The URL can be used to link to this page

2008-10-01 ARRA PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 390 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Wednesday, October 1, 2008 Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board or a member of the public. 2 -A. Authorize Execution of a No -Cost Sublease for Alameda Development Corporation at Alameda Point. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Approve the Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Disposition of the Notices of Interest for the Homeless Accommodation/Public Benefit Conveyances for the North Housing Parcel and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate the Required Legally Binding Agreement 3 -B. Report on Restoration Advisory Board Comment Letter on Installation Restoration Site 1. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative. - Highlights of September 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.) 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 7. ADJOURNMENT ARRA Agenda - October 1, 2008 Page 2 This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. Notes: • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 749 -5800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. ■ Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. • Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. • Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 1, 2008 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director SUBJ: Authorize Execution of a No -Cost Sublease for Alameda Development Corporation at Alameda Point BACKGROUND The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) Governing Board approves all Alameda Point subleases with a lease term greater than one year. The proposed sublease for Alameda Development Corporation (ADC) is a month -to -month lease that could extend over one year. DISCUSSION ADC is a community based nonprofit housing and community development corporation that advocates for, develops, and manages housing opportunities for residents living or working in Alameda, and making between 30% and 120% of the Area Median Income. The ADC was established in 1999 for the purpose of promoting housing and homeownership opportunities in Alameda. Since incorporating as a nonprofit agency, the ADC's efforts have included the acquisition of the 626 Buena Vista site, buyer selection of the affordable units at Bayport, post - purchase counseling for first -time homebuyers, and new affordable housing opportunities. Attachment A describes the business teruns for the proposed sublease for Alameda Development Corporation in a portion of Building 7. The rent for Alameda Development Corporation is waived. The lease provides for Alameda Development Corporation to pay $125 per month to offset utility, maintenance, and janitorial costs for the building. Building 7 is in good condition. Market rent for this space would be $765. In accordance with the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the ARRA and SunCal Companies, this lease has been discussed with representatives from SunCal Companies and has their concuitence. BUDGET CONSIDERATION / FINANCIAL IMPACT The rent for this lease annually waived. Because building 7 houses several different companies, there is a shared charge of $500 for utilities, maintenance, and janitorial services. These funds will be retained by the ARRA. Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority October 1, 2008 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Authorize execution of a no -cost sublease for Alameda Development Corporation at Alameda Point. Respectftrily submitted, Leslie Little Development Services Director By: Nanette Banks Finance & Administration Manager Attachment: A. Proposed Sublease Business Terms B. Site Map ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS TENANT BUILDING SIZE (SF) TERM RENT Alameda Development Corporation 7 187 Month to Month Waived } | � | \ U | _~ ~/ _ s H��i�� ,��'^,~,� o l '/ o | �- {� O |T |u�� N [ .11 l . === 0 } | L '|� NOl9NI�� _- _-- | L- �� || �~l_____ L | U | i__.___- , ( W MIDWAY AVE, LJJ [ � ce ATTACHMENT B cc IS NO1! � O Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Debra Kurita, Executive Director Date: October 1, 2008 Re: Approve the Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Disposition of the Notices of Interest for the Homeless Accommodation/Public Benefit Conveyances for the North Housing Parcel and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate the Required Legally Binding Agreement BACKGROUND On November 5, 2007, the Navy declared the 42 acres at the former Naval Air Station Alameda (Alameda Point), referred to as the North Housing Parcel, as surplus. The Coast Guard previously used the property as housing and supportive recreation facilities. The surplus declaration triggers a Federally prescribed screening process created by the McKinney -Vento Act. This act requires the Federal government to prioritize any military surplus property to meet homeless needs for both housing and services. The Federal screening process is used to solicit, evaluate, and accommodate homeless assistance requirements and then, subsequently, public uses in planning and implementing the reuse of surplus property. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA), is responsible for conducting the screening process for the North Housing Parcel. Within 30 days of the Navy's surplus declaration, as required, the ARRA published a Notice of Availability of Surplus Property on November 16, 2007. An informational workshop and site tour for homeless services providers and organizations eligible for Public Benefit Conveyances (PBCs) of the property was held on December 6, 2007. Subsequently, on March 7, 2008, five interested organizations submitted Notices of Interest (NOIs) for portions of the North Housing Parcel. NOIs were submitted for both PBCs and homeless housing and services at the North Housing Parcel. Staff then requested clarifications or additional information from each applicant. The NOIs are summarized below: Homeless Accommodation Requests • Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) and Building Futures with Women and Children (BFWC) submitted a joint proposal to provide homeless services. These organizations propose to rehabilitate five buildings to provide a new location for Midway Shelter, if needed, a multi - service center for currently homeless people, and a job training/education center. Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority October 1, 2008 Page 2 of 6 • The Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, APC, and BFWC submitted a joint proposal to construct 120 new units of permanent supportive housing for individuals and families in Alameda who are homeless. The NOI states that the majority of residents will be earning below 30% of area median income (AMI) at intake, although incomes could increase to as high as 80% of AMI. The development would include a community center and management offices. • East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC) submitted a proposal to rehabilitate 11 existing buildings to create 88 permanent affordable rental housing units for Alameda residents at a mix of income levels at or below 50% of AMI. Eighteen units would be set -aside for homeless individuals and families in the city. EBALDC proposed to partner with, but had not yet identified, a homeless service provider to offer on -site case management. Public Benefit Conveyance Requests • Habitat for Humanity East Bay submitted a PBC proposal to renovate 32 homes using its self -help, or sweat - equity, model for providing affordable ownership housing. They intend to sell the homes to households with incomes at 80% or less of AMI. • The City of Alameda Recreation and Park Department submitted a PBC proposal to utilize approximately eight acres of open space at the North Housing Parcel as a public park providing a variety of youth sports activities, including a possible agreement with the Miracle League for the renovation of the existing baseball field. Staff, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) representatives, determined that the EBALDC proposal is not a housing project for the homeless and is therefore not eligible for a no -cost transfer for homeless assistance. EBALDC has been notified of this determination (see attached letter). Staff has completed its review of the remaining four NOIs. A complete set of NOIs is on file in the office of the City Clerk. DISCUSSION As part of the screening process, the LRA evaluates the NOIs for both homeless accommodations and PBC's. In addition, the LRA must balance the needs of the homeless and requests for PBCs against other community needs and interests such as economic development and provision of a range of housing for all segments of the population. The needs of the homeless, requests for PBCs, and an evaluation of other community needs are addressed in a Community Reuse Plan which is submitted to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD ultimately approves each community's Reuse Plan prior to the Navy disposing of the property. The ARRA has a 1996 Reuse Plan for Alameda Point. However, that Plan must be amended to address the newly surplused North Housing Parcel. Through a competitive Request for Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority October 1, 2008 Page 3 of 6 Proposals (RH'P) process, EDAW and Strategic Economics were selected to assist staff in that effort. Strategic Economics, a real estate economics consulting firm, was retained to assist staff in evaluation the NOIs. Strategic Economics analyzed the organizational capacity and project pro formas for the two requests for homeless accommodation and one self -help PBC and supported the Evaluation Committee in its work. An Evaluation Committee consisting of Stephanie Forbes, Local Initiative Support Corporation Executive Director, Leslie Little, Development Services Department Director, Debbie Potter, Base Reuse & Community Development Manager, and Elizabeth Cook, Development Manager — Housing, reviewed the NOIs described above. A summary of the Evaluation Committee's recommendations regarding each NOI follows: Recommendations for Homeless Accommodation Requests • The Evaluation Committee did not recommend pursuing the joint proposal submitted by the APC and BFWC to rehabilitate five buildings to provide a new location for Midway Shelter, if needed, a multi - service center for currently homeless people, and a job training /education center. The Evaluation Committee concluded that: There is no clear need for a new location for the Midway Shelter. The Navy owns the existing shelter site, and leases the site to the City. The City in turn sub - leases the property to BFWC to operate the shelter. BFWC's current sub -lease runs through September 2010. Midway Shelter has been at this location for 18 years. The Navy has notified the City that it will be evaluating the future of the site, an active Marine Corps Training Center, over the next two years in consultation with the City to determine its status. The Navy will review whether the site will be retained as active military property, declared surplus, or partially realigned. The City's focus will be to create a permanent location for Midway Shelter as part of any disposition of the Marine Corps Training Center. The proposed multi - service center would offer hot meals, showers, laundry facilities, and a winter warming center. A multi- service center serving homeless people was identified as an unmet need in Alameda. However, the North Housing Parcel is not a suitable site for this use. As the City of Alameda Homeless Needs Assessment (February 2008) states, a multi - service center should be located on a site that is "close to services and other retail establishments providing basic amenities, such as the food bank ". The requested additional job training facilities could be accommodated at the existing APC service center at Alameda Point and/or provided in the community center in the permanent supportive housing development proposed by the Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority October 1, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Alameda Housing Authority, APC and BFWC, rather than be located at the North Housing Parcel as a separate accommodation. • The Evaluation Committee did recommend pursuing a modified version of the joint proposal submitted by the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, the APC, and BWFC to construct 120 new units of permanent supportive housing for individuals and families in Alameda who are homeless. The majority of residents will be earning below 30% of area median income (AMI) at intake, although incomes could increase to as high as 80% of AMI. The development would include a community center and management offices. The Evaluation Committee concluded that: - The total number of proposed units should be reduced to better balance the community's reuse goals on, the site. Taking into account the existing Neighborhood Residential zoning (R -4) and the required 25% inclusionary obligations for any future residential development, the Evaluation Committee recommended that the final project size be approximately 90 housing units on a maximum of nine acres. The Evaluation Committee also recommended evaluating alternative locations on the 42 acres. The proposed development would help meet the top priority need of "permanent supportive housing in Alameda, especially housing designed for individuals...for couples and small families" identified in the City of Alameda Homeless Needs Assessment (February 2008). The proposed partners are all well- established and active housing and service providers in Alameda. Recommendations for Public Benefit Conveyance Requests • The Evaluation Committee recommended submitting a modified development proposal from Habitat for Humanity East Bay to renovate 20 -32 homes or build 20 -30 new duet - style homes, or some combination thereof, using the self -help model, to HUD. The Evaluation Committee concluded that: The total number of units should be determined in part to meet future low- and moderate- income inclusionary housing needs as part of any future residential development consistent with the current R -4 zoning designation. - Habitat is an experienced and well -run housing developer with the capacity to develop a phased project of 20 -32 units. Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority October 1, 2008 Page 5 of 6 HUD approves PBCs for self -help ownership housing. If HUD approves the PBC, the Navy will convey that portion of the property directly to HUD, and HUD would convey the property to Habitat for Humanity for construction /rehabilitation of the affordable ownership units. Self -help housing PBCs are not not homeless accommodations, nor do they meet the needs of homeless people. However, they are a source of affordable ownership housing. • The Evaluation Committee also recommended submitting the PBC proposal from the City of Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) to the Department of Interior to utilize approximately eight acres of open space at the North Housing Parcel as a public park for a variety of youth sports activities, including a possible agreement with the Miracle League. The Evaluation Committee concluded that: The park location should be evaluated for the overall benefit of the neighborhood. Relocating the eight -acre park to another location on the 42 -acres may better serve existing and future residents. The ARPD has the management capacity to manage an eight -acre facility. Conclusion Any homeless accommodation NOI that is consistent with the preferred reuse strategy for the North Housing Parcel will be required to execute a Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) with the ARRA. The LBA will define the applicant's and LRA's roles and responsibilities, the development site, the allowed uses for the premises, maintenance and management standards, and the anticipated property disposition method. Staff recommends beginning LBA negotiations to revise the proposals recommended by the Evaluation Committee. The draft LBA will be presented to the ARRA at its December 3, 2008, meeting for review and consideration. The Reuse Plan Amendment and draft LBA are due to HUD in December. As noted above, EDAW, a planning and environmental consulting firm, will assist staff with a public process to amend the 1996 NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan. "Amendment #1: Main Street Neighborhoods Update" will address the reuse of the newly declared 42 surplus acres and also include an update of redevelopment efforts in this sub -area of NAS Alameda (see attached map). The Base Realignment and Closure Act requires community outreach and opportunities for participation in the reuse plan amendment process, which will include two public meetings with the Planning Board in November. Based on community feedback regarding alternative reuse strategies, staff will submit "Amendment #1: Main Street Neighborhoods Update" to the ARRA for its consideration at a public hearing on December 3, 2008. An ARRA- approved amendment to the Reuse Plan and related LBA will be submitted to HUD, along with a complete summary of Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority October 1, 2008 Page 6 of 6 the surplus process conducted by the LRA. Once approved by HUD, "Amendment #1: Main Street Neighborhoods Update" will reflect the community's consensus for civilian reuse of the 42 acres, and guide the Navy's consideration of property conveyance options. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT A $128,000 grant from the Federal Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) will fund the contractual services costs for the surplus process. The required 10% local match will be met through in -kind staff costs in the Development Services Department. The staff costs are included in the FY 2008/2009 ARRA budget. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Executive Director's recommendation regarding disposition of the Notices of Interest for the Homeless Accommodation/Public Benefit Conveyances for the North Housing Parcel and authorize the Executive Director to negotiate the required legally binding agreements. Attachment: 1. EBALDC letter 2. Base Map Respectfxtlty submitted, Leslie Little Development Services Director By: D ':.ie Potter Base Reuse and Community Development Manager ATTACHMENT 1 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda Point/NAS Alameda 950 W. Mall Square - Building 1 Alameda, CA 94501 -5012 Governing Body Beverly ,Johnson Chair Marie Gilmore Boardmember Frank Matarresc Boardmember Doug dellaan Boardmember Lena Tam Vice-Chair Debra Kurita Executive Director 1)r` '' Brandt Executive Director September 19, 2008 (510) 749-5800 Fax: (510) 521 -3764 David Dologite East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC) 310 8th Street, Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94108 Dear Mr. Dologite: This letter confirms that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) received your March 7, 2008 Notice of Interest (NOl) and May 15, 2008 letter clarifying your NOl for Alameda NAS - North Housing Parcel. We have read the submitted materials and, following consultation with HUD representatives, must inform you that, even with the proposed increase in dedicated homeless units to 34% of the anticipated development, it has been determined that the project described in the NOl and follow -up materials is not a housing project for the homeless. The proposed project is therefore not eligible for a no -cost transfer for homeless assistance. The ARRA is bound by Federal law to consider only those projects that serve the homeless and /or Public Benefit Conveyances during this surplus process. The ARRA has determined that your proposal is not qualified for further consideration. As you clarify in your May 15 letter and exhibits, EBALDC "does not develop housing for a 100% homeless population." The ARRA cannot consider your proposal further, but will provide your contact information to any private developer that may acquire land from the Navy following the surplus process. Any future residential developer will be obligated to fulfill the City's 25% inclusionary housing requirements, and therefore may be interested in partnering with an affordable housing developer, such as EBALDC. If you have any questions regarding the surplus process, please contact myself or Elizabeth Cook, Development Manager - Housing, at (510) 749 -5915. David Dologite - EBALDC September 19, 2008 Page 2 Again, thank you for your interest in the redevebpment of NAS Atameda. Sincerely, ebbie Potter Base Reuse & Community Development Manager CO: D. Kurita, Executive Director ATTACHMENT 2 PORT OF OAKLAND .)AKL, iND ALAMEI)A ESTUARY ALAMEDA FERRY TERMINAL NORTH IPATERFRONT SCHOOL •••. • %Mg 1•111“ M. • Nati: :1::111;■:. COAST GUARD HOUSING Tinker Avenue &5j NEIGHBORHOOD wLt z B4YPORT 12 7 A1EIGHBORHOOD ci COLLEGE OF ALAMEDA i-tmetatir Atlantic Avenue 21,14 VA DLS ' 1(7' VEST END NEIGHBORHOOD Pacific Avenue NAS ALAMEDA REUSE PLAN A.M.ENDMENT 4 '41 u q if; iak r'etz: F797"M7"----1 0 200' 400' 800' NORTH September 2008 INSIENSIESINIES11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Debra Kurita, Executive Director October 1, 2008 From: Date: Re: Report on Restoration Advisory Board Comment Letters on Installation Restoration Site 1 BACKGROUND At its September 10 meeting, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) discussed two Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) letters regarding Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. IR Site 1 is the landfill located at the northwest tip of Alameda Point. One of the RAB's letters expressed RAB members' concerns with the Navy's Proposed Plan for the site, which has now been carried forward to the draft Record of Decision (ROD). The other RAB letter critiqued the Navy's report of its exploratory trenching into the landfill site. Following a presentation by RAB Co -Chair Humphreys, the ARRA Board requested that its environmental consultant, Dr. Peter Russell, prepare a technical assessment of the RAB's concerns with the results of the Navy's trenching work, as well as the Navy's proposed remedial design for the site. The ARRA Board further directed that the requested technical assessment be brought back for discussion at its October 1 meeting. A draft technical assessment was prepared and presented to Co -Chair Humphreys and several other RAB members for their review and comment. The technical assessment is attached. DISCUSSION On October 25, 2007, the ARRA submitted a comment letter in response to the Navy's draft ROD for IR Site 1. The letter was prepared based on Dr. Russell's analysis of the Navy's documents to -date. The letter advocated that the Navy proceed with the clean -up alternative of excavating and off hauling the landfill contents. An earlier ARRA letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), dated June 25, 2007, recommended that the Navy dig exploratory trenches to determine the amount of waste in the landfill and whether intact drums likely still existed. The ARRA recommended exploratory trenching as a due diligence step to evaluate the amount and type of waste, which enables more refined cost estimation for excavating the landfill, and the prevalence of intact drums, which could later leak and allow contaminants to leach into the Bay. In the eleven months since the ARRA submitted its comment letter, the following activities have occurred: • Based on the ARRA's urging, the Navy trenched the landfill site at eleven locations. No intact drums were located. Very little waste was discovered; however, more Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority October 1, 2008 Page 2 of 4 radioactively contaminated soil than anticipated was found during surface scans outside the historical landfill waster cell locations. • The Navy conducted a surface scan as part of a Time Critical Removal. The scan identified radium -226 above the background level, some of which was outside the footprint of the landfill's proposed soil cover. Radioactive waste and contaminated soil was excavated to a maximum depth of two feet below land surface and hauled off. • Since the Navy has identified more radioactive