The Navy has another Public Comment meeting coming up…in the library again. This time Derek Robinson, the Navy’s BRAC (Base Realignment And Closure) Environmental Coordinator, will be there (to keep things in line??). Please, please alert your friends and neighbors and let’s get folks out again . . . and more of ‘em if we can.

Here is some info – date, etc – and docs:

Wednesday, May 15th, Navy Public Comment meeting. 6:30 pm, Oak Street Library. Hear the Navy’s Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 2B – the Superfund area east of Seaplane Lagoon that the City proposes for it new “city core” at Alameda Point. Read the Navy’s Proposed Plan for OU 2B. Too technical? Come to the meeting and ask questions about it.

More info to understand OU 2B

• Map of underground/groundwater plume
  
• Summary table of contaminants
• Description of OU 2B; contributed by Dale Smith, RAB Community Co-chair
• What’s the RAB?

Remember, this is the area the city “fathers…and mothers” plan for AP’s “city core”…and, to that end, they’re paid a consulting company $250,000 for a plan. Meantime, the Navy is still busy with clean up – it is among the filthiest areas on the base – and they expect to have their Feasibility Study ready around about November. We discussed this at length at last night’s Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meeting, and even Derek agreed the city may have waited before making this payday.

Then again, it says a lot that the city’s Economic Development Department is “in charge” of AP…rather than the best outcome for current and future residents, a sustainable city, or wildlife . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~from: http://alamedapointinfo.com/current

There are two ways to provide comments during this 30-day period: (1) offer oral or written comments during the public meeting and/or (2) provide written comments by mail, e-mail, or fax.

PUBLIC MEETING – May 15, 2013
Alameda Free Library
1550 Oak Street
Alameda
6:30 pm to 8:00 pm

SEND WRITTEN COMMENTS TO:
Derek Robinson
BRAC (Base Realignment And Closure) Environmental Coordinator
Department of Navy
BRAC Program Management Office West
1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92108-4310
derek.j.robinson2@navy.mil

The hospital itself told me they nearly killed me in the Emergency Department (ED) a couple of years ago, they don’t know why I didn’t die. This, during a minor (read: easy straight forward diagnosis and treatment) medical emergency (that was extremely painful, i.e., required emergency attention). Not only did I nearly die whilst in the Alameda Hospital ED, I was about 200% worse once home . . . and had to seek emergency medical treatment again within hours of having left Alameda Hospital.  I chose Alta Bates the second time. The comparison of Alta Bates to Alameda was stark: whereas Alameda Hospital’s records listed me as a child who arrived with her parent and overdosed me with pain-meds that a junkie would have a hard time surviving and left me to languish for hours without staff observing or attending to me, was filthy (the bed had hair and and other human material on it), AB was spotlessly clean, staff was attentive and efficient, the doctor was truly interested in solving my medical issues, and my condition was addressed & relieved without putting me at further risk.

On another day, I had a friend call me from Alameda Hospital ED around 5p. She’d been in the ED since late morning, diagnosed with a minor stroke, had not been put on an IV, had not been allowed food or water, and was told they were keeping her overnight. She called to ask me to help her get transfered to a hospital with a stroke unit. (!) She was, of course, dehydrated. D’oh. This comprises malpractice in and of itself! Anyway, I dropped everything and ran down there. When I very politely helped her ask (again) for food, water, and a transfer to Eden Hospital, the staff got surly. The nurse literally threw a half-sandwich onto the foot of her bed and said something like “if she gets worse, it’s not on me!”.  Despite being the one who diagnosed a stroke, the doctor was haughty and infuriated that my neighbor wanted a transfer to a stroke center. During the 1.5 hour we waiting for the ambulance who would transfer her to Eden, Alameda’s hospital staff ignored her, walked past her bed multiple times, and threw dark looks our way.  It was all quite unbelievable, like a very bad B movie. But this was the culture across all staff—doctors and nurses—to mistreat the patient in this way. It was not one person, it was everyone on duty that day. How frightening is that? Their dysfunctional social culture is more important than adhering to standard medical procedures!

These are but two anecdotal stories. And read my prior posts about the hospital; these kinds of shenanigans have been ongoing since the 1980s. Current (disturbing) facts about the hospital abound.  If you have any questions, please reach out to Mr. Gorelick and inquire. He’s unbiased, fact-based, and can answer your questions or tell you how to get them answered.

