|
Press Release
The attached technical report was prepared by Arc Ecology to provide
background information to the Community First Coalition. Arc Ecology
reviewed the Navy’s Remedial Investigation and supplementary
reports and technical memorandum to compile this information. This
report shows that actual contents of the landfill remain ill defined
and largely unknown.
This is because the Navy has conducted very little investigation
to determine exactly what is in the landfill. The Navy deemed such
information unnecessary because the Navy (and regulators) never
seriously considered removing the landfill. Rather, the Navy wants
to cap the landfill (cover it up).
Most of the sampling in and around the landfill was intended to
help the Navy define the extent of the contaminated area so they
know how large a cover to build. Consequently most of the soil borings
and test pits were not located in the thickest parts of the debris
zones, but along the edges. Furthermore, boring log and test pits
inventory only what the environmental technicians saw. Liquid wastes
might not be seen.
Hunters Point Landfill: The Inside Story
A Technical Briefing for the Community First Coalition
By Chris Shirley, Arc Ecology
September 14,2000
Comments on Results of Water, Soil, and Air Sampling Collected
Because of the Hunters Point Fire
Soil Sampling
Results of the Navy’s one soil sample are consistent with
the types of contamination known to exist in the landfill area.[1]
Unexpected are the high concentrations of lead, copper, and other
heavy metals very near the surface of the landfill. These surface
water samples show that these toxic metals have the potential to
run off into the Bay during rainfall.
Water Sampling
The Navy’s surface water sample showed significantly elevated
concentrations[2] of heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt
copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc). Petroleum concentrations
were slightly elevated. This is consistent with known types of contamination
in the landfill area. Table 1 shows how elevated concentrations
of contaminants in surface water compare to groundwater trigger
levels developed for Parcel B.[3] Parcel B trigger levels are water
discharge limits that must not be exceeded according to the Parcel
B Record of Decision. They do not apply directly to Parcel E, but
they give a sense of the magnitude of contamination. Parcel E trigger
levels, when developed, are likely to be similar to those developed
for Parcel B, since they focus on protecting Bay ecology.
Table 1: Surface Water Contamination Compared to Parcel B Groundwater
Trigger Levels
Contaminant
Groundwater Trigger Level (ug/l)
Result #1
(ug/l)
Result #2
(ug/l)
Arsenic
36
155
210
Cadmium
9
10.5
19.5
Chromium
16
132
268
Cobalt
20
27.7
41.7
Copper
28
340
530
Lead
14
3980
8840
Mercury
0.6
1.6
2.3
Nickel
97
153
206
Petroleum
1.4[4]
18
7.4
This water sampling data indicates that the Navy must ensure that
water flow from the landfill surface does not flow to the Bay.
The water used to flood the area during the initial firefighting
is thought to have been absorbed into the landfill.[5] This water
is now thought to be “groundwater.” The Navy is not certain
whether the sheet pile wall will catch this water before it hits
the Bay. The Navy is conducting groundwater studies to determine
if and where the firefighting water has collected and whether it
is likely to get into the Bay.[6]
Air Sampling Data
The Navy reported that only benzene was detected above levels of
concern, at 4.6 ug/m3. They reported that typical background concentration
for the area is 1 ug/m3. EPA made the claim that the elevated level
could be as a result of car exhaust. EPA provided no evidence to
support this claim. The Navy’s “Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Analysis” for the groundwater plume removal action shows elevated
levels of benzene in the fire area in groundwater located just below
ground surface (44 micrograms per liter). See Figure 1 of this report.
The benzene in the air could have come from this source. More investigation
is needed.
Landfill Background
The history of the Industrial landfill is not well documented.[7]
Aerial photographs show that the Navy filled a bay inlet with shipyard
wastes from 1958 until 1974 to form the landfill area. The Navy
dumped an estimated 1 million cubic yards of debris in the inlet.[8]
The debris zone is estimated to be 15 feet thick.[9]
Navy records show that little control was placed on disposal of
both solid and liquid chemical materials at the site.[10] In 1959,
the Navy began using the landfill site to dispose of most of its
solid waste.[11] Twenty-one thousand gallons of liquid wastes were
also disposed of in the landfill, including used solvents, paint
sludge, oils, and greases. The Navy disposed of an estimated twenty-six
tons of paint scrapings in the landfill. Prior to 1960 much of the
paint scrapings and sludge contained lead.[12] According to the
Remedial Investigation, the landfill is reported to contain domestic
garbage, construction debris, industrial debris and waste, sandblast
grit, domestic refuse, paints and solvents, paint sludge, waste
oil, oily industrial sand, asbestos-containing material, and a scattering
of radium dials.[13] A source of chlorine gas also exists in the
landfill but exactly what it is remains unknown. Pressurized industrial
tanks are the prime suspect.[14] Boring logs from the area confirm
these reports (see table 2).
Water from the landfill is contaminated with heavy metals, polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), pesticides,
petroleum products, and volatile organic compounds (including benzene).
The source of this contamination is assumed to be from debris in
the landfill. PCBs are thought to pose the greatest threat (to the
Bay) because there are numerous detections well above screening
criteria (trigger levels).[15] Figure 1 shows the location of a
benzene “hit” in the shallow groundwater within the fire
area.
Table 2: Debris described in boring logs and test pits
Wood and metal debris
Wood chips
Sawdust
Lumber
Roofing material
Paper and cardboard
Plastic
Brick fragments
Ceramic tile
Cloth, rags
Asbestos cloth
Coils of copper wire
Wire insulation
Electrical wire
Metal: steel, brass, nails
Bedsprings
Glass
Rubber
Hoses
Asphalt
Paint scrapings
Sandblast grit
5 gallon paint cans
Petroleum waste
Tyvek suits
Radium dials (rare)
Source of chlorine gas
Source: Remedial Investigation, Appendix J
The landfill was not properly engineered. Consequently contamination
has leaked into the Bay. Between 1974 and 1975, the Navy took steps
to stem the flow of contamination from the landfill into the Bay.[16]
They installed a drainage system to divert storm water away from
the landfill area, and covered it with 2 feet of compacted fill.[17]
In 1997, the Navy built a 600 foot steel wall along the shoreline
to help impede the flow of groundwater from the landfill into the
Bay. The wall is made of interlocking steel plates pounded into
the bay mud. It does not extend all the way around the landfill
area. Any water that collects on the shoreline side of the wall
is pumped to the southeast sewage treatment plant.[18] Some of the
fire area is beyond the influence of the sheet pile wall.
Back to Links Back to HP Fire page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] All sampling results are reported in a fax sent by the BRAC
Office to Arc Ecology on September 12, 2000
[2] Reported concentrations were compared to groundwater remediation
goals for Parcel B.
[3] Sampling and Analysis Plan, Parcel B Remedial Action, April
1999
[4] Treasure Island Screening Level
[5] Personal communication with Brad Job, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, September 14, 2000
[6] Personal communication with Brad Job, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, September 14, 2000
[7] Remedial Investigation, page 4-85
[8] Remedial Investigation, page 4-87
[9] Remedial Investigation, Appendix D, page 2
[10] Initial Assessment, October 1984, page 8-3
[11] Initial Assessment, October 1984, page 6-1
[12] Initial Assessment, October 1984, page 8-4
[13] Remedial Investigation, page 4-87
[14] Post Construction Report, Site 1/21 Industrial Landfill, page
2-10
[15] Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Site 1/21 Industrial
Landfill
[16] Remedial Investigation, page 4-86
[17] Remedial Investigation, page 4-86
[18] Post Construction Report, Site 1/21 Industrial Landfill Removal
Action Report, Chapter 2
|
