element regularly, such as in industrial settings.

The procedures for handling and disposing of the paint waste during the 1950s and 1960s led to costly and seemingly interminable cleanup projects once the base closed in 1997.  This affected at least five other areas at Alameda Point. Continue reading “Radium-226 paint use left widespread cleanup legacy”

Navy presents parkland cleanup plans

The Navy will present options on possible ways to clean up 60 acres at Alameda Point slated for a regional park on Thursday night.  The draft cleanup options for Site 32 represent the culmination of 25 years of groundwater and soil studies that began before base closure was announced.  Only five acres have been flagged for cleanup, but uncertainty about what lies beneath the pavement and structures requires a conservative approach.

site-32-map-with-notations

The site lies in the northwest portion of the old airfield along the Oakland Estuary and features open grassland, seasonal wetlands, runway, a large concrete bunker and two buildings.  Input from the community and regulatory agencies on the cleanup plan will have a major impact on the design and use of the future park. Continue reading “Navy presents parkland cleanup plans”

Radium safety enhanced at Seaplane Lagoon

The City of Alameda became the new owner of the Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point on April 13, 2016. It came from the Navy with a new condition that exceeds normal protocols for dredging in San Francisco Bay.

As with all cleanup sites, the Navy, city and regulators agreed to what areas needed to be cleaned up in the Seaplane Lagoon. The cleanup plan approved in 2006 was based on testing the sediment throughout the 110-acre lagoon. The problem areas were confined to about 10 acres at the northeast and northwest corners of the lagoon where storm sewers dumped contaminants prior to 1970s environmental laws. The agreed upon plan said that there would be no restrictions on the lagoon when cleanup was done.

Dredging the northwest corner of the Seaplane Lagoon in February 2012.
Dredging the northwest corner of the Seaplane Lagoon in February 2012.

After cleanup was completed, two years of discussions between the Navy, state and federal regulators, and the city led to an amendment to the official cleanup decision to include a detailed management plan for any future dredging in the Seaplane Lagoon. The city led the effort to create a sediment management plan. It stipulates that all dredge sediment brought to the surface will have to be spread out six inches thick on a drying pad and scanned for radium-226 radiation at a cost borne by the city. Continue reading “Radium safety enhanced at Seaplane Lagoon”

Radium-impacted drain line becomes regulatory cleanup headache

Looking east on West Tower Avenue.  Buildings 5 and 400 are where radium-226 paint was applied to aircraft dials and marker.  Paint waste contaminated thousands of feet of drain lines.   Industrial Waste Line is partially illustrated showing where it runs in front of Bldg. 5.
Looking east on West Tower Avenue. Buildings 5 and 400 are where radium-226 paint was applied to aircraft dials and markers. Paint waste contaminated thousands of feet of drain lines, most of which have been removed. The remaining radium-contaminated Industrial Waste Line is partially illustrated showing where it runs in front of Building 5, also known as the Naval Air Rework Facility.

The Industrial Waste Line of Operating Unit 2C

All of the drain lines containing radium-226 paint waste at Alameda Point have either been removed, cleaned, or are scheduled to be cleaned or removed, except for one:  The Industrial Waste Line in the hangar area where aircraft dials were painted.  This drain line was installed in the mid-1970s after passage of the Clean Water Act prohibited sending industrial waste into public waterways.  It sent wastewater to a treatment facility, and is now lying dormant, broken in places, and no longer in use.  The big question is what to do about it – leave it alone and create a special radiological license, a special exemption, or dig it up? 

The Navy, regulatory agencies, and the city discussed this cleanup problem at their regular cleanup team meeting on June 11, 2013, the most recent date for which meeting minutes are available.

Clean area inside Building 5 where Navy aircraft were serviced.  Radium painting operations to the left and outside of this area.
Clean area inside Building 5 where Navy aircraft were serviced. Radium painting occurred to the left and outside of this area.

Even though radium dial painting at Building 5 and Building 400 along West Tower Avenue had ended by the time the Industrial Waste Line was installed, drain lines inside and under these two buildings contained radium that may have been released down into the waste line. 