Elliott Gorelick, Alameda Healthcare District Board Member: gorelick.at.alamedahospital@gmail.com

It’s time we learned more, stopped the travesty that is our tax-dollars supporting local sub-standard medical care!

I had a need for urgent care a couple of months ago (black widow spider bites—and did you know that Alameda is infested?) and discovered that Summit now has an Urgent Care Department (UCD).  So we do have choices now: if you need urgent care, go to Summit ED (where they do triage and place you into their UCD).  And if you require emergency response, be sure to tell the AFD paramedics exactly which hospital you prefer: if you’re conscious, you can choose which hospital. If you’re unconscious, paramedics follow their protocols, many of which [including for stroke] require they take you to Alameda Hospital [this is another reason to shut the place down!]. I highly recommend researching the expertise and stats of the various hospital EDs so that you are well-prepared to choose for yourself if/when needed.

Now, on to Mr. Gorelick’s post (and, sadly, what a terribly apt quote for Alameda!):

Nothing Will Change

Posted on May 9, 2013by egorelick

“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

No posts because nothing really changes.   Consistently wrong is the mantra of the Board and Management.  Political connections trumps facts.  Perception trumps reality.  The Hospital will just go on losing money and killing people no matter how many predictions of profitability prove false or no matter how many fines, surveys, or statistics suggest that people would be better off receiving their care elsewhere.

Residents and RAB Respond to the Navy’s Proposed Change of Plan

Guest post by Susan Galleymore

More than two dozen residents attended the Navy’s public comment meeting held in the City of Alameda’s main library  on April 9th. The presentation addressed the Navy’s reversal of an earlier decision to remove contamination from the “Burn Area” of the former waste dump on the north western tip of Alameda Point.  Their new plan, Alternative BA-1, leaves contaminants in place topped with a soil cover and installs a Waste Isolation Bulkhead (“WIB”) to reduce the flow of contaminants into the bay.  (Read the Navy’s “Proposed Plan for Modified Remedy at IR Site 1 Burn Area.”)

Residents’ comments indicate uniform disapproval of the change:  

“[O]ur predecessors may not have understood [potential] damage… when they improperly disposed hazardous wastes but our generation has the awareness and the technology to make better choices.”

“We have a responsibility to ensure that future generations of Alamedans aren’t saddled with the same toxic pollution problems we fac[e].”

“[As] a homeowner…mother [and one whose] grandfather served in the Navy and held it in great esteem [I oppose] the new modified remedy…a temporary metal bulkhead, and a soil cover is not remediation but …an irresponsible, temporary patch….”

“… this dump is the ONLY thing that has ever made me want to leave [Alameda].”

“[T]he Navy is avoiding full responsibility for full cleanup [and] hedging financial and moral responsibility….”

“[Navy] modeling assumes a 77-day tidal action rather than… a 200 year flood surge…absurdly negligent in the wake of disasters in Japan and climate change dramatically increasing the frequency of “black swan” …events.”

Responding to such comments, Navy BEC Derek Robinson assures residents that “protection of human health and the environment is our number one priority….There is a lot of misinformation floating around out there. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the plan with me, feel free to call”: 619-532-0951.

BEC Robinson’s offer is generous. And, according to the EPA guidelines, the Restoration Advisory Board is the “forum for exchange of information and partnership among citizens, the installation, EPA, and State…[and the] opportunity for communities to provide input to the cleanup process” (source). However, city officials appear to consistently sideline this citizens’ forum since Alameda’s RAB began in 1997. For example, when the Navy peremptorily decided in Fall 2012 that, despite RAB and cleanup budgets set two years in advance, budgetary constraints required immediate reductions in numbers of meetings by 66%,  from monthly to quarterly. City officials offered no opinion nor did they support the RAB in its desire to maintain the monthly schedule. Eventually RAB members and Navy compromised and meetings now occur every two months.

A bi-monthly schedule places more pressure on the RAB to obtain pertinent documents in a timely fashion and for the Navy to follow the delivery process outlined in the Community Involvement Plan (“CIP”).

In February 2013, three RAB members met EPA officials to seek solutions to documents tending toward no delivery, late delivery, or delivery outside the CIP process.

“Our concern,” RAB members’ stated, “is that the RAB and the CIP process will be further degraded with bi-monthly meetings.”

The delivery process followed for the new plan, Alternative BA-1, highlights the issue. In its joint public comment, the RAB’s letter states, “Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above document.”

