Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area Community Advisory Group

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CAG Mission Statement

Our purpose is to ensure that the interests of the entire community are included in plans for the proper and comprehensive cleanup and ongoing monitoring of polluted sites in the Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area. The CAG’s job is to involve all stakeholders in a

public, inclusive process leading to an appropriate cleanup of polluted sites in this area.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND TOXICS COMMITTEE

September 24, 2013 Barbara Cook Acting Assistant Deputy Director Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program Department of Toxic Substances Control 700 Heinz Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 Subject: Request for Public Education and Information Regarding Confirmed Radioactive Material on Union Pacific Railroad Blair Landfill, Richmond, CA Dear Ms. Cook: The Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area Community Advisory Group (CAG) is requesting technical experts from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the California Department of Public Health Radiological Health Branch (CDPH-RHB) attend the CAG’s monthly meeting in October or November 2013, to provide specific details and explanation to the public regarding confirmed radioactive material on the Union Pacific Railroad property known as the Blair Landfill, Richmond, CA. The CAG’s monthly meetings are held from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m., on the second Thursday of every month, in the basement multi-purpose meeting room at Richmond City Hall, 440 Civic Center Plaza, between Nevin and Barrett Streets, Richmond, CA 94804. The next two CAG meetings are 6:30 p.m., Thursday, October 10, 2013, and Thursday, November 14, 2013. The CAG is seeking answers from technical experts (not public participation personnel), to the following:

• What is the status of radioactive material in surface soil and below-ground-surface soil that is higher than surrounding area background levels confirmed in samples collected in July 2011 and October 2009 on the Union Pacific Railroad Blair Landfill?

• Why is it taking so long to characterize the extent of radioactive material on the site given the first confirmed samples of radioactive material were four years ago and after the CAG’s questions about the same seven years ago?

• What level of radionuclides on the Blair Landfill precipitates signage to alert the public of the presence of radioactivity?

• What are the regulations regarding signage stating the presence of radioactive material that might not be at immediate lethal levels, but is more than one hundred times higher than background?

Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG to DTSC September 24, 2013

Page 2 of 13

• How does radioactive material on the Blair Landfill travel in soil, water and air?

• When will DTSC know the extent of the radioactive material on the Blair Landfill and the surrounding area?

• When will the radioactive material be removed?

• What is the expected level of clean-up, based on radionuclide background levels in the nearby surrounding area having been documented at 0.5 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) or lower?

• What is the radioactive exposure risk to the public using the trail and working next door to radionuclides confirmed on the Blair Landfill and possibly surrounding areas?

• What is the risk to workers staging equipment, sometimes daily, on the road traversing through Blair Landfill (where radioactive material has been confirmed) while cleaning up hazardous materials on the nearby Union Pacific Railroad Gun Club/Pistol Range?

• Is the presence of radioactive material in/on/next-to Blair Landfill access roads (used to access the Gun Club/Pistol Range) included in the Health and Safety Plan of the workers, contractors and subcontractors currently cleaning up the lead-contaminated soil on the Union Pacific Railroad Gun Club/Pistol Range?

• What are the levels of alpha, beta and gamma radionuclides on the Blair Landfill? o How are the different types of alpha, beta and gamma radionuclides assessed and

treated?

• What is the suspected or known source of the radionuclides on the Blair Landfill?

• What does the confirmed radioactive material in the surface soil within 20-feet of the Bay Trail Access Path mean to a pregnant woman, child or small pet on the trail? See sample data for sample location Blair-3, 7/1/2011 (shown on following pages, with links to original documents).

• Why is Zeneca Inc. (Astra-Zeneca) providing scan and sample data to DTSC for radioactive material on the Blair Landfill which is property owned by Union Pacific Railroad?

• Why is DTSC addressing Work Plan Requests to Conduct Additional Soil Investigation and Separately to Collect Background Samples, 8/20/2012, to Zeneca’s outside counsel law firm, Edgcomb Law in San Francisco, when the Blair Landfill property is owned by Union Pacific Railroad?