The Navy doesn’t feel it should spend the extra money to remove the Industrial Waste Line, saying the contamination, some of which may have seeped into surrounding soil through breaks in the drain tiles, is trivial and should be left in place.  The Navy’s Lead Remedial Project Manager Bill McGinnis said,  “When risk was evaluated, the highest risk scenario was to an industrial worker at 225 days per year, 8 hours a day, for 25 years, through direct contact with soil. For the emergency worker the exposure and risk would be significantly less.”

The regulatory agencies aren’t sure how they will sign off on this waste line if it is left in place with elevated radium-226 levels inside the pipe or possibly in the soil where the pipe has deteriorated and leaked.

The city doesn’t want a perpetual worry about monitoring and digging precautions.  The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) would also be concerned about the presence of radium.  The Navy’s Environmental Coordinator, Derek Robinson, asked the city’s engineering contractor, Angelo Obertello, if EBMUD was asked about routing around the existing industrial waste lines.  Mr. Obertello said EBMUD is looking to upsize the lines in this corridor because of fire flow pressures.  The city’s Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, Jennifer Ott, said that sewer and storm drain lines are planned for this area and that it is not realistic to expect EBMUD to work around existing rad-impacted lines.

The Navy is hoping to avoid the extra cleanup expense by asking the state to write a special document governing the drain line – essentially a warning label on a half-mile of two streets. 

The Navy asked the city if they could work around the lines when installing new infrastructure.  But even though the city’s new infrastructure plans call for using concrete utility corridors, or trenches, the plans drawn up by the city’s consulting engineer, Angelo Obertello, show that there would be future utility conflicts with the half-mile of the Industrial Waste Line on West Tower Avenue and Lexington Street.  The Industrial Waste Line, including its connections to Buildings 5 and 400, is about a mile in length.

Right now, the idea of writing a special radiological license or granting a special exemption is an administrative headache because not enough soil samples have been taken from around the waste line to fashion such a document.  Rob Terry of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pointed out that the whole licensing issue would go away if the drain line were removed.

From the meeting minutes:  “Mr. Terry agreed with Mr. Miya’s description of the process, and said CDPH [California Department of Public Health] is looking at two issues: the rad dose remaining in place, and the quantity of rad materials present. The possibility of a rad license for AP [Alameda Point] is a very real one, and under CERCLA [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund] the cleanup should be as complete as possible. If everything is removed, the need for licensing goes away.”

A similar drain line at Hunter’s Point Shipyard in San Francisco was removed.

2009 removal of radium-226-contaminated storm drains next to Building 400.  West Tower Avenue is to the right.  Looking west.
2009 removal of radium-226-contaminated storm drains next to Building 400. West Tower Avenue is to the right. Looking west.

Questions about future emergency repairs were highlighted at the meeting.  Mr. Robinson asked if the main concern of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is the “uncertainty of a license exemption.”  Karen Toth said, “DTSC’s main concern is that if an emergency arises – e.g., a sinkhole occurs in the affected streets by a water or sewer line break – this could require hiring a rad contractor to address a sinkhole or line break, either by the City or by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD).”

The meeting ended with everyone agreeing to continue working together to solve the problem of what to do about the radium-impacted Industrial Waste Line and adjacent soil.

The minutes of the Industrial Waste Line agenda item at the June 11, 2013 cleanup team meeting are below.

Meeting Minutes

June 11, 2013 Meeting minutes of OU-2C Industrial Waste Line discussion
Alameda Point Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Team (BCT)
Teleconference Meeting Attendees:

Navy
Bill McGinnis – BRAC PMO-West Lead Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
Jacques Lord – BRAC PMO-West Contracted RPM
Sarah Ann Moore – BRAC PMO-West Deputy Base Closure Manager
Marvin Norman – Legal Counsel
Mary Parker – BRAC PMO-West Contracted RPM
Derek Robinson – BRAC PMO-West BRAC Environmental Coordinator
Cecily Sabedra – BRAC PMO-West RPM
Matt Slack – Radiological Affairs Support Office (RASO)