The discussion period provided before the public meeting [on April 9th] on the proposed plan proved very helpful to the RAB. It is unfortunate that such a meeting did not occur when the focused feasibility study was issued [last year].”

Moreover, given that Alternative BA-1 documents total about 1000 pages, one hour face-to-face with Navy personnel and a 30-day comment period is insufficient time for RAB due diligence.

Other excerpts from that letter:

“Because the original plan constructed a cap no environmental risk assessment was performed. Now that the Navy proposes a cover, isn’t a risk assessment required?”

“Since no biological survey has ever been performed, no one should assume bulldozing will not harm the environment. If the Navy’s preferred alternative moves forward, a biological survey should be performed.”

“BA-1 is not protective of the environment. The risks posed by leaving toxic waste in an area with the highest risk for liquefaction AND at a location in close proximity to an active earthquake fault are not addressed. Moreover, a severe seismic event will likely breach the WIB anchored in Merritt Sand that is subject to liquefaction. Resulting sand volcanos will likely bring contaminants to the surface.”

USGS (United State Geological Survey) map: “Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of the San Francisco Bay Area”

These geologic aspects evoke concerns about sea level rise and flooding too.

At the July 25, 2011 presentation to City Council, Ms. Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer with the Public Works Department, addressed Alameda’s 2008 Storm Drain Master Plan’s 18” sea-level rise analysis. Focusing on how an 18 inches of sea level rise would impact the city’s storm drain system, Ms. Hawkins presented maps that indicated sea-level rise could not only flood the shoreline but that water could back up through the storm drains to be deposited into the city’s downtown.

With a seismic event significant enough to breech the WIB, could not the contaminants the Navy’s preferred Alternative BA-1 plan leaves in place be carried by water through storm drains to be deposited into the city’s core too?

Even without a significant seismic event sea-level is predicted at rise at least 50 inches by the end of the century. This means the Navy’s WIB solution isn’t an effective long-term solution, and moreover, rather than reducing our exposure, it puts us at increasing risk of contamination to our bay waters over time.

The Bay Citizen investigated this and reported on it yesterday in a story titled:

Nuclear byproduct levels on Treasure Island higher than Navy disclosed

Alameda: consider ourselves warned.

Guest post by Francis McIlveen

“The Navy’s proposed (solutions to provide) steel bulkheads would have to be inspected every year for corrosion, and then tested every 5 years ($25K each test), and then cost another $50K every 10 years to replace the sacrificial zinc or aluminum anodes .  (see FFS, the section on the details of the WIB, and the estimated future maintenacnce requirements/costs). in the splash zone (where waves splash the steel) the steel is expected to wear away at the rate of 7 to 8 millimeters per year. (also in the FFS).

So, that means . . . in order to have a steel piling thick enough to contain the uranium-238 in the soil there, long enough until the uranium is only 1/2 as deadly as it is today (b/c of the 4.4 billion year half life), it would take a steel piling about 206 miles thick!

Or maybe not:  as long as the city of alameda commits to spending $44 TRILLION during that time, it will keep the bulkhead inspected & maintained (at an estimated cost, per the FFS, of $100,000 every 10 years = $25K per 5 year inspection, and $50K per 10 year maintenance).”

~~~~~SPEAK OUT

What: Meeting and public education regarding disposition of Alameda Point’s “burn site” – on north west tip of former base

When: Tuesday,  April 9th

5:30 – 6:15: informal discussion with Navy PM and consultant, RAB members, and interested residents

6:30 – 8:00: view Navy posters of the site and talk to available Navy personnel

Where: Stafford Room, main library on Oak street @ Lincoln

~~~~~LEARN MORE from Francis McIlveen in his open letter to all Alamedans:

Dear fellow Alamedan:

we have an important opportunity this Tuesday (april 9th) to talk with Navy representatives, and with enviornmental regulators, about a proposed change in the clean up plan for the toxic waste dump created by the Navy at Alameda Point.  It’s called IR Site 1.  And on this site is an area where over many decades, the Navy dumped and burned an astonishing array of highly toxic and radioactive wastes, and pushed it with bulldozers into the marshland and Bay waters.

Initially (in 2009), the Navy proposed excavating the toxic soil (even digging below ground water level where deemed necessary) and removing it offsite (i.e. disposing of it at a real, regulated waste dump).