material than originally anticipated at IR Site 1, the Navy requested that the environmental regulators allow it to modify the scope of IR Site 1 to focus on remediation of the landfill waste cell area, including excavation of a portion of the landfill known as the "burn area ", cleanup of areas near the shoreline, and groundwater cleanup. All issues associated with radioactive contamination outside these areas would be addressed as part of IR Site 32, which is east of and adjacent to IR Site 1. The EPA and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) agreed with the Navy's request to proceed with a more focused approach to IR Site 1 and to undertake expanded remediation activities at IR Site 32. By addressing the issues of remediating radioactive contamination as part of the Site IR 32 environmental program, the ARRA, the RAB, and the public will have several new opportunities to comment on that clean -up effort. • In August, the Navy awarded a $14 million contract, with a $6 million contingency budget, to prepare the remedial design and implement remediation of IR Site 1. The planned cleanup addresses several key aspects of the necessary remediation, including excavating and hauling off the "burn area ", installing a soil cover over the rest of the landfill footprint, seismically stabilizing the shoreline with cleanup of contamination there, and conducting groundwater remediation. The "bum area" is an area where wastes were burned and pushed into the Bay. Excavating this portion of the landfill prevents waste contact with the Bay and will help stabilize the landfill cover. While the Navy has awarded the contract for engineering design and remediation work, fieldwork cannot begin until the Navy has an approved Final ROD and receives regulatory agency approval of the detailed remedial design. Throughout this time period, the ARRA has maintained its position that the entire landfill should be excavated and removed. The ARRA has continued to monitor closely the Navy's actions regarding IR Site 1 and to participate in RAB and BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) Cleanup Team (BCT) meetings. There will be another opportunity to state the ARRA's position on IR Site 1 when the draft final ROD is released by the Navy. The Navy expects to publish the draft final ROD on October 28, 2008, with a 30 -day comment period ending on November 27, 2008. The remediation of IR Site 1 has been predicated on the assumption that it contains a landfill with uncharacterized waste. However, the Navy's 11 exploratory trenches did not encounter any appreciable amount of waste. This new information has caused some members of the RAB and the ARRA's environmental consultant to speculate about whether IR Site 1 still has a landfill. Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority October 1, 2008 Page 3 of 4 That speculation includes the possibility that, during the time the base was operational, the waste was previously dug up and relocated somewhere else, possibly to the much larger landfill at IR Site 2, on the property several hundred yards to the south to be conveyed via a Federal -to- Federal transfer. This new idea that there may no longer be landfilled waste at IR Site 1 should be analyzed further to determine the appropriate model for informing clean -up decisions at IR Site 1. Staff and ARRA's consultant need to work closely with the environmental regulators and the Navy to determine the feasibility of further exploring the theory that IR Site 1 no longer contains a landfill. Such an effort would include investigating IR Site 1 to evaluate whether all waste has been removed and to chemically and radiologically characterize the remaining soil. Notwithstanding the idea that IR Site 1 may no longer contain a landfill, two aspects of the cleanup should go forward as planned. These two remediation activities are excavation of the "burn area" and groundwater remediation, as described above. Both of these activities are consistent with the ARRA's comments to date (i.e., excavate and remove the landfill's contents and remediate the groundwater contamination) and with the RAB's comments provided to the ARRA Board on September 10, 2008. Based on the ARRA Board's direction to date that the landfill contents should be excavated and removed, it is recommended that staff, working with the ARRA's consultant, prepare a letter to the Navy formally requesting that the scope of the draft final ROD be narrowed to cleanup of groundwater and the "burn area ", and that the balance of IR Site 1's current scope be dealt with separately, perhaps as part of IR Site 32. When the draft final ROD is issued, the ARRA should restate its position regarding excavation of the landfill, regardless of its true size. In addition, staff and Dr. Russell should work with the RAB, Navy, and environmental regulators to explore the theory that the landfill is no longer present and determine how that may impact remediation going forward. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The work that the ARRA's environmental consultant does to comment on Navy documents, attend RAB and BCT meetings, and coordinate with staff, is an eligible ARRA third party cost that is reimbursed by SunCal pursuant to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement. Therefore, there is no impact on the ARRA budget or the City's General Fund to retain an environmental consultant to assist the ARRA in participating in the public process regarding environmental remediation at Alameda Point. RECOMMENDATION Receive the attached technical memo, prepared by the ARRA's environmental consultant, analyzing the RAB comment letters on IR Site 1 and direct staff to prepare two letters. One letter is to the Navy explaining the presumption that IR Site 1 no longer has a landfill, and the second is a comment letter on the draft final ROD for Site 1, when it is issued, consistent with the ARRA's previous direction. Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Res . ectft `11y submitte October 1, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Leslie Little Development Services Director By: • '•bi • otter Base Reuse and Community Development Manager Attachment: 1. Technical Assessment Russell Resources, Inc. environmental management ATTACHMENT 1 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB Comments Letters "Deficiencies in the Proposed Plan" & "Analysis of Trenching Report" September 24, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This evaluation concludes that most of the RAB's points correctly identify important considerations for proper closure of IR Site 1 (Installation Restoration Site 1), the landfill where the Navy buried all the base's wastes from 1943 until 1956. Many issues raised by the RAB appear to have been addressed satisfactorily by preliminary design plans the Navy recently described to the RAB and the environmental regulatory agencies: • improving seismic stability along the shoreline, • including a rodent barrier in the landfill cover, and • augmenting the network of perimeter groundwater monitoring wells. Whether the Navy deals with other key RAB issues appropriately will not be known until the Navy designs the cleanup and issues a work plan. Implementation of groundwater treatment is the most prominent example of this type of issue. Finally, several RAB comments are directed toward management of water within the landfill: • an impermeable cap to prevent percolation of rainfall, and • a slurry wall to control lateral migration of contaminated groundwater. These comments are likely overly conservative, because the groundwater contamination that has been detected at IR Site 1 appears to come predominantly from aircraft parts storage and maintenance activities, rather than landfilled wastes. This presumption is subject to change as the cleanup progresses. The RAB's comment letters do not explicitly recommend that the landfill be completely excavated and hauled off Alameda Island for appropriate disposal. However, both the RAB and the ARRA are on record repeatedly and clearly demanding that this be done. Currently, remedial plans provide for this type of excavation and off hauling only for the burn area, the portion of IR Site 1's shoreline where wastes were burned then pushed into San Francisco Bay. The Navy, with the support of the environmental regulatory agencies, plans to leave the majority of the landfilled wastes where they are currently buried and to install a soil cover to prevent contact by future users of the site. The Navy dug eleven exploratory trenches into the IR -1 landfill in September 2007. Surprisingly, none of the trenches found any landfilled waste. Although many of the trenches encountered soil with minor amounts of concrete, wood, metal, and other debris, no landfill deposits were found. The RAB's comments do not make this point directly, but the presumption now should be that the IR Site 1 landfill is no longer there. One likely scenario is that the landfilled wastes were relocated to the Navy's newer landfill several hundred yards to the south. This probably occurred in the 1950s when the Navy built a new runway over part of the IR Site 1 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 2 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill landfill. Another possibility is that, upon excavation, any combustible wastes were burned in the shoreline burn area, and only the incombustible waste was relocated. Regardless of which explanation is correct, the current conceptual site model, which is the foundation of all of the IR Site 1 clean -up decisions, is fundamentally flawed. A better path forward is to further investigate the footprint of the foliner IR Site 1 landfill to verify that all wastes have been removed and to chemically and radiologically characterize the backfilled soil. Then the conceptual site model should be updated to reflect actual site conditions. This supplemental investigation and remedial decisionmaking will take time, but two areas of IR Site 1 need immediate cleanup: the shoreline burn area and the contaminated groundwater. The current configuration of IR Site 1 should be split into two parts: • Clean -up of groundwater and the burn area should move forward as expeditiously as possible. • The rest of IR Site 1 should shift to a separate decisionmaking and cleanup track, potentially by combining with the adjacent IR Site 32. INTRODUCTION This assessment addresses technical aspects of the Alameda Point RAB's August 14, 2008 comment letters concerning IR Site 1. These letters are titled "Deficiencies in the Proposed Plan" and "Analysis of Trenching Report". This evaluation responds to a request by the ARRA Board at its September 10, 2008, meeting. As directed by the Board, this assessment addresses technical comments contained in the letters, without regard for economic feasibility. At closing military installations, a RAB, which is composed of local community members, is formally organized to increase public participation in the cleanup process. CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, a federal law) requires the formation of RAB's to assist the military branches with cleanup of closed bases. The RAB's role is to increase community understanding and support for cleanup efforts, improve soundness of government decisions, and ensure cleanups are responsive to community needs. Alameda is particularly fortunate to have volunteers who are, not only very interested in a robust restoration of Alameda Point, but also collectively well qualified to understand many technical aspects of the clean -up issues. Among the professional credentials of the Alameda Point RAB members are: registered civil engineer, professional geologist, certified hydrogeologist, registered mechanical engineer, registered nuclear engineer, registered structural engineer, and member of the California State Bar. Although some of these credentialed volunteers are retired and no longer have an active practice, they have a wealth of experience in disciplines relevant to cleanup of Alameda Point. Other RAB members are eager for the cleanup to be carried out in the best manner possible, even though they do not have the formal training and experience to appreciate independently some of the more detailed technical issues. 