The growing controversy surrounding Berkeley's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program reaches far beyond the obvious questions concerning the quality of air, water and soils. These polluted properties are posing a real health risk to our community. The old single-walled, constructed steel, underground storage tank have contributed to many a toxic spill in Berkeley. Most of these leaking, waste oil and gasoline tanks have been associated with automobile fueling stations.
Over the last century, Berkeley's fueling stations have been placed on nearly every corner of the city's commercial districts. Today, commercial districts are mixed use, including residential housing. The increased development of the city's commercial zones, coupled with the new UST regulations (1998), will create even more remediation activity in the future. Our current UST program is undergoing severe regulatory changes, and this is challenging the environmental health of our neighborhoods.
Contaminated soil and aeration
The State of California and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 2) regulate the remediation of all Berkeley's polluted sites in conjunction with the city's Toxics Department. Each agency shares in the review of all site work plans for both soil and groundwater remediation. Historically, the aeration process is the most often approved treatment method of remediation, and this usually represents a sizable portion of the total cleanup plan.
Aeration is accomplished quite simply by spreading the contaminated soils across the site. This promotes the evaporation of the gasoline's volatile compounds into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, this transfer of pollutants from the soil unnecessarily contributes to the degradation of air quality. In South Bay, because of poor air quality, the Bay Area Air Quality Board restricts onsite aeration treatment. It is a convoluted logic, employed by this same board, which allows massive onsite aeration throughout the East Bay, supposedly because our air can afford to become dirtier.
 |
At one time or another, over the last century, gasoline fueling
stations have been located on nearly every corner of our commercial
districts. Most of these sites originally had single-walled, gas
stations.
Often these tanks, when left too long in the ground, develop leaks.
This allowed fuel to seep, uncontrolled, into the soil. The fuel
you see spreading into the soil is called a plume. The rate at
which the plume radiates away from the tank is greatly influenced
by the soil composition. |
These experts, who more often than not, rely on statistics and computer modeling to determine human health risks, are so far removed from the problem as to not understand the real impact of remediation upon the urban community. Typically, site plan analysis fails to acknowledge the actual urban setting and the residential nature of most of these contaminated properties..
Currently, Berkeley's aeration practices are poisoning our neighborhoods. The short term health effects are clear. Burning eyes and sore throat are but a few of the symptoms that one experiences with exposure to these toxic vapors. Such reactions are easily recognized as evidence of toxic exposure. The long term health effects to the many chemical components of gasoline have not been fully explored. However, the better understood chemical toxins, such as benzene, have been clearly linked to various cancer and respiratory diseases.
Diesel fuel, though common on many sites, is a perfect example of the lack of scientific data on health effects. For this reasons there is a tendency in the remediation process to dismiss those contaminants whose health effects are unknown. This often translates into scaled down site plans, reduced remediation standards, and the consequent negative impact on human health.
The effects of aeration on community health and the environment are undeniable. It is clearly seen in the practice of stockpiling soils on site for the express purpose of aeration. This dramatically increases the toxic exposure to adjacent neighborhoods. Many contaminated gas station sites are small lots, while the amount of soil to be aerated is great. Such physical logistics can often produce onsite stockpiles of soil, stacked as high as 20 feet. Contaminated soils can become airborne, presenting additional health risks.
Contaminant groundwater and aeration
Since most storage tanks were placed at a depth of at least 10 feet, many toxic leaks have impacted the groundwater, too. Ground water is the vehicle for migration of contaminants off site. This gradual movement of toxic spills is generally downstream, toward the San Francisco Bay. These spills are rarely stable. It's no surprise that Berkeley's records show many off site migration problems.