However, since then, the Navy ordered a feasibility study, published recently, which dramatically scales back the scope of the proposed clean up.  The new plan is to essentially leave everything there; to install steel-foam bulkheads at the shoreline, and back fill that area with much of the contaminated soil, and to then cover it with ground cover plantings.

Not surprisingly, this new ‘preferred alternative’ only costs 1/3 of the original plan.  ($13 million v.s. $45 million).

Here’s what is at risk:  the new plan (and the computer model used to assess the risks) doesn’t take into account long-term climate issues (such as the 200 year mega-floods, which will completely submerse that area under flood water, as it did in 1862, and have a significant impact on the stability of the containment structures & ground cover), not to mention recent realizations about climate change & sea level rise.  What we must avoid here in Alameda is having these toxic and radioactive materials spread over our beaches, residential & commercial areas when mega-flooding occurs (in the next 50 to 150 years, see article below).  We don’t have to look far for examples of how pollution exacerbates the human tragedy of catastrophic floods (e.g. the large areas of New Orleans after Katrina).  Remember, that the particles of radium & uranium, widely dispersed over everything in a flood path, will be highly carcinogenic if ingested or inhaled.  and their danger will persist for tens of thousands of years.

(regarding the 200 year megafloods in No. California, see:

http://www.novim.org/resources/novim-news/275-megastorms-could-drown-massive-portions-of-california

None of this appears to have been taken into account when developing the risk model for justifying the new, clean-up-lite plan at IR Site 1.  the computer (conceptual) model for assessing the risk of soil and groundwater contaminants leaching/migrating out of the area (and e.g. in the Bay, or surounding ground water), was based on data from a 77 day period of tidal action on the ground water.  And that small sliver of time-data was extrapolated to predict “the migration and mixing of contaminants from the Burn Area into San Francisco Bay and Oakland Inner Harbor over the next 1,000 years.”

in other words, they took a snapshot of 77 days of tidal fluctuations, and concluded that the risk for the next 1,000 years was negligible enough to not excavate and remove the toxic wastes.

In case you’re curious, the list of contaminants include:

VOCs SVOCs

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

2,4-Dimethylphenol

2-Hexanone

Acetone

PAHs

Benzene

Acenaphthene

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Anthracene

Ethylbenzene

Benzo(a)anthracene

m-Xylene & p-Xylene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Methylene chloride

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Naphthalene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

o-Xylene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Toluene

Chrysene

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

Vinyl chloride

Fluoranthene

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

Fluorene

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

4-Isopropyltoluene

Naphthalene

n-Butylbenzene

Phenanthrene

n-Propylbenzene

Pyrene

sec-Butylbenzene

Pesticides

4,4′-DDD

4,4′-DDE

beta-BHC

Metals

Barium

Cadmium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Lead

Manganese

Molybdenum

Nickel

Silver

Thallium

Dioxins/Furans

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD

2,3,7,8-TCDF

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF

and

radium-226 and uranium-238

this site is the most toxic of the toxic sites at Alameda Point…it was after all, THE toxic waste dump of a very toxic & polluted industrial complex.

We really need to do what we can to hold the Navy responsible…which means cleaning up the site properly so that our great grand children won’t have reason to hate us for ‘sweeping’ this truly ugly mess under the rug.  It will be only a matter of time before it surfaces.

And here is your chance:

What: Meeting and public education regarding disposition of Alameda Point’s “burn site” – on north west tip of former base

When: Tuesday,  April 9th;

5:30 – 6:15: informal discussion with Navy PM and consultant, RAB members, and interested residents

6:30 – 8:00: view Navy posters of the site and talk to available Navy personnel

Where: Stafford Room, main library on Oak street @ Lincoln

As always,

Francis McIlveen

(Source documents are here.)

Now here’s a story that should be brought to the attention of our county supes… This is stunning; in a county as poor and needy …and a public servant is pulling down a huge amount of money, not as bad as Bell, but bad enough. Check the link below, if you can’t see it go to sfgate or read today’s Chron. Alameda’s county’s administrator, Susan Muranishi pulls down $423,664 a year, $24,000 in equity pay to assure she makes at least 10% more than anyone else in the county. and about $54,000 a year for having stayed with the county for more than 30 years, and a yearly performance bonus of $24,000 It gets better…. an additional $9,000 a year for serving on an ad hoc committee of the Board that oversees the sale of excess land. But wait! she also gets an $8,292 yearly car allowance, and finally she also has separate exec. private pension for which the county chips in $ 46,500 a year.!!!