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 3 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill BACKGROUND On May 15, 2006, the Navy issued the draft IR Site 1 Proposed Plan for review and comment. The ARRA's November 9, 2006, comments on the draft Proposed Plan, that the proposed remedy is based on inadequate characterization and the proposed permeable soil cover for the landfill is unacceptable, did not change the Navy's thinking in this regard. The Proposed Plan was finalized with little substantive change. The final Proposed Plan is the subject of one of the RAB's comment letters. On April 11, 2007, the Navy issued the draft IR Site 1 ROD (Record of Decision) for review and comment. This document carries forward the Proposed Plan's scheme of isolating the landfill with a permeable soil cover. The course remedy selection was taking prompted the ARRA to send its June 25, 2007 letter to EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). The ARRA's letter points out several serious data gaps hampering the IR Site 1 remedial decisionmaking process: what is the true volume of waste within the landfill, and does the landfill still contains intact drums. Information about the volume of wastes is essential to confidently estimating the cost to excavate the landfill. Understanding the prevalence of intact drums enables predictions about the likelihood of future groundwater contamination. On July 10, 2007, EPA issued a letter to the Navy agreeing to relax the formal clean -up schedule for IR Site 1 while the Navy addresses the data gaps identified in the ARRA's June 2007 letter. The Alameda Point BCT (BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) Cleanup Team, which is composed of EPA, DTSC (California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Navy) had settled upon a plan to dig trenches into the IR Site 1 landfill to allow better estimation of its volume and investigate the prevalence of intact drums. The Navy dug 11 exploratory trenches into the landfill in early September 2007. The May 16, 2008, Navy report of the trenching activity documents that virtually no landfilled material was encountered in any of the trenches. Some of the trenches unearthed minor amounts of glass, wood, concrete, metal and other debris. No intact drums were found. All but one of the trenches encountered soil with low -level radioactivity, presumably radium from the base's historic dial painting activities. The percentage of soil impacted by radioactivity in any single trench ranged from 7 percent to 90 percent. Overall, 25 percent of the soil excavated from the trenches was impacted by low -level radioactivity. On October 25, 2007, the ARRA commented on the Navy's draft IR Site 1 ROD, reiterating excavation and removal of the waste is the only satisfactory landfill cleanup: "The Navy should remove all wastes from the IR Site 1 landfill, with off -site disposal." (bolding in original) The Navy is scheduled to issue the draft final IR Site 1 ROD for a 30 -day review and comment period on October 28, 2008. 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 4 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill EVALUATION of RAB COMMENT LETTERS This evaluation assesses each RAB letter separately. Evaluation of the comment letter on the Proposed Plan begins immediately below. The trenching report comment letter is evaluated beginning on page 15. The original text is presented within outlines, followed by the technical assessment. Deficiencies in the Proposed Plan This RAB comment letter is specific to the IR Site 1 Proposed Plan. However, its points are generally applicable to the draft ROD too. This comment letter, which was formally submitted to the Navy on August 14, 2008, was drafted before the Navy published the results of its exploratory trenching activities into the IR Site 1 landfill. "The Navy's proposed plan for the waste cell (Area 1 a) portion of Site 1 is 4 feet of soil cover and in -situ chemical oxidation for treatment of the volatile organics plume. In November 2006, the community RAB members took the position that excavation of the contaminated portion of the wastes is the appropriate remedy for Area la because the types of waste materials disposed of in the waste cells contained a larger proportion of industrial type (potentially hazardous wastes). The proximity to San Francisco Bay, nearby wetlands, and a high water table favor excavation and off -site disposal rather than source containment as the preferable alternative. The City took the position in 2007 that they would not accept transfer of a site containing uncharacterized wastes with a soil cover. Nevertheless, the Navy is proceeding with plans to issue a Record -of- Decision based on the Proposed Plan. "An example of current best practices for military landfills is the excavation and off -site disposal of contaminated material at the 5 -acre former Connaught Military Landfill near Ottawa, Canada. The site contained mechanical debris from target maintenance, potential unexploded ordnance, paint cans with paint residue, hospital wastes, broken concrete, and hydrocarbon impacted soil. Off -site disposal costs were reduced by sorting our inert waste materials (concrete, bricks, and steel) and disposing of them on -site. The site was considered environmentally sensitive because of its proximity to the Ottawa River, the City of Ottawa, and a bird sanctuary (an analogous situation to that which exists at Sites 1 and 2)." The overarching point of the RAB's comment letter is a good one: IR Site 1 is an unsuitable location for a landfill. Today, it would not be possible to create a new landfill at a location similar to IR Site 1. The RAB correctly points out the inappropriateness of siting a landfill near San Francisco Bay, near wetlands, or in an area with shallow groundwater. The ARRA strongly makes this is same point in its October 25, 2007 comment letter on the draft IR Site 1 ROD: "The Navy should remove all wastes from the IR Site 1 landfill, with off -site disposal." (bolding in original) 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 5 of 21 September 24, 2008 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill Concerns about the Navy's proposed remedy include: a. "The source containment, as proposed, is inadequate because the sandy soil cover does not meet low- permeability standards for hazardous waste landfills and there is no lateral containment. [intervening text is evaluated separately below] An example of an integrated containment system is the Mare Island landfill. That application represents integrated source containment. The RCRA Subtitle C cap includes a composite gas vent layer, a geocomposite clay layer, a 60 -mil high- density polyethylene geomembrane, a geocomposite drainage layer, and two feet of cover soil. The 72 -acre landfill site was surrounded by a 7,300 -ft long soil - bentonite slurry wall 25 -ft deep and keyed into a naturally- occurring clay layer underlying the site." (underlining in original) This portion of comment "a." is evaluated in two parts. First, the issue of whether the proposed closure is consistent with typical closures of hazardous waste landfills is covered. Second, the closure of the landfill at the former Mare Island Naval Shipyard is compared with the closure proposed for the IR Site 1 landfill. This evaluation is specific to IR Site 1's Area l a, the portion of the landfill that is proposed to remain in place under a soil cover. Area lb of IR Site 1, the shoreline burn area, is not addressed in the evaluation of this RAB comment, because the Proposed Plan and draft ROD provide that all waste in Area lb will be excavated and hauled for disposal off Alameda Point. Proposed closure at IR Site 1 compared with a typical hazardous waste landfill closure. As the RAB notes, the closure proposed for the landfill does not meet standards for hazardous waste landfills. Nevertheless, the Navy and the environmental regulatory agencies favor the proposed closure. This apparent contradiction is explained as follows: 1) RCRA (Resources Conservation and Recovery Act) regulations and their California analogs specify closure requirements for hazardous waste landfills that were closed after the date of the act (1976). The Navy stopped using the IR Site 1 landfill in 1956, twenty years before RCRA, so the RCRA regulations and their California analogs do not apply. 2) Remedial decisionmaking must be consistent with existing law. That is, all ARARs (Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements) must be satisfied. 3) Even though the RCRA regulations and their California analogs are not applicable to the IR Site 1 landfill, because they postdate its closure, they might be relevant and appropriate. Relevant and appropriate requirements, while not directly applicable, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered that their use is well suited to a particular site. 4) The FS (Feasibility Study) for IR Site 1 concludes that many federal and California regulations for hazardous waste landfill closure are not relevant and appropriate for the IR Site 1 landfill, because they are designed to protect groundwater from waste impacts. The FS reasons that protection provided by 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 6 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill these regulations is unnecessary at the IR Site 1 landfill, because the landfill does not threaten groundwater. The purpose of the IR Site 1 cleanup is to protect recreational users and ecological receptors. This is a different intent from that of the regulations, so they are not both relevant and appropriate. "The medium of concern at IR Site 1 is landfill debris. It is not necessary to engineer a cover to protect groundwater quality that does not appear to be at risk of contamination from the landfill debris.... No impact has occurred from the landfill to groundwater over the past 49 years that would cause exceedances above...criteria in the bay, nor is it considered likely that this condition would change. The VOC [volatile organic compound] plume that has been identified is believed to have resulted from chemicals associated with base activities such as aircraft engine repair and maintenance rather than with landfill debris. "...One purpose of the [hazardous waste landfill closure] requirements...is protection of groundwater from the landfilled wastes. Therefore, the purpose of the landfill closure requirements to prevent downward entry of water and the purpose of the [IR Site 1] action proposed in the FS Report are not the same. The medium regulated or affected by the requirement should match the medium contaminated or affected at [IR Site 1]." (FS, p. B4 -12) The proposed landfill closure does not attempt to limit percolation of rainfall through the landfill, nor does it attempt to prevent migration of groundwater from beneath the landfill to the Bay. This is because the groundwater contamination detected by the Navy's investigation of IR Site 1 appears not to come from the landfilled wastes. However, three future developments may provide information that refutes this conceptual site model of the landfill- groundwater interaction. 1) At meetings of both the RAB and BCT, the Navy committed to increasing the number of groundwater monitoring wells at IR Site 1. The Navy will decide the number and placement of these wells to monitor potential future impacts during the remedial design for the IR Site 1 cleanup. Future monitoring of these wells may detect water contaminated by landfilled wastes. 2) The preliminary remedial design presented at meetings of both the RAB and BCT includes excavating wastes within 200 feet of San Francisco Bay. (This issue is discussed further below.) This excavation activity may develop infoiniation that shows migration of water contaminated by landfilled wastes to the Bay. 3) Groundwater contamination at IR Site 1 is assumed predominantly to be the result of aircraft parts storage and maintenance activities in the area. Treating this groundwater plume may develop information that shows migration to the Bay of groundwater contaminated by landfilled wastes. 