• Does DTSC suspect a connection between the Zeneca (prior Stauffer Chemical/Stauffer Metals) uranium melting in electron beam furnaces in the Beryllium Building (Be Building) in the late 1950s and/or early 1960s as a possible source of the radioactive material dumped on the prior Blair Landfill and/or surrounding properties?

• Does DTSC suspect part of the uranium that remains unaccounted for after the larger melting experiment in the electron beam furnace(s) might be the source of the radioactive material at Blair Landfill?

Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG to DTSC September 24, 2013

Page 3 of 13

• What reasons are there that DTSC staff would not examine the late 1950s and early 1960s aerial photos showing disposal site roadways and drainage paths leaving the Zeneca site (prior Stauffer Chemical/Stauffer Metals), leading directly to multiple locations on the larger Blair Landfill, Stege Marsh and the shoreline immediately south of the Zeneca property?

• Stauffer Chemical, UC Richmond Field Station, Blair Landfill -- Aerial Photo 7/7/1959 3.3MB

• Stauffer Chemical, Blair Landfill -- Shoreline Dumping Before Shoreline Road Spur 5/3/1957 6.4MB

• Stauffer Chemical in forefront -- Dumping on shoreline and at Blair Landfill partially shown in upper right corner -- (UC Richmond Field Station shown in lower left corner) -- 1960 17MB

• Toxic Plume into SF Bay, Stauffer Chemical, UC Richmond Field Station, Blair Landfill, Kaiser Shipyard 3/1/1958

• What reasons are there that DTSC staff would not be provided more in-depth background documents from Zeneca (prior Stauffer Chemical/Stauffer Metals) detailing when, how, where and what quantities of radioactive material were dumped?

• What are DTSC’s plans for follow-up on shallow and deep groundwater samples on the adjacent Allied Propane property, given high levels of radioactive water in prior samples taken from the Allied Propane groundwater well about five years ago? o Those radioactive groundwater sample results were dismissed by DTSC’s

consultant, even though reasons for the high radioactive levels in groundwater were never explained and no follow-up samples were ordered by DTSC and/or CDPH-RHB.

• What are DTSC plans to require the Responsible Party(ies) sample and scan for radioactive material in the open unfenced Zeneca property (Habitat Enhancement Area 2) directly west of the Blair Landfill across the Bay Trail South 51st Street Access Path and directly east of Zeneca’s Lower Chemical Evaporation Pond? o Aerial photos show the area was part of the Lower Chemical Evaporation Pond in the

1960s when the pond was much larger and before the current fence was constructed. o Stauffer Chemical Evaporation Ponds Looking South Toward SF Bay, Mid 1960s

34kb

• Has the East Bay Regional Park District been informed of the presence of radioactive material bordering or possibly present on the EBRPD easement along the South 51st Street Access Path to the Bay Trail?

• What are regulatory agency plans to sample and scan for radioactive material on Smith & Company and Oliver & Company properties where buildings were constructed on top of the larger Blair Landfill?

Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG to DTSC September 24, 2013

Page 4 of 13

• What are regulatory agency plans to sample and scan for radioactive material in the prior Blair Landfill property currently owned by Cal Trans, which is now a large open area surrounded by the Bayview overpass and the circular south/east-bound onramp to Interstate-580?

• What are regulatory agency plans to sample and scan for radioactive material in Baxter Creek?

• Are the Gross Gamma Radiation counts per minute as measured in seven locations on Blair Landfill on 7/1/2011, cause for public concern? o The measurements appear to show higher than background in all seven locations at

six-inches above ground surface as well as below ground surface down to 78-inches. o An incomplete table of the 7/1/2011 Gross Gamma Radiation counts per minute are

shown on page 11 of this letter with a link to the full document available on DTSC’s Envirostor website. Higher counts per minute were included in the report text (link provided on page 11 of this letter), but not included in report tables.

Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG to DTSC September 24, 2013

Page 5 of 13

Blair Landfill soil sample references o Soil samples were collected on the surface and down to 8-feet below-ground-surface

on 7/1/2011, at seven locations, each of which confirmed presence of radioactivity above background levels.

See “Soil Investigation Results, Former Southern Pacific Blair Landfill, Richmond, California, prepared on behalf of Zeneca Inc. by Terraphase Engineering, 3/29/2012 and 7/12/2012”, Table 1, pdf page 10 of 160 and Figure 2, pdf page 14 of 160.

o Soil samples were collected on the surface on 10/6/2009, at three locations, each of which confirmed presence of radioactivity above background levels.

See “Multi-media Sampling Report for the Blair Landfill, Stege Property, Richmond, California, prepared for Union Pacific Railroad Company, by CH2MHill, 2/3/2011”, Table 10, pdf page 81 of 360 and Figure 13, pdf page 99 of 360.

o Example of one soil sample location, Blair-3 (Other 7/1/2011 sample locations show higher and lower results)

Surface soil was collected on 7/1/2011, at 1-foot to 1.5-feet below-ground-surface at sample location Blair-3-1-1.5, located approximately 20-feet east of the public’s San Francisco Bay Trail South 51st Street Access Path, 5 to 10-feet east of the property chain link fence.

Bismuth-214 7.12 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) Lead-212 31.58 pCi/g Radium-226 6.92 pCi/g Thorium-228 31.54 pCi/g Thorium-232 30.95 pCi/g Uranium-238 6.01 pCi/g Uranium-235 0.33 pCi/g Uranium-233 5.32 pCi/g

Gross gamma radiation (counts per minute) measured with the Ludlum 2221/Model 44-2, on 7/1/2011, measured the following at sample location Blair-3:

Ground surface 15,864 6-inches below ground surface 37,144 12-inches below ground surface 36,084

o Example of one sample location, BLSB05-S3 (Other 10/6/2009 sample locations show higher and lower results)

Surface soil was collected on 10/6/2009, at sample location BLSB05-S3, which is located 90-feet east of the San Francisco Bay Trail South 51st Street Access Path, at the south edge of a gated paved road

Radium 226 24.3 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) Radium 228 54.6 pCi/g Uranium 234 8.05 pCi/g Uranium 235/236 0.57 pCi/g Uranium 238 9.8 pCi/g

Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG to DTSC September 24, 2013

Page 6 of 13

See “Soil Investigation Work Plan to Further Assess Vertical and Lateral Extent of TENORM Concentrations in Soil at the Former Blair Landfill, Richmond, California, prepared on behalf of Zeneca, Inc. by Terraphase Engineering, February 19, 2013 and , September 7, 2012”, Figure 1, pdf page 13 of 14 and Figure 2, pdf page 14 of 14.

Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG to DTSC September 24, 2013

Page 7 of 13

See “Multi-media Sampling Report for the Blair Landfill, Stege Property, Richmond, California, prepared for Union Pacific Railroad Company, by CH2MHill, 2/3/2011”, Figure 1, pdf page 88 of 360 and Figure 13, pdf page 99 of 360.

Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG to DTSC September 24, 2013

Page 8 of 13

• See “Soil Investigation Results, Former Southern Pacific Blair Landfill, Richmond, California, prepared on behalf of Zeneca Inc, by Terraphase Engineering, Inc. on July 19, 2012 and March 29, 2012”, Table 1, pdf page 10 of 160.

• Confirmed radioactive material at all seven locations sampled, 7/1/2011.

Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG to DTSC September 24, 2013

Page 9 of 13

• See “Soil Investigation Results, Former Southern Pacific Blair Landfill, Richmond, California, prepared on behalf of Zeneca Inc, by Terraphase Engineering, Inc. on July 19, 2012 and March 29, 2012”, pdf pages 4. 5 and 6 of 160.

o One location measured at 6-inches above-ground-surface as 191,000 gamma radiation counts per minute; a subsequent test at the same location registered exposure of 75 μR/h (microroentgens per hour).

o For comparison, average annual radiation exposure from natural and man-made sources is equivalent to about 70 μR/h.

o It appears the public is to assume that while standing at the location (with confirmed 75 μR/h gamma and/or other radiation), exposure to the level of everyday radiation is effectively doubled.