And here’s an interesting fact; I recognized her picture in the sfgate (it wasn’t in the Matier & Ross article) as a person who enjoys our Mariner Square Hot tub with non other than Keith Carson who represents Berkeley on the county Board. And the article says he voted for her deal not realizing how the numbers were ballooning up over the years” (!!)

GIVE ME A BREAK……

Anyway I think we should blast this off to all we know requesting letters to be sent to our county supes urging them to restructure her compensation. Then we should look for candidates to replace those who voted for this crime.

- Gretchen (the watch- dog, not the lap dog)

http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/03/25/alameda-county-administrator-tops-in-pay/

TODAY the judge ruled for immunity of firefighters over duty. And the judge finds further that: ”under the circumstances presented there was no moral blame attendant to the conduct of responding officers and firefighters.”

I have been told that this ruling impacts all cities in the state of California, not just the City of Alameda.

I’m wondering why our fire and police are some of the highest paid in the SF Bay Area . . .    I’ve argued for years that because the fire procedures and protocols are so exceedingly substandard for the industry of firefighting (and I’ve shown this), that the fire staff cannot be held to any performance standards. Hell, our city has worked multiple times, year after year, to cover up fire failures . . . rather than address agency failures, team and individual failed performance. We have sustained one significant failure after another at the hand of the AFD:  the 2009 FISC fire blanketed our homes with friable asbestos and the AFD mishandled the toxic fire exacerbating our exposure instead of controlling and minimizing it,  the my 2010 discovery of recurring illicit crude oil transfers and spills that were polluting our waterways and air for years (BAAQMD slapped on the biggest fines they could), refusal to rescue Mr. Zack. And each time, the city covers it up. What’s next? When is this going to end?

I fear it will not end until we replace the current city charter with something that is appropriate (that works) for a contemporary city.

See the story on last night’s ABC news here; excellent reporting by Alan Wang.

Mr. Wang, however, was provided false information. He reported that our fire department did not have funding for water rescue training. To do that, Mr. Wang had to have believed what he was told, which means that disinformation had to have come from a source he believed to be credible. So who gave him the disinformation? Was it our city? Our fire department? The firefighter’s union, IAFF Local 689?

The City of Alameda funded water rescue training and re-certifications to be completed in 2009 (source document is here).

The City of Alameda budgeted for the AFD to perform 8 to 10 water rescues per year for 2009 -2012 (source document is here).

Every resident and visitor to the City of Alameda has a right to expect to be rescued by our public safety services.

Given the information in the source documents noted above: Without a doubt (it is incontrovertible that) we all—

Mr. Zack, his family, and all residents and visitors to the City of Alameda—

had a right to expect Mr. Zack to be rescued by our public safety services.

Our city is arguing that they had no duty to perform. How perverse. It is unconscionable that our city should argue this. And it is villainous . . . towards those the city is sworn to serve and protect. And that would be towards you and me, dear reader . . .

If the fire fighters don’t have to rescue—you know, the ones who pay taxes so that we have police and fire, so that we have a safe city–what the hell do we pay them for?  Our elected officials have deemed year over year that it’s appropriate to spend most of the city’s tax revenue on exhorbitant payroll packages for public safety services.  Not rescuing Mr. Zack is not what I expected my tax dollars to buy, did you?

See my prior blogpost comparing our city to the extraordinary examples set by police and fire in other nearby cities, here. All our firefighters and paramedics had to do was walk out into extremely calm 4 foot deep water….oh, and give a damn about a resident’s life.

The city’s position towards we-the-residents is nothing short of villainous.

sidebar: Just how much is this travesty costing us for Greg Fox, the hired outhouse attorney?

Also, AHD Board Member Gorelick’s first post of 2013 is here.  His post contains 3 points. I’ve taken the liberty of republishing his third point:

3.  The application process for the Board seat vacated by Stewart Chen is ongoing.  Thursday, January 3 is the last day to apply so, if you were considering it, you may have to scramble.  Unfortunately, there is little chance that the Board majority would allow someone with the idea of closing the Hospital on, but perhaps you enjoy quixotic efforts.   Several times I have referred to the previous application process where the odious Williams was chosen where it was ridiculously obvious that she was the designated choice.   Unless you have been solicited to apply by one of the Board majority, don’t count on having a chance of actually serving.  - Elliott Gorelick, January 1, 2013