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 7 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill If any one of these future developments were to occur, the Navy and environmental regulatory agencies would have to reconsider the remedial decisions for the IR Site 1 landfill. The conceptual site model upon which the remedial decisions were based would need revision and the ROD for IR Site 1 would be amended as needed. Further cleanup in light of the revised conceptual site model may be required. This may include upgrading the soil cover to an impermeable cap, installing a slurry wall to control lateral migration of groundwater, and /or, conceivably, excavation of some or all of the landfill. Proposed closure at IR Site 1 compared with landfill closure at the MINS (former Mare Island Naval Shipyard). Wastes were landfilled at MINS from 1910 through 1978. For much of this time, all shipyard wastes were disposed in this way. Extensive groundwater contamination is present as a result of these disposal practices. As the RAB's comment notes, a portion (about 72 acres) of the waste disposal area at MINS is enclosed with a slurry wall to prevent lateral migration of contaminated groundwater. Within the slurry wall, a low - permeability cap, typical of modern hazardous waste landfills, limits infiltration of rainfall. The cap includes a landfill gas handling system, to manage methane and other landfill gases generated by the buried wastes. The MINS landfill is similar to the IR Site 1 landfill in many aspects, but differs in others. The similarities include: 1. received waste from a large, industrialized Navy base; 2. nearby sensitive wetland environment; 3. relatively shallow bay mud is present, which limits downward migration of groundwater; 4. groundwater is not used for human consumption; 5. ecological receptors may be exposed to migrating groundwater; 6. closure is designed to prevent human and ecological receptors from contacting the landfilled refuse and soil contamination; 7. excavated contaminated soil and waste is relocated for consolidation within the landfill; and 8. institutional controls limit future land uses. Differences between the closure of the MINS landfill and the IR Site 1 landfill include: 1. widespread groundwater contamination occurs at MINS from landfilled wastes, requiring a closure designed to prevent percolation of rainfall into the landfill and a slurry wall to manage lateral migration of groundwater; but widespread groundwater contamination has not been detected at IR Site 1; 2. active landfill gas production occurs at MINS necessitating a landfill gas handling system as part of the landfill closure, but little landfill gas has been detected at the IR Site 1 landfill and cleanup plans include a verification soil gas sampling program only; and 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 8 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill 3. RCRA is applicable for a portion of the MINS landfill, but all of the IR Site 1 landfill predates the RCRA regulations. In summary, two important differences exist between the MINS landfill and the IR Site 1 landfill. First, extensive groundwater contamination from the buried wastes is present at the MINS landfill. At IR Site 1, existing information supports the presumption that groundwater contamination arises predominantly from aircraft parts storage and maintenance activities that were conducted in the area. More thorough groundwater monitoring in the future will evaluate whether this presumption continues to be valid. Accordingly, current remedial decisionmaking is not predicated on controlling migration of groundwater from the landfill. Second, the RCRA regulations are applicable to a substantial portion of the MINS landfill, because waste burial practices continued there after the effective date of these regulations. Waste disposal at the IR Site 1 landfill stopped in 1956, two decades before RCRA was enacted. Therefore, RCRA requirements are relevant and appropriate for the IR Site 1 landfill only to the extent they address issues germane to IR Site 1, such as monitoring, maintenance, erosion control, and site security. "The most southern waste cell apparently overlaps the shoreline and also contains radiologically impacted materials." The RAB makes an important observation with this comment. Historical aerial photographs are unclear about how close the southernmost waste disposal cell encroaches on the Bay. However, this ambiguity is justification for addressing the issue further. At the August 19, 2008, BCT meeting and the September 4, 2008, RAB meeting, the Navy outlined its proposed remedial design plans for IR Site 1. One component of the remediation is setback excavation and backfilling along the western shoreline of IR Site 1. To ensure no wastes slide into the Bay during an earthquake, the proposed remedial action would excavate soil and wastes, including any radioactive contamination, to a depth of four feet within a swath about 200 feet wide along the shoreline. (The exact width to be excavated will be determined by seismic stability modeling that has not been conducted yet.) After excavation, the area will be backfilled with clean soil that is compacted for improved seismic stability. The Navy is proposing to relocate the excavated material beneath the soil cover to be installed over the IR Site 1 landfill. After this proposed remedial measure (discussed above) is implemented, the Navy will have addressed the RAB's comment about the southernmost landfill cell encroaching on the Bay. The excavation will expose any wastes, including radioactive contamination, within its footprint. If wastes are found to extend to the Bay at a depth deeper than the four -foot excavation depth, then the conceptual site model, upon which the ROD is based, will be fundamentally incorrect. The Navy and environmental regulatory agencies will have to revisit this aspect of the clean -up decisionmaking and 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 9 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill b. potentially modify the clean -up plan. Otherwise, the backfilled clean soil will provide assurance that no waste is in contact with the Bay along this shoreline. This comment also appears in the RAB's comment letter about the Navy's trenching report. (see page 18, below) That comment letter includes a copy of Figure 1 -1 from the trenching report to illustrate this point. However, it should be noted that the copy of Figure 1 -1 that is attached to the RAB's comment letter shows the southernmost cell overlapping a line that confusingly and erroneously appears to be the shoreline. The line representing the true shoreline is too faint on the original Figure 1 -1 (in the Navy's trenching report) to reproduce easily by photocopying. The line overlapped by the southernmost cell on the comment letter's copy of Figure 1 -1 appears to be the shoreline, but is not. That line is labeled "RMA Boundary ", which defines the Radiological Materials Area, and is about 70 feet inland of the true shoreline. A clearer copy of Figure 1 -1 is attached to this evaluation. On the attached figure, the faint gray line, which has a bold yellow dashed line superimposed upon much of its length, represents the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. Unfortunately, this line representing the shoreline is not labeled on the figure and does not appear in the figure's legend. "The Navy has recently said that a rodent barrier and plastic sheet will be added to the top cover, but this has not yet been documented in writing and there aren't any design specifics." According to the Navy's proposed remedial design, which it described at meetings of both the BCT and RAB, an engineered layer of rocks within the soil cover will be used to prevent burrowing animals from digging deep enough to reach the buried wastes. Details of this landfill cover feature will appear in the remedial design document that the Navy prepares before it begins field activities. The Navy plans to issue the draft remedial design document for review and comment by the end of 2008. The ARRA and the RAB can review the remedial design and submit a critique if the detailed design of the burrowing- animal barrier appears inappropriate in any way. Landfill covers used to protect groundwater from contamination by the wastes have certain design elements, such as plastic sheets to prevent percolation of rainfall and barriers to prevent rodents from creating burrows through which rainfall could easily enter the landfill. This type of groundwater protection is not a design consideration for the Navy's proposed soil cover because groundwater contamination from the landfilled wastes has not been detected. Accordingly, the plastic sheet is not needed and the purpose of the rodent barrier is to protect the health of the rodents and to prevent them from carrying buried wastes to the surface. "The integrity of the top cover may be compromised by liquefaction and sand boils as a result of a large earthquake. There is considerable doubt as to whether the Navy will be able to design the top cap to resist damage during and /or following a large earthquake in 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 10 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill the S. F. Bay area. There is nothing to show that four feet of cover will prevent radioactivity or other toxic materials from being brought to the surface by liquefaction as a result of a major earthquake. The Navy says that the seismic design of the cap will be addressed during the remedial design phase. However, there may be no practical, economic way of preventing such liquefaction. The Navy took the position during the May 2008 RAB meeting that geysers and sand boils will not occur at Site 1. However, there is ample scientific evidence that liquefaction has occurred in poorly consolidated sandy fill areas during both the 1906 earthquake and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. During the Loma Prieta event, liquefaction occurred in the Marina District in San Francisco, at Treasure Island, and along the Cypress freeway in Oakland. Sand boils occurred on Treasure Island during the Loma Prieta seismic event (see the attached photos showing these sand boils). Sand boils and/or geysers represent the conversion of kinetic energy from the seismic shaking into pore (or static) pressure. This pore pressure can cause liquefaction and /or sand boils. Whether or not sand boils or geysers result, of course, will depend on the violence and duration of the earth movement. The sand boils that happened on Treasure Island during the Loma Prieta event evidence the fact that this can occur. The photos indicate that holes 2 to 3 ft in diameter were created and that sand and subsurface water were ejected from the holes. The Feasibility Study for Site 1, in fact, reported that evidence of liquefaction also was observed at IR Site 1 after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The Navy's seismic stability study showed 20 ft of lateral displacement of the shoreline and 1 `/z ft of vertical displacement in the cover material after a major seismic event. "It is important that the bayside stability of Site 1 be maintained both to prevent disposed waste materials from being directly released into S. F. Bay, and to maintain the shoreline integrity of the planned park and golf course. The earlier study proposed a rock column/soil cement barrier along the bayside of Site 1. The Navy has retreated from that recommendation and has said that the bayside stability would be achieved by a method to be determined during the remedial design phase. The writer asked, and was assured, that access would be provided to the Site 1 beach area during the July 16, 2008 site tour. However, that area had been fenced off and freshly placed rip rap made it impossible to determine whether shoreline erosion had occurred or whether waste material had been exposed to the Bay. One possible solution to shoreline instability that has been mentioned by the Navy is the use of "seismic vents ". Such vents would consist of perforated pipes filled with gravel. They would allow pore pressure, which might cause liquefaction, to be vented to the surface during a seismic event. Such venting could also cause toxic materials and radiologically contaminated soil to be released to the surface." (underlining in original) The RAB comment is absolutely correct: an earthquake can cause both liquefaction and sand boils, as well as other types of ground failure. As the comment notes, the type and degree of ground failure depends on the magnitude and duration of earth movement. 