Regulatory Agencies
Isabella Alasti – California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Bob Carr – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
John Chesnutt – EPA
David Elias – Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board)
James Fyfe – DTSC
Chris Lichens – EPA
Ryan Miya – DTSC
Rob Terry – EPA
Karen Toth – DTSC
Xuan-Mai Tran – EPA

City of Alameda
Jennifer Ott – City of Alameda
Peter Russell – Russell Resources

Contractors
Angelo Obertello – CBG
Betty Schmucker – Trevet

“Mr. Robinson said the Navy appreciated the City’s effort in preparing drawings of the industrial waste lines. Peter Russell (City) said the drawings show potential conflicts with infrastructure/utilities (existing and future) and thus are higher priority for addressing.

“Angelo Obertello (CBG), City contractor, explained that updated figures were prepared and overlain on as-built drawings of existing utilities. Areas were identified where existing utilities fall within the industrial waste line areas. The City has also re-evaluated placement of future utility lines in West Tower Avenue, Lexington Street, and Monarch Street, and preliminarily shifted the future lines about 15 feet away from the existing industrial waste lines. Based on the drawings presented, possible conflicts could occur along approximately 3,300 linear feet of line as follows:  about 900 linear feet of 4-inch force main; and about 2,400 linear feet of gravity line feeding into the pump station in Lexington Street. This represents about 57 percent of the force main line in conflict with existing industrial waste lines and about 44 percent of the gravity line in conflict with existing industrial waste lines. The conflicts primarily in West Tower Avenue and Lexington Street are for future utilities and represent about 45 percent of the lines. 

“Dr. Russell noted that as part of the petroleum program the Navy identified former fuel lines in Monarch Street, close to the industrial waste lines. Sampling of the fuel lines was interrupted and sampling locations were adjusted to avoid the industrial waste lines. 

“Mr. Robinson asked if the City expects to put buildings on top of any the industrial waste lines.  Mr. Obertello said a 300- to 400-foot area northeast of Building 12 contains industrial waste lines and potentially falls within a future development block. Jennifer Ott (City) said the area may be residential and is identified for intensified development to support the historic district.  Dr. Russell noted this land would not be acquired until about 2019. 

“Karen Toth (DTSC) said DTSC has discussed this with CDPH licensing staff.  Until it is known what is left behind in the soil, CDPH cannot say whether a radiological (rad) license or license exemption is appropriate. Soil data are needed on what remains.

“Marvin Norman (Navy Legal) said the consensus is that the rad-impacted lines beneath the building slabs will remain in place and the question concerns the extent to which the Navy commits to removal of outlying lines.  He acknowledged the issues of licensing will need to be dealt with regardless of which option the Navy pursues.

“Mr. Robinson asked if CDPH will work with the Navy in making its determinations. Ms. Toth said CDPH is available for further consultation. This is a new process for CDPH at a CERCLA facility, and the first rad license exemption will be for HPS.  Bob Carr (EPA) said there have been discussions with CDPH and no decisions have been made yet. EPA asked for specifics and could not get them.

“Rob Terry (EPA) said he has some experience writing rad licenses and the more contamination, the harder it is to exempt a property and the more complex the license becomes. He envisioned an AP radioactive materials license and individual “storage and use areas” within the license. Ms. Toth said they are looking at the larger buildings and lines coming out of the buildings; there are two (or maybe three) areas still under evaluation. 

“Bill McGinnis (Navy) asked what legal criteria/standards/requirements CDPH is using and where the process is now. Ms. Toth said the decision criteria are still up in the air. In talking with the CDPH Radiological Health Branch (RHB), they are looking at data from specific waste lines and more site-specific data are needed in those areas being left in place. CDPH/RHB is not making “impacted” v. “non-impacted” decisions for industrial waste lines.  Ryan Miya (DTSC) explained the process for licensing/licensing exemption at HPS. RHB needs to understand what is being left in the ground to determine whether or not an exemption is appropriate. The activities remaining and boundaries in picocuries per gram (pCi/g) should be defined.

