Chabot Gun Club closing in a year

I don't know anything but it seems  it would be fairly easy to clean up the vast majority of the lead.  I mean, we know exactly where it is located, apart from a few strays.  I also don't understand how bullets somehow become soluble and leach, as you guys are saying, (or not)?

How many lead sinkers are in that lake?

But, I am a big dummy.

Alright, I don't have much time this morning but I'll try to address a few things that came up last night after I checked out.

DISCLAMER:

*The points I make below are based on actual experience working to investigate and clean up decommissioned gun ranges in Texas, Louisiana, Washington, and California.

*While I have not read the Chabot engineering documents or reviewed lead concentrations, my experience has lead me to believe that lead hitting a soil berm in California reacts much the same as lead hitting a soil berm in Texas (or anywhere else).

*We are NOT in the business of shutting down gun ranges. We are in the business of investigating and cleaning up contamination that could potentially affect sensitive populations (children) and ecosystems (endangered and/or threatened species). Quite frankly, range cleanups are some of the least interesting projects I work on. Why? Because they are all VERY similar!

*Based on the estimate of $4.4M to clean up the Chabot gun range, combined with my knowledge of cleanup budgets at other sites, I can confidently say that the Chabot gun range has resulted in a significant volume of lead contaminated soil that will likely end up being sent to a landfill.

Moving on... (Statements are paraphrased, I apologize if I misinterpret what you meant to say).

STATEMENT: The lead will just start leaching once it reaches Milpitas Landfill.
RESPONSE A: Yes, lead does leach from bullets and the soil that they have impacted. You are correct there.
RESPONSE B: Because lead leaches from bullets, the soil will NOT be sent to Milpitas landfill. It will likely be sent to a hazardous waste landfill in Beatty Nevada, Buttonwillow California, or Aragonite Utah, or another one on the OR/WA border (forget the name).

STATEMENT: Something along the lines of follow the money, and the money goes to the people who scream the loudest.
RESPONSE: If you follow the money on cleanup projects like this, you'll see that a very large portion of it goes to the disposal facilities. They take on a LOT of liability and responsibility when they receive hazardous materials, and they charge accordingly. Me and my colleagues make a decent living, but we sure ain't rich. DTSC and Water Board employees also make decent wages, but they ain't rich either. Typically the people screaming (the community) shed light on a potential issue, the government responds by initiating an investigation, the consultants find contamination (or they don't), and a cleanup ensues (or not). The screamers get no money, but they do get a safer place to live if they were in fact impacted by contamination.

STATEMENT: It seems like it would be really easy to clean up the contamination because you know exactly where it is (in the berm).
RESPONSE: You are right, in a way. We do know (generally) where to find the lead (in the berms), and we do know what to do with it (haul it to a landfill). That doesn't mean it's cheap or easy. At a recent trap shooting range project up in WA ($3.5M cleanup project), we had semi trucks picking up loads of lead-impacted soil every ~20 minutes for about 8 weeks straight.

STATEMENT: Lead has not been detected in Lake Chabot.
RESPONSE: I can't confirm this, but I will accept it as true. Based on the estimated $4.4M cleanup budget, I will jump the the conclusion that there is quite a bit of contaminated soil to deal with.

STATEMENT: Lake Chabot is full of lead fishing weights, but lead isn't detected in the water.
RESPONSE: This is a bit of a "red herring", but I see what you're getting at. The simple answer is this: YES, there are lead fishing weights in Lake Chabot, but NO they have not been demonstrated to affect the water quality in a measurable way. A few different things come to play here...
-I assume at least a few of you are gun enthusiasts, to I'm sure you understand that bullets pancake, splatter, squish (whatever you want to call it) when they hit things. This leads to more surface area, which leads to more leaching. It also "smears" some of the lead onto the soil particles that get impacted (much like a lead pencil smears lead onto a page). What you end up with is chunks of bullets/fragments, individual soil particles with lead stuck to them, AND lead actually leaching from all the exposed surface areas until those surfaces become covered in a layer of oxidation. When it rains, many of those newly-disturbed and lead impacted soil particles get scoured from the surface and run off into creeks, rivers, ditches (places kids like to play-you know you did!), storm water systems, and eventually the Bay and/or ocean. Now multiply that by however many shots per day for ~50 years. A fishing weight doesn't do any of that. It sinks gently to the bottom and the relatively small surface area becomes oxidized before much lead has leached. The weights eventually get buried in sediment and remain rather immobile. Ideal, no... But significantly lower impact to the environment.

If I misinterpreted any of the STATEMENTS above, please correct me. I'm not trying to make this into an argument, just trying to shed some light on the situation...

STATEMENT: Lead has not been detected in Lake Chabot.
RESPONSE: I can't confirm this, but I will accept it as true. Based on the estimated $4.4M cleanup budget, I will jump the the conclusion that there is quite a bit of contaminated soil to deal with.

Lead has been detected in the streams around the gun range.  It has not made its way to the lake.  Not sure how that is possible if the streams flow to the lake, but this is what the media is reporting.

-Allen

Allen,

Remember the old (bullshit) saying "dilution is the solution to pollution"? I think that's what's happening here. Lead is flowing into Chabot from those creeks, but is hasn't raised the levels in the lake significantly.

The presence of lead in the creeks sure isn't ideal, either...

Good info Alex -- I appreciate you taking the time to share your experience. I've got a few buddies working for the Ft Ord Reuse Authority...helping to remove unexploded ordinance from the Ft Ord superfund site...they always have the best stories!

I meant to respond to one other statement I read here...

STATEMENT: Lead is naturally occurring in soil. (Or something like that).
RESPONSE: Yes, lead absolutely is naturally occurring in soil. Lead concentrations in native, healthy soil are typically in the range of 1-10 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Lead concentrations at (and down grade from) firing ranges are often in the multiple thousands of mg/kg. With each investigation, one of the first things we do is determine how much lead is naturally occurring in the soil at that location. Then we compare it to the concentrations measured within the impacted area.

If I misinterpreted any of the STATEMENTS above, please correct me. I'm not trying to make this into an argument, just trying to shed some light on the situation...

For the sake of clarification, my posts make no mention of anyone getting rich (nor fabricating data). 

It's a gun range.  There is undoubedtedly lead contamination to be found.  Your firm will contract to collect samples and provide options on how to proceed based on measured lead levels. Then your firm will compete in the rfp process to clean it up. 

I believe that sums up what you posted and isn't too far off my original statement of we found lead (aka sky is falling, Scurvy's already comparing us to flint) gimme money (heres my proposal).  I'm sure from your perspective it's a tidy little