Emphasis added

Phase 1: Radiological Surface Scan

In accordance with the Work Plan, a radiological surface soil scanning survey was conducted on June 17, 2011 to preliminarily delineate the level of radioactivity in the surface soil at the Site. A Ludlum Model 2221 ratemeter/scaler with a Ludlum Model 44‐20 sodium iodide scintillator detector was used to collect gross count rate measurements. Exposure rate measurements were collected with a Ludlum Model 19 microR meter for health and safety purposes.

Background levels were established for the Model 44‐20 by taking a one‐minute static measurement at six inches above the ground surface at a location approximately 500 feet south of the Site boundary, in an area that is part of the Bay Area Trail. A preliminary count rate of 16,260 counts per minute (cpm) was established as a background level for the Site. For the Model 19, the meter was held at approximately three feet above the ground surface until the reading reached full scale; a background of 8 microroentgen per hour (μR/h) was determined.

The surface soil scanning survey was conducted by moving the Ludlum Model 2221/44‐20 instrument by hand at approximately 6‐inches above the ground surface in a serpentine (“S”) motion at a scanning rate of approximately 2 feet per second. Transects approximately 6 feet wide were surveyed using this method. With transects set at approximately 10 feet apart, roughly 25% of the site was covered by the scanning survey.

To focus the soil boring locations in areas that correlate to the highest measurements collected during the surface scan, locations that exceeded five times the background level (approximately 80,000 cpm) were delineated using orange flags. Figure 2 shows the areas of the Site where the results of the surface scanning survey exceeded 80,000 cpm. Due to attenuation effects of asphalt, the roadway surface was not surveyed except along the edges near the surface soil.

At the location of the highest measurement (approximately 191,000 cpm) encountered during the surface scan, the Ludlum Model 19 was used to measure an exposure rate of 75 μR/h. This represented a maximum exposure rate expected at the Site, which is below the regulatory limit for dose to an individual of the public in an unrestricted area (2 milliroentgen equivalent man [mrem]) in any one hour (NRC 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(2)).

Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG to DTSC September 24, 2013

Page 10 of 13

For this analysis, a correction factor for converting the exposure unit of μR into the dose unit of mrem was not used for simplicity. Therefore, a conservative conversion factor of 1,000 μR/h to 1 mrem/h was used. Based on this exposure rate, no postings are required for the Site (NRC 10 CFR 20.1902).

Phase 2: Soil Investigation

In accordance with the Work Plan, on July 1, 2011 a total of 8 soil borings were advanced at the Site using direct push technology. The approximate soil boring locations are illustrated on Figure 2 and were chosen based on the results of the radiological surface scan. In general, the soil borings were placed in areas where the surface scan recorded radiological activity above 80,000 cpm. An exception was soil borings Blair‐1, Blair ‐2, and Blair‐5. Soil borings Blair ‐1 and Blair‐2 were located in the vicinity of previous soil borings. Soil boring Blair‐5 was placed on top of an elevated plateau at the Site where the surface scan measured radiological activity consistent with background readings. This soil boring was advanced to confirm the results of the surface scan in this area of the Site.

It was attempted to advance each soil boring to the vertical extent of the fill material. One exception was soil boring Blair‐5 where refusal was encountered due to a subsurface obstruction at approximately 6 feet below ground surface (bgs). Multiple attempts were made to advance this soil boring, however, the deepest a soil boring could be advanced was approximately 6 feet bgs. A Ludlum Model 44‐2 sodium iodide scintillator detector was inserted into each soil boring to collect radiological measurements by collecting a 30 second static measurement at each 6 inch interval starting at 6 inches above ground surface to the bottom of the borehole. If groundwater was encountered, the detector was used to scan the soil core collected from the depth interval below groundwater. These field measurements were assessed for health and safety purposes and to identify soil sample intervals for laboratory radiochemical analyses.