“The Navy drafted a “dose-modeling assessment” for HPS so RHB understood what it is issuing a license or exemption for. The Navy and DTSC worked together to prepare the assessment, which became a key component of the application. The assessment determined how much rad is left and how deep it is located. The City of San Francisco will file an application with a cover letter, the dose-modeling assessment, and supporting CERCLA documentation in about one month to CDPH/RHB. At HPS, a small landfill/debris area is what remains.

“If AP is proposing a buffer area for a utility corridor, then more information is needed for that buffer determination.  Dr. Russell said it seems easier for CDPH to issue an exemption for buildings with concrete slabs in place, and wondered if an issue is being created by addressing lines under buildings together with lines in the streets. Mr. Miya said yes, lines under the buildings are much less likely to offer potential exposure, while the lines in the streets offer a more likely exposure pathway.

“Mr. Terry agreed with Mr. Miya’s description of the process, and said CDPH is looking at two issues: the rad dose remaining in place, and the quantity of rad materials present. The possibility of a rad license for AP is a very real one, and under CERCLA the cleanup should be as complete as possible. If everything is removed, the need for licensing goes away. 

“Mr. Robinson said that the Navy modeled the industrial waste line exposure scenario very conservatively. The Navy is concerned about the uncertainty of a license versus an exemption.  Mr. Miya said that knowing the potential exposure of what is left behind is important; at HPS what is left is very low in concentration and is covered by three feet of soil.

“Mr. Robinson asked if DTSC’s main concern is the uncertainty of a license exemption. Ms. Toth said DTSC’s main concern is that if an emergency arises – e.g., a sinkhole occurs in the affected streets by a water or sewer line break – this could require hiring a rad contractor to address a sinkhole or line break, either by the City or by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD).

“Mr. Norman asked if it would be considered a problem if the lines were grouted and sealed. Ms. Toth said the clay (gravity) pipelines are known to have integrity problems. The implementability of the remedy becomes a problem.

“Bob Carr (EPA) said what Ms. Toth described is a very real possibility, and the reality is that a break in the pipeline requires time-critical access to the area to repair. Mr. Norman asked for clarification about whether a sinkhole would be caused by the natural geology or the possibility of breaking lines.

“Mr. McGinnis said the CERCLA Institutional Controls (ICs) and Land Use Control-Remedial Design would state that repair work is subject to a soil management plan including rad control requirements. Ms. Toth said the City and EBMUD do not have the ability to comply with this in a timely manner. Mr. Robinson said the Navy appreciates Ms. Toth’s concerns. 

“David Elias (Water Board) said that in early discussions with John West (Water Board), the project as envisioned indicated that the rad material was well defined, the risk was conservatively assessed, the lines left in the street would not be in contact with anyone, and the lines would be under concrete. However, with redevelopment the current scenario changed and the situation is different, creating small “waste management units.” With future changes it may become hard to address these issues. There is no real precedent for this approach. He said the agencies may become less comfortable with the new scenario. Mr. Robinson said it is difficult for the Navy to do things just for future development; however, the City needs to take into account the environmental disposition of the property. He suggested evaluating some options for relocating lines.

“A lot of good information was presented today and the Navy will look more closely at the drawings presented. 

“Dr. Russell said even without the City’s redevelopment, when the Navy built AP the design standards were different and construction had shorter life cycles. Regardless of future development, the current infrastructure must be repaired and maintained for several years. Mr. Robinson said the Navy appreciates this, and justifying cleanup expenditures is tied to risk. The waste lines have been evaluated in a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study; the risk was determined to be low and within the risk management range. It is difficult for the Navy to consider complete removal of the lines when risk has been shown to be low. 

“John Chesnutt (EPA) asked if there is a risk driver and what would make the agency members comfortable with the certainty of the risk. At HPS, after removing 20-plus miles of pipelines, breaks were found and sampling showed rad levels in catch basins were similar to intact pipeline areas. He asked if people would feel more comfortable if site-specific sampling was conducted at the breaks and data were collected that would enhance confidence in the risk level. Mr. Elias raised the issue of tarry refinery waste at AP, where it was left in place and the risk is low, but decision-makers have to manage the waste and the risk and communicate this to the public. This may be a messy issue long term. 