When a site remediation plan calls for the cleanup of large volumes of groundwater, onsite aeration is often the tank owner's choice. That choice of on site treatment can include the use of an open air Baker tank. The groundwater found on a site often contains the same contaminants which permeate the soil. These contaminants can be in higher concentrations in the ground water. The open air tank aeration of these toxins poses the same health and environmental concerns as soil aeration, and therefore, should be discouraged as well. Excerpt from Aeration of Polluted Soils L A Wood September 19, 1995
More on Underground Storage Tanks
|
- Corporation Yard Remediation
L A Wood, October 4, 1993
- Corpyard cleanup may wait for advanced technology
Shannon Morgan, Berkeley Voice, September 9,1993
- Old Fueling Station & Contaminated Site at 2700 San Pablo Avenue
L A Wood, August 7, 1995
- Alternative methods of remediation that are non-invasive
City of Berkeley, January 26, 1994
- Former Berkeley Chervon Service Station (Gateway)
L A Wood, April 5, 1995
- City halts building on (Gateway) toxic site. Neighbors worry about possible health threat
Will Harper, Berkeley Voice, April 27, 1995
- What's to worry?: Cityside, Sticks & Stones
EXPRESS August 18, 1995
- Marc Albert, Berkeley Voice, November 26, 1998
Officials Order City Gas Tank Shut Down
- State response To Differential Enforcement
Berkeley’s Certified Unified Program Agency
- WRE/Colortech Site in Berkeley
July 11, 2001
- Aeration of Polluted Soils
L A Wood September 19, 1995
- Regarding aeration of polluted soils policy.
From: City of Berkeley, December 5, 1995
|
Berkeley Containment Zones Policy discussions
|
- California's
Choice: Containment Zones or Clean Water?
L A Wood, California Environmental Law Reporter,
April 1996
- California's Brownfields Initiative: The
Toxic Crisis
L A Wood, California Environmental Law Reporter, May 1996, Volume
1996 Issue 5
- Berkeley CONTAINMENT ZONE POLICIES
March 5, 1996 CR# 96-008
- Request to hold a workshop on Underground Storage Tank Program
Mayor Shirley Dean, September 26 1995
- Berkeley and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
regarding Containment Zones, November 1995
- CONTAINMENT ZONE POLICY, FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Planning Commission, January 30, 1996
- Containment Zone Policies (CR#96-008)
March 12. 1996 Council Minutes Page 8
- Letter to Walter Pettit Executive Director State Water Resources Control Board
From City of Berkeley March 5, 1996
- Letter to John Flores, City Manager
City of Emeryville, dated March 5, 1996
- RE: AGENDA ITEM C(a)2 - CONTAINMENT ZONES
Clifford Fred, Planning Commissioner, March 5, 1996
|
News Articles regarding Containment Zones and Groundwater Deregulation
|
- City
Makes Water a Concern Protesting Emeryville's plans to lower water standards
Apul Kirit Patel, Daily Californian, February
1996
- Berkeley Wants Tougher
Groundwater Cleanup Rules
William Brand, Oakland Tribune, January 19,
1996
- Department of Non-attainment
L A Wood, East Bay Eepress, January 12, 1996
- Water Board Wants
to Relax Quality Standards
Judy Campbell, East Bay Express, January 5, 1996
- HAMILTON • COHN • THATCHER & ASSOCIATES,OAKLAND, CA
RE: Containment Zone, March 11, 1996
- Berkeley Chamber Of Commerce "OPPOSITE THE GOLDEN GATE"
RE: Proposed Containment Zone Policy, March 12, 1996
- LLNL Report: Bad science
L A Wood, City of Berkeley
- Unusual toxic waste plan in Emeryville, Toxic City Applies for US Grant
William Brand, Oakland Tribune, December 18, 1995
- Berkeley debates industrial cleanup, Council to vote on Dean's letter
William Brand, Oakland Tribune, March 12, 1996
- Debate over cleanup requirements creates additional mess for Berkeley
William Brand, Oakland Tribune, March 17,1996
- On behalf of Emeryville
Alan H. Adler, Berkeley Voice, April 11, 1996
- Inner city pollution threat
L A Wood , Berkeley Voice, January 25, 1996
- Dirty story
Carolyn Erbele, Berkeley Voice, February 22, 1996
- AIR-cleaning gas chemical fouls drinking water wells
Associated Press, April 17, 1996, BAY AREA/CALIFORNIA
- Water Pollution Still a Problem, EPA Report Says 4 of 10 bodies of water too dirty, survey finds
Washington Post, DECEMBER 15, 1995 San Francisco Chronicle
|
On
Berkeley Soil (1996) 13:48 TRT...a look at groundwater beneficial
uses, the State of California's efforts at deregulation, SB 92-49
and its "containment zone" and "brownfields"
policies. |
|