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 11 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill c. d. The Navy's approach to providing for seismic stability has two components. First, shoreline setback excavation and backfilling with compacted clean soil addresses the hazard of shoreline failure during an earthquake, with potential landfill material sliding into the Bay. Second, seismic damage to the landfill cover itself, including liquefaction and sand boils, would be repaired pursuant to an operations and maintenance plan. "The Navy would comply with landfill cover seismic requirements...as described below. The fill materials underlying the Area 1 soil cover are potentially liquefiable. This landfill was located and used prior to the regulations being promulgated. The Navy would comply with the intent of these potentially relevant and appropriate ARARs by providing for any necessary repairs of the soil cover following significant damage by a potential future earthquake. This repair program would be documented in an O &M plan prepared during remedial design." (FS, p. B4 -13) At a BCT meeting, the DTSC expressed its desire for the Navy to include in its remedial design the selection and installation of cover soil so as to provide some degree of seismic stability. The Navy was noncommittal in its response. It is anticipated that this issue will receive considerable scrutiny during the environmental regulatory agencies' review of the draft remedial design document, which the Navy expects to release for review and comment in December 2008. "Ground squirrels, gophers and other burrowing animals may penetrate the cover and bayside perimeter. The four -foot cover thickness was selected to provide 2 ft of cover, plus 2 ft to protect against penetration by ground squirrels. The Navy cited a study in the Site 2 Remedial Investigation that ground squirrels do not dig holes deeper than 2 feet. The writer's personal observations are that ground squirrels often dig their burrows along banks. On Bay Farm Island, the squirrels have burrows at the top of the shoreline and have a labyrinth of burrows under the rip rap. These burrows appear to go parallel to the slope for 10 or 15 ft. Also, burrowing owls use the burrows abandoned by ground squirrels and jack rabbits. The owls enlarge and extend the burrows up to a depth of seven feet. Gophers burrow as deep as 6 feet to create nest and food storage chambers." (underlining in original) This comment appears to be supporting infoaiation for a portion of RAB comment "a. ", on page 9 above. As explained earlier, the Navy has committed to an engineered layer of rocks within the soil cover to prevent penetration by burrowing animals. Design details for this barrier are to appear in the Navy's upcoming remedial design document. "The trenching study has shown that radiologically impacted soil is widely scattered . within the waste cell area. Physical isolation by the top cover may be compromised by a 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 12 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill e. major seismic event and/or penetration by burrowing animals. Maintenance personnel for the proposed shoreline park and golf course (or restored wetlands) will not be equipped with radiation detectors and likely will not be trained in radiological removal or recognize the danger presented by surface releases of soil contaminated by radioactive and toxic materials." (underlining in original) The RAB highlights a very real concern with this comment. This issue is indirectly addressed in the context of two evaluations appearing above. First, if properly designed and implemented, the barrier within the landfill cover will effectively preclude burrowing animals from contacting the landfill contents. Since they will be unable to access the landfill contents, burrowing animals will not bring to the surface any radiologically impacted soil or waste from below the barrier. Second, the Navy plans to develop an operations and maintenance plan for the landfill that includes repair of the soil cover in the event of an earthquake. This plan should provide for closure of the IR Site 1 area following an earthquake, until inspection and any needed repairs can be conducted. Both of these issues will be developed more fully in the Navy's upcoming remedial design document, which will be available for review and comment in draft form. "In -situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) may not be effective in treating the solvent plume because the injected oxidants may force the contaminants away from the injection points. Subsurface heterogeneities and preferential flow paths can cause uneven distribution of the oxidant, resulting in untreated pockets of contaminants. Because the volatile plume is close to the shoreline, there is a danger that the injection of oxidants will displace the plume into the Bay. Also, within the ISCO treatment zone, changes in the oxidation states and /or pH may result in the mobilization of radium and other toxic metals. If you have high concentrations of contaminants in a well - defined plume, there is a good opportunity to remove a lot of mass by pumping and treating. Later, ISCO could be used for polishing." (underlining in original) This comment enumerates many of the complicating factors with in situ treatment of contaminated groundwater, and with ISCO in particular. The Navy has yet to develop the details of how ISCO will be implemented, and how ISCO will be monitored to ensure it does not cause unintended consequences, such as mobilization of radium or metals, and /or migration of the groundwater plume into the Bay. These design details and others will be clarified by the Navy's upcoming remedial design document. On September 18, 2008, the ARRA's environmental consultant met with several RAB members to discuss their comment letter. During that meeting, a more robust groundwater treatment strategy become was devised. First, the Navy should thoroughly sample and analyze the groundwater to fully understand the nature and extent of the contamination. Second, hydraulic control of the groundwater in the vicinity of the contamination should be established. This likely would involve pumping. Only then should ISCO be implemented, and only with intensive groundwater monitoring to assess 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 13 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill f. g. ISCO's effectiveness and to ensure contaminants do not migrate beyond the treatment zone. As the comment notes, contaminant mobilization sometimes occurs with in situ treatment for two reasons: the injected chemicals tend to displace contaminated groundwater, and contaminants that are nomially immobile can transform so as to become mobile. Finally, once ISCO achieves the cleanup goals, the normal geochemical character of the groundwater must be restored. If ISCO treatment mobilizes metals, radium, or any other contaminants, the Navy must render them immobile again before discontinuing hydraulic control of groundwater in the area. Before implementing ISCO treatment, the Navy must show that unintended consequences, such as mobilization of metals and /or radium beyond the treatment zone, will not occur. Contingency measures should be developed to address any unintended consequences quickly and effectively. If ISCO treatment is not as effective as intended, or if it causes any of the unintended consequences this comment mentions, the treatment method may have to be modified or an entirely different clean -up approach used, such as pump and treat. Remedy failure of the ISCO alternative would result in another treatment technology being used. It would not mean that the groundwater clean -up goals are unachievable. ISCO produces results quickly, and unintended consequences will be closely monitored. If ISCO were not to work properly, there will be ample opportunity to institute other groundwater clean -up measures. "The high concentrations (exceeding 100,000 u,g /L) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the groundwater plume indicate that dense non - aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) probably are present under the plume. The Proposed Plan for Site 1 states that DNAPLs may be present. These DNAPLs have a tendency to make the bay mud aquitard more permeable. Thus, it would be expected that pathways might open up for contaminants to flow into the second water - bearing zone." (underlining in original) Most groundwater contamination at IR Site 1 is in the shallowest aquifer. However, as the RAB states, VOCs can desiccate clays, such as the bay mud, causing cracks through which contaminated groundwater can migrate downward. Currently, few contaminants have been detected in the second water - bearing zone beneath the DNAPL area, and those are present only at low levels. The RAB comment underscores the importance of cleaning up IR Site l's groundwater contamination without further delay. "The radium hazard is not whole body radiation, but rather, internal via inhalation and ingestion. Radium is a bone - seeker that can cause bone cancer, leukemia, or lung cancer if it gets into the body. Direct contact with radiologically impacted soil and toxic materials brought to the surface in the future poses an inhalation and ingestion hazard to 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 14 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill h. adults and children who might come into contact with such exposed materials. The 1,600 - year half -life of radium brings into question the long -term containment integrity due to seismic activity, shoreline erosion, burrowing animals, and site inundation (global climate change and tsunamis). Note that even without the effects of man -made greenhouse gases, the Bay water level has risen 25 to 30 ft over the last 3,500 years. The Navy has said that it does not have to design for rising sea levels, but it is illogical to design for some physical phenomena and not others." (underlining in original) Unquestionably, exposure to radium can involve serious human health risks. Fortunately, throughout IR Site 1, radium has been observed only at relatively low levels —high enough to require remediation, but not exceptionally high. The comment speaks to several mechanisms by which radium exposure might occur: shoreline failure, landfill contents brought to the surface by burrowing animals, and earthquake damage to the landfill cover. These concerns are discussed above in the evaluation of other RAB comments. (Please see pages 8, 9, and 11.) As sea level rises, wastes left in place at IR Site 1 will be inundated. Yet, sea level rise is not specifically addressed in any of the remedial decision documents for IR Site 1. Because the remediation is not intended to prevent the landfill from being exposed to groundwater or rainfall, exposure to shallower groundwater caused by sea level rise likely would not change the current situation. However, global climate change might involve stronger wave action from storms than occurs now. By all accounts, the rate of global climate change is measured in years, slowly enough to implement further remediation as appropriate. Transfer documents for this land should ensure that responsibility for such contingent future remediation remains with the Navy, as intended by CERCLA. "The presentation by SunCal on August 7, 2008 showed the western portion of the `northwest territories' being used for wetlands restoration, with return to Bay wetlands instead of a golf course. If it is planned to excavate portions of Site 1 to create permanent wetlands, this appears incompatible with leaving large quantities of uncharacterized wastes and radiologically impacted soil in place under a cap. In fact, the creation of an engineered cap in such a situation appears wasteful. There needs to be closer coordination between the Navy, the City of Alameda, and the developers regarding cleanup, restoration, and development plans." (underlining in original) Building wetlands on a landfill is inappropriate, as the RAB's comment clearly articulates. If the Navy demonstrates that all of the landfilled wastes have been excavated and removed, and that the backfilled soil has no high contaminant levels, then redevelopment as a wetland may be appropriate. SunCal has made no proposal to the RAB, the Navy, the environmental regulatory agencies, or the ARRA to create wetlands at IR Site 1. As the RAB's comment suggests, the developer should be required to closely coordinate any redevelopment plans for IR Site 1 with all interested parties. 