“Mr. Norman said CERCLA is driven primarily by long-term human-health risk and the City may not be required to comply with long-term maintenance or handling in the event of a calamity. Dr. Russell said this is not true; the City will have to conduct routine maintenance, and emergency maintenance if needed, and will require funding for long-term rad maintenance. State and community acceptance of risk are also considered.

“Ms. Ott said EBMUD may not be comfortable working near the rad-impacted industrial waste lines. Mr. Chesnutt asked if new soil samples collected showed higher risk, would rad workers have to be hired and, if this happens, are people at risk. Mr. Robinson said no. Mr. Terry said the data from along the trench line show the risk is trivial. Mr. Carr said the highest levels detected now are about 30 pCi/g, and what is not known is what criteria other agencies (e.g, California Occupational Safety and Health) have for restricting access to this area. Mr. Terry said he did not know but it would likely depend upon the volume at 30 pCi/g. 

“There was a question about whether the sediment is still present in the manholes. Mary Parker (Navy) said sediment was not removed from the industrial waste line manholes except for the small volume of sediment required for the laboratory analysis. Mr. Robinson said sediment in the manholes could be removed fairly easily and would help reduce the volume of soil.

“Mr. McGinnis said when risk was evaluated, the highest risk scenario was to an industrial worker at 225 days per year, 8 hours a day, for 25 years, through direct contact with soil. For the emergency worker the exposure and risk would be significantly less. Mr. Robinson said the Navy will evaluate the information provided today more thoroughly. He asked Mr. Obertello if EBMUD was asked about routing around the existing industrial waste lines. Mr. Obertello said EBMUD is looking to upsize the lines in this corridor because of fire flow pressures. Ms. Ott said sewer and storm drain lines are planned for this area. It is not realistic to expect EBMUD to work around existing rad-impacted lines. 

“Mr. Norman said the Navy is taking the actions it needs to take and cannot take response actions to enhance development. He understands the City will have to maintain the existing lines and this could be more costly or more risky. Further, replacement of existing lines could cost more if the Navy abandons the lines with residual rad in place.

“Mr. Chesnutt said he is not sure it is a protectiveness issue. Ms. Ott asked if the risk is negligible, would a rad contractor be needed.  Mr. Robinson said from a risk perspective, no rad contractor is needed. Ms. Ott asked if RASO concurred. Matt Slack (RASO) said he believed a rad contractor would be needed, but he agreed with the existing data and that the risk due to the sediment within the pipe is minimal.

“Mr. Terry said when something is left behind, there will always be a question whenever a hole needs to be dug in the street. Time and resources will be needed to respond to questions.

“Mr. Elias said the Navy usually looks at source control through removal, and that ICs are for residual contamination. Now, ICs are being looked at for source material and felt this is an unusual way of managing a contaminant source. Mr. Chesnutt said he was not sure this was a source area or just material left behind. Mr. Elias suggested the rad might be a de minimis source.

“Mr. Robinson asked if there are ARARs that address waste left in place with low risk. Ms. Toth said with ICs in place the area cannot be used as residential, and ICs are required if something is left in place. Mr. McGinnis said residential risk was evaluated and there is no exposure pathway for residential users.

“Mr. Miya said the pipeline was removed at HPS, which allowed free release.  Ms. Toth suggested that if a quick resolution cannot be reached, the industrial waste lines might be removed from the Record of Decision (ROD) so the rest of the site can move forward. Mr. Robinson asked EPA and Water Board members how they feel about this suggestion. Mr. Elias said he is not sure, and Mr. Chesnutt said it is worth discussing but may be premature. Mr. Robinson suggested a follow-on call on July 2 or July 8 to discuss this further.”

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
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
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
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.

Building 5
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.
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.
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.
Northwest corner of Alameda Point where soil cover will be installed.

Cleaning up radium paint contamination at Building 5

Building 5 SU 57

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.
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.
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.

Building 5 SU 43

Building 5 SU 10

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.

DSC_1496The 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.

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.

Where Alameda Point’s cleanup is at year’s end

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

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.