Site 1 "Burn Area"

Description

The Navy proposes modifying its original plan - removing and shipping contaminants offsite - to leaving contaminants in place and building a Waste Isolation Bulkhead.

More than two dozen residents attended the Navy’s public comment meeting held in the main library April 9th. The presentation addressed the Navy’s reversal of an earlier decision to remove contamination from the “Burn Area” of the former waste dump on the north western tip of Alameda Point. Their new plan, “Alternative BA-1,” leaves contaminants in place topped with a soil cover and installs a Waste Isolation Bulkhead (“WIB”) to reduce the flow of contaminants into the bay.
Residents’ comments indicate uniform disapproval of the change:
“[O]ur predecessors may not have understood [potential] damage... when they improperly disposed hazardous wastes but our generation has the awareness and the technology to make better choices.”
“We have a responsibility to ensure that future generations of Alamedans aren't saddled with the same toxic pollution problems we fac[e].”
“[As] a homeowner...mother [and one whose] grandfather served in the Navy and held it in great esteem [I oppose] the new modified remedy...a temporary metal bulkhead, and a soil cover is not remediation but ...an irresponsible, temporary patch....”
“... this dump is the ONLY thing that has ever made me want to leave [Alameda].”
“[T]he Navy is avoiding full responsibility for full cleanup [and] hedging financial and moral responsibility....”
“[Navy] modeling assumes a 77-day tidal action rather than... a 200 year flood surge...absurdly negligent in the wake of disasters in Japan and climate change dramatically increasing the frequency of "black swan" ...events.”
Excerpts from the Restoration Advisory Board’s public comment letter indicate lack of support too:
Because the original plan constructed a cap no environmental risk assessment was performed. Now that the Navy proposes a cover, isn’t a risk assessment required?
Since no biological survey has ever been performed, no one should assume bulldozing will not harm the environment. If the Navy’s preferred alternative moves forward, a biological survey should be performed.
BA-1 is not protective of the environment. The risks posed by leaving toxic waste in an area with the highest risk for liquefaction AND at a location in close proximity to an active earthquake fault are not addressed. Moreover, a severe seismic event will likely breach the WIB anchored in Merritt Sand that is subject to liquefaction. Resulting sand volcanos will likely bring contaminants to the surface.

Costs have been under-estimated too.
While the half-life of radium-226 is 1,620 years, toxic metals such as cadmium, chrome 6, zinc and lead remain in the soil indefinitely unless washed into the Bay. If one accepts the consultant’s 100-year estimated life-expectancy for the WIB, the estimated cost of the barrier is approximately $5 million. (The new cost analysis is calculated for 30 years only and the proposed plan’s estimate of $13.1 million is actually closer to $100 million.) Since it will require, at minimum, 16 replacements over 1,600 years, shouldn’t the Navy provide an upfront fund of $80 million (16 times $5 million) to provide adequate barrier replacements? Or does the City bare these costs? If so, our city must begin, right now, to factor this into our city finances.

The Navy’s next public comment meeting begins 6:00pm on May 15 in the main library. It addresses Site OU 2B(east of Seaplane Lagoon) and includes contamination from fuel storage areas.
(Susan Gallleymore is a member of the RAB as are George Humphreys, Skip McIntosh, and Dale Smith who contributed to this article. Read the RAB’s entire comment letter to the Navy and residents’ comments at Raising Sand - raisingsandradio.org).