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 15 of 21 September 24, 2008 Analysis of the Trenching Report Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill "Exploratory trenches were excavated within the waste cell area (Area 1a) of Site 1. The stated objectives of the trenching were to: a. Verify waste volume estimates. b. Confirm the absence of intact drums. "The final report on the exploratory trenching was issued on May 16, 2008. The findings were as follows: a. The total waste volume within the cells could be between 94,000 and 133,000 cubic yards (cy). This corresponds to a tonnage range of from 141,000 to 200,000 tons. This can be compared to a range of between 15,000 and 200,000 tons used in the Feasibility Study Report. b. No intact drums were found. c. Although approximately 25 % of the waste volume had radiation levels above the Navy's criterion for removal (6,000 counts per minute), the study states "... It should not be inferred that the distribution of radiological contamination in the excavations is consistent throughout the volume that was radiologically impacted, nor should it be inferred that this distribution would be consistent throughout the site ". (Emphasis added)" (underlining in original) After the ARRA reviewed the Navy's draft ROD for IR Site 1 in 2007, the ARRA sent a letter to USEPA. One of the major points the ARRA's letter makes is "Uncertainty regarding whether or not large amounts of hazardous industrial wastes and intact drums are buried in Area 1 a is a data gap that should be investigated before final remedy selection." This is an important point, because the presence of drums would undercut a fundamental Navy assumption: the landfilled wastes are not contaminating groundwater. However, if intact drums are still prevalent in the landfill, their eventual failure likely would cause groundwater contamination. This should be prevented by properly designing the landfill remediation. USEPA agreed with the ARRA's position and worked to obtain Navy agreement to trench the landfill to evaluate the prevalence of intact drums and to allow better estimation of the waste volume. "It is also noteworthy that little or no evidence of municipal (household) wastes was found, only construction debris (concrete, bricks, pipes, glass, and wood) interspersed in the soil. This may account for the statement by Mr. Pat Brooks, the Navy's Base Environmental Coordinator, during the aborted tour of Site 1, that a lot of municipal wastes were excavated from Site 1 before construction of the runway. He said that he thinks the wastes went to Site 2. This raises questions about where the wastes from Site 1 were deposited in Site 2 and how municipal wastes could have been transferred without taking along interspersed toxics and radiological contamination. If the Navy excavated a substantial volume of wastes from Site 1, and the Navy can document where this occurred (e.g., under the runway), then the cost of excavation and removal of the remaining wastes would be much less than estimated in the Proposed Plan ($92 million)." (underlining in original) 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 16 of 21 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB September 24, 2008 Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill The RAB's comment is good, but it does not emphasize how little debris was found during the exploratory trenching. The amount of waste encountered by trenching into the landfill is much less than anticipated. IR Site 1 was to have contained all of the base's wastes produced between 1943 and 1956. It is remarkable that none of the 11 trenches came across a classic deposit of landfilled waste. One thought is that when runways were constructed over a portion of the landfill, the buried material would have been relocated due to geotechnical unsuitability. The RAB's comment suggests Mr. Brooks has knowledge of relocating wastes from IR Site 1 to IR Site 2, the Navy's closed landfill south of IR Site 1. Mr. Brooks has stated that he has no direct knowledge of the Navy relocating IR Site 1 landfilled material, and that he was only speculating. Nevertheless, waste relocation is probably the most plausible explanation for not finding the landfill and encountering only minor amounts of debris during trenching. The existence of landfilled wastes at IR Site 1 is central to the conceptual site model. Based on the results of the Navy's exploratory trenching, little or no waste remains in the waste disposal cells that are prominent in historic aerial photographs. The working presumption should now be that the Navy already excavated and removed the landfill. IR Site 1 no longer has a landfill, except potentially in the burn area. Perhaps the Navy's speculation that IR Site 1 wastes were relocated to the IR Site 2 landfill is correct. Another plausible explanation is that only noncombustible wastes were relocated to the IR Site 2 landfill, and combustible wastes instead were burned in Area lb then pushed into the Bay. Regardless of which explanation is correct, remedial decisionmaking should not proceed on the basis of such fundamental misconceptions in the conceptual site model. A better path forward is to reduce the scope of the IR Site 1 ROD to (1) cleanup of the groundwater contamination, and (2) excavation of all wastes in Area lb (the shoreline burn area) with off -site disposal. These two components of the ROD are in most need of immediate implementation. The balance of IR Site 1 should be administratively transferred to IR Site 32, as has already been done for IR Site 1's Areas 2a, 3a, and 3b. As part of IR Site 32, the former landfill site's remedial investigation can be supplemented with verification that all wastes were removed and with chemical and radiological characterization of the soil backfilled into the space the wastes had occupied before they were relocated. After this critical data gap is filled, the location of the former landfill can proceed through the normal Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan, and ROD decisionmaking process as part of IR Site 32. "The Navy still has not adequately characterized the contents of the waste cells. According to the Spring 2007 Basewide Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, IR Site 1 accepted all of the solid waste generated at Alameda Point between 1943 and 1956. Wastes included municipal garbage, construction debris, transformers, cleaning solvents, oil /lubricants, ordnance and explosive waste, and radiological materials such as radium dials and buttons. There was a golden opportunity to take samples and analyze them for toxics during the exploratory trenching. Unfortunately, the Navy was explicit that they were not going to characterize the wastes and that they were only trying to prove the absence of intact drums (a negative objective). Even though 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 17of21 September 24, 2008 the Navy said they weren't going to characterize the wastes, measurements of radioactivity were made during the trenching operations." It is correct that the IR Site 1 landfill has not been characterized. Navy and environmental regulatory agencies discussions on how to implement the trenching effort illustrate their reasoning about whether to chemically analyze samples of the landfill material. A landfill's principal threats to public health and the environment involve: (1) direct contact with the waste, (2) groundwater contamination, and (3) landfill gas generation. The draft ROD specifies installation of an isolating soil cover to prevent contact with the landfill's contents. Groundwater contamination from the landfill appears not to be occurring. The landfill appears not to be producing appreciable amounts of landfill gas. Accordingly, full characterization of the landfill's contents unlikely would change any aspect of the cleanup decision. Further, the inherent variability within a typical landfill makes full characterization extremely difficult. Radioactivity measurements were made during landfill trenching for worker health and safety, and to determine whether the material dug up had to be hauled offsite or could be backfilled into the trench. Radioactivity was not measured in an effort to characterize the landfill per se, although the measurements provide valuable insight to the nature of the landfilled material. Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill "Figure 1 -1 from the trenching report is attached and has been annotated by the writer. Note that five of the trenches were located relatively close to the walls separating the waste cells. These locations have been circled in the figure. If the locations of these trenches were off only slightly, the trenches may have been cut into the walls between the cells or into the sloping portions of the walls. Thus, it would not be surprising if little or no waste debris were found." This RAB observation is correct. The locations of the trenches were decided by the Navy and environmental regulatory agencies as follows. Ideally, two trenches would be dug in each landfill cell: one near the center and one near the edge. This strategy attempts to establish whether the landfill cells have relatively constant depths or are shallower near the edges. The bottom shape of the cells is important to estimating the volumes of the cells. As the comment notes, this strategy for locating the trenches depends on knowing where the edges of the landfill cells are. The landfill cell edges can be identified reasonably well from historic aerial photographs. Due to avoidance of runways and wetlands, not every cell was trenched at the center and the edge. Three of the seven cells have only one trench each. Of the four cells with two trenches each, no trend is apparent in the trench logs between the center and the edge trenches as to thickness of refuse, amount of refuse, type of refuse, or amount of radioactivity. In view of the scarcity of waste encountered by the trenches, one must presume the landfill is no longer present at IR Site 1. This is consistent with the Navy's speculation that the Navy relocated landfilled wastes from IR Site 1 to IR Site 2, a more plausible explanation for not finding any waste than that all of the trenches encountered only the walls between the landfill cells. 