The volume of soil measured in a borehole is much greater than the volume of soil measured from a soil core (i.e., the detector was surrounded by soil in the borehole versus the soil core which was only 2 inches in diameter thus a greatly reduced soil volume). Lower volumes of soil increases the detection limits of the detectors. Therefore, the two data sets are not comparable and the soil core measurements were not included in field measurement logs.

Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG to DTSC September 24, 2013

Page 11 of 13

• See “Soil Investigation Results, Former Southern Pacific Blair Landfill, Richmond, California, prepared on behalf of Zeneca Inc, by Terraphase Engineering, Inc. on July 19, 2012 and March 29, 2012”, Attachment 1, pdf page 15 of 160.

• Confirmed gross gamma radiation (counts per minute) at 6-inches above-ground-surface and down to 78-inches below-ground-surface, measured 7/1/2011.

• Does human exposure to 48-hours of 10,000 counts per minute increase the risk of cancer to 1 in 1 million?

o If that cancer increase of 1 in 1 million after exposure to 10,000 gross gamma

radiation counts per minute is not correct or appropriate to use to assess risk, what is?

Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG to DTSC September 24, 2013

Page 12 of 13

Separately and related, the CAG remains concerned about the radioactive warm spots on the Zeneca site that were not investigated further and were not removed; comments were documented in multiple letters to DTSC including the CAG Toxics Committee letter to DTSC dated October 19, 2009. The CAG objected with clear and succinct rationale that the 5.0 pCi/gram clean-up level allowed by the CDPH-RHB for the Zeneca site was not looking out for public safety and completely disregarded background levels which were documented at 0.5 pCi/gram. The CAG appreciates the effort DTSC and CDH-RHB will undertake to meet this request; the CAG has had no meaningful DTSC presence at CAG monthly meetings for a very long time. Public concern about this and other issues is heightening. By experts addressing questions openly and comprehensively, the community will be less likely to move toward misinformation and react with fear of the unknown. We are reaching out to you as our regulators to provide education and understanding about a risk that seems to merit concern. We look forward to your presentation. Sincerely, /s/ Eric Blum Chair CAG Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area Community Advisory Group

Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG to DTSC September 24, 2013

Page 13 of 13

Copies: Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area Community Advisory Group; cagsecretary@rssacag.com California Department of Toxic Substances Control

Deborah Raphael, DRaphael@dtsc.ca.gov Rick Brausch, RBrausch@dtsc.ca.gov Stewart Black, Stewart.Black@dtsc.ca.gov Lynn Nakashima, LNakashima@dtsc.ca.gov

California Department of Public Health Dr. Rick Kreutzer, Rick.Kreutzer@cdph.ca.gov Steve Woods, Steve.Woods@cdph.ca.gov Dr. Gabriele Windgasse, Gabriele.Windgasse@cdph.ca.gov

California Department of Public Health Radiological Health Branch Dr. Jeff Wong, Jeff.Wong@cdph.ca.gov California Division of Occupational Safety and Health

Len Welsh, LWelsh@dir.ca.gov California State Senator Loni Hancock, Senator.Hancock@senate.ca.gov California State Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, Assemblymember.skinner@assembly.ca.gov US Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator@Feinstein.senate.gov US Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator@Boxer.senate.gov US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, r9.info@epa.gov Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia, JGioia@bos.cccounty.us Contra Costa County Health Services Department

Dr. Wendel Brunner, wbrunner@hsd.co.contra-costa.ca.us Dr. Marilyn Underwood, Marilyn.Underwood@hsd.cccounty.us

City of Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, Gayle_McLaughlin@officeofthemayor.netRichmond City Councilmembers

Jovanka Beckles, JovankaBeckles@yahoo.com Vice Mayor Corky Booze, Corky_Booze@ci.richmond.ca.us Tom Butt, tom.butt@intres.com Jim Rodgers, elirapty@aol.com Jael Myrick, Jael_Myrick@ci.richmond.ca.us