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 18 of 21 September 24, 2008 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill "Of the eleven trenches, seven showed some excessive radioactive contamination (as indicated on the trenching logs for the respective trenches). Perhaps more significantly, six of the seven cells had some radioactively contaminated soil in the excavated soil. "Consider the carefully worded conclusion of the trenching report, i.e., that it should not be inferred that the radiological contamination is consistent throughout the waste volume. The word "consistent" can be taken as meaning uniform or at the same concentrations throughout. Certainly no one would expect that. What can be reasonably concluded is that radioactive contamination of the subsurface material is widely scattered throughout the waste cells (but not uniformly)." (underlining in original) This comment is correct. It reinforces a key finding of the trenching exercise: radioactive contamination is widely scattered throughout the waste cells, but not uniformly. One implication of this finding is that any material that is excavated from the area will have to be tested for radioactivity, and much of it likely will require offsite disposal at a landfill that is permitted to accept radioactive wastes. California has no such landfills. Radioactive soil dug up by the exploratory trenching was transported to Texas and Utah for disposal. "Another observation from Figure 1 -1 is that the southernmost cell (in which trench T -6 was excavated) overlaps or abuts the shoreline. This indicates that either wastes from this cell are currently exposed to the Bay or that they could easily be exposed by minor shoreline erosion in the future." (underlining in original) This comment is similar to one of the points made in Comment "a." of the RAB's "Deficiencies in the Proposed Plan" letter. The evaluation of this comment appears on page 8. "Note also the notation from the T -6 trench log that all the excavated soil from this cell was radioactively impacted. One would expect some radioactive contamination of the adjacent beach area." This comment is well- taken. The comment might be founded in part on the confusing "RMA Boundary ", which appears to be the shoreline on the copy of Figure 1 -1 that is attached to the RAB's comment letter. However, the Navy proposes to test shoreline soil, including the beaches, (Area 5) and relocate any hot spots above screening criteria to beneath the soil cover to be installed over the landfill. This testing will evaluate whether there is radiological contamination of the beach area. When the details of this remediation are explained in the remedial design document, inclusion of radioactivity criteria in the screening must be verified. "It is also significant that little or no municipal (household) wastes were found and that Mr. Brooks stated that such wastes were moved to Site 2. The Navy early on relied on the presence of municipal rather than industrial wastes as justifying the "presumptive remedy" of source containment. It appears that the justification for the "presumptive remedy" has been substantially weakened." 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 19 of 21 September 24, 2008 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill As the comment notes, the Navy early on used the "presumptive remedy" of source containment in its clean -up decisionmaking. However, in large part due to the ARRA's June 25, 2007 letter to USEPA, the Navy dropped the "presumptive remedy" approach. "Presumptive remedy" is not mentioned in either the Proposed Plan or the ROD for IR Site 1. "From the report and accompanying photographs, it appears that trenching only went down 7 or 8 ft from the surface to the groundwater level. There could be wastes buried deeper. It is likely that groundwater and the depth of the bay mud aquitard do not coincide. If the wastes were used as fill, the wastes could extend down to the original level of the Bay's bottom (i.e. sand or mud). See the attached figure from a presentation by the Navy's former Remedial Project Manager, Mr. Rick Weissenborn, that shows the sea level 8 ft below the surface, but fill going down to about 25 ft below grade or 17 ft below sea level. One can reasonably assume that the groundwater level is approximately at, or slightly above, sea level." Landfill material likely is not present below the bottoms of the trenches, but cannot be ruled out. First, the trenching work plan requires trenching down, until waste is no longer encountered, without regard to whether groundwater has been reached. The field crews continued digging until they believed waste residues were no longer present. This mush have been a difficult task, given the scarcity of readily identifiable waste at any depth. Second, the chronology of IR Site 1 is that the Navy first filled the Bay in that area with dredge spoils, as with much of the rest of Alameda Point, then excavated basins or trenches through the filled dredge spoils to landfill the wastes. Due to sloughing and other geotechnical instability of the filled dredge spoils, the Navy would have had great difficulty excavating the basins or trenches much below the water table. The figure "Recommended Geotechnical Alternative ", to which the comment refers, is attached to the RAB's comment letter. The RAB likely misinterpreted the figure due to its ambiguous labeling. On the figure, the soil layer labeled "FILL" most likely refers to a layer consisting of both the dredge spoils that were placed upon the native bay mud and the wastes later landfilled into the dredge spoils. This interpretation is most logical for geotechnical considerations, which is the subject of the figure. The comment assumes the layer labeled "FILL" represents landfilled material, an unlikely interpretation stemming from the ambiguity of the figure's labeling. "Aerial photos of the Site 1 waste cells (from the Feasibility Study) appear to show ponds in the bottom of at least two cells. This indicates that the excavations went substantially below the groundwater levels." This interpretation of the aerial photographs, that water is present in the bottoms of some of the excavations, is reasonable. However, it is much more difficult to discern from the photographs how deep the water is. The excavations might extend substantially below the groundwater levels, but that conclusion is difficult to reach based on these aerial photographs. 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 20 of 21 September 24, 2008 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB Comment Letters re 1943 -56 Landfill Conclusion "The trenching report demonstrates that a substantial fraction of the material buried in the waste cell area is radiologically impacted. Further, this radiologically- impacted material is widespread and randomly scattered. If this material finds its way to the surface in the future, it will have to be removed from the site because it is radiologically impacted at levels (> 6,000 counts per minute) that are unacceptably high." This conclusion to the RAB's comment letter is accurate and thoroughly supported by the current understanding of IR Site 1. SUMMARY and CONCLUSION Most of the RAB's points identify important considerations for proper remediation of IR Site 1. Many issues raised by the RAB appear to have been addressed by preliminary design plans the Navy recently described to the RAB and the environmental regulatory agencies: improving seismic stability along the shoreline, including a rodent barrier in the landfill cover, and augmenting the network of perimeter groundwater monitoring wells. Whether other key RAB issues are dealt with appropriately will not be known until the Navy designs the cleanup plan. Implementation of groundwater treatment is the most prominent example of this type of issue. The RAB comments directed toward management of water within the landfill are likely overly conservative, because the groundwater contamination that has been detected at IR Site 1 appears to come predominantly from aircraft parts storage and maintenance activities, rather than the landfilled wastes. This presumption is subject to change should it be determined that groundwater contamination comes from landfill wastes. The Navy dug eleven exploratory trenches into the IR -1 landfill in September 2007. Remarkably, none of the trenches found any landfilled waste. Although many of the trenches encountered soil with minor amounts of concrete, wood, metal, and other debris, no landfill deposits were found. The presumption now should be that the IR -1 landfill is no longer there. One likely scenario is that the landfilled wastes were relocated to IR Site 2, the Navy's newer landfill to the south. This probably occurred in the 1950s when the Navy built a new runway over the IR Site 1 landfill. Another possibility is that, upon excavation, any combustible wastes were burned in the shoreline burn area, and only the incombustible waste was relocated. Regardless of which explanation is correct, the current conceptual site model, which is the foundation of all of the IR Site 1 clean -up decisions, is fundamentally flawed. A better path forward is to further investigate the footprint of the former IR Site 1 landfill to verify that all wastes have been removed and to chemically and radiologically characterize the backfilled soil. Then the conceptual site model should be updated to reflect actual site conditions. However, the shoreline burn area, and the groundwater plume need prompt cleanup. The current configuration of IR Site 1 should be split into two parts. Clean -up of groundwater and the burn area should move forward as expeditiously as possible. The rest of IR Site 1 should shift to a separate decisionmaking /cleanup track, potentially by combining with the adjacent IR Site 32. 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 21 of 21 September 24, 2008 Evaluation of Alameda Point RAB Comment Letters re 1943-56 Landfill DCN: ECSD-2201-0D15-0005.R1 PPROVED 8?: KW CHECKED BY: 1.8 0 cn cc DATE: 10/19/07 FORMER SK AND TARGET RANGE :2) A. N ;'1 C)R NER AIR GR AR --D" cD ND PART SI OR ACE F OR M E R Fr' S TOL DOR M ENIE A tqD TAR G E E'ZANGE. E M t SCALE IN FEET LEGEND IR SITE 1 AND 32 BOUNDARIES DISPOSAL AREA BOUNDARY SEASONAL WETLAND BOUNDARY RMA BOUNDARY TRENCH LOCATIONS SEASONAL WETLAND AREA DISPOSAL CELL Figure 1-1 TRENCH LOCATIONS IR SITE 32 AND THE SHORELINES OF IR SITES 1 AND 2 ALAMEDA POINT — ALAMEDA, CA TETRA TECH 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Russell Resources, Inc. Item 4 -A environmental management Highlights of Alameda Point RAB Meeting on September 4, 2008 RAB members present: George Humphreys (co- chair), Fred Hoffman, Joan Konrad, Jim Leach, Dale Smith, Jim Sweeney, Jean Sweeney, and Michael John Torrey Remediation and other field work in progress: • debris pile removal along north shore of Seaplane Lagoon • removal of radiologically impacted storm drain inside Building 5 • expansion of petroleum remediation system near Atlantic Avenue entrance • groundwater treatment at IR 14 (former fire training area in Northwest Territory) • two large aboveground petroleum storage tanks in Term 1 have been dismantled and the scrap metal recycled off site • the petroleum remediation system at the southern end of the western hangar row is operational and extracting from the ground much more leaked jet fuel than was expected IR Site 1 Proposed Remedial Design /Remedial Action Presentation: • AMEC has been awarded a Navy contract for up to $20 million for remediation of IR Site 1 and investigation of radioactively contaminated soil immediately to the east. • Eastern portions of IR Site 1 soil have been transferred to IR Site 32 because hotspots of radioactivity are more widespread than expected. • The Navy described its plans for cleaning up Area lb, the shoreline area where wastes were burned and pushed into the Bay. The Proposed Plan and draft ROD provide that all waste will be excavated and disposed off site. • The preliminary clean -up design for IR Site 1 includes excavating a 200 -foot wide, 4 -foot deep swath of soil along the shoreline and replacing it with compacted clean soil. The excavated soil will be placed under the sol cover proposed for the landfill. This measure is design to improve the shoreline's seismic stability and address the potential for wastes to slide into the Bay during an earthquake. • During discussion of the proposed groundwater cleanup at IR Site 1, several RAB members voiced concern that groundwater treatment not cause contamination, perhaps mobilized by the treatment itself, to migrate into the Bay. The Navy acknowledged these concerns and will provide further details as the remedial design progresses. At several points during the meeting, SunCal's proposal to create a wetland in the Northwest Territory arose. The Navy clarified that SunCal's idea is highly conceptual and that any formal proposal would be coordinated with the Navy and the environmental regulators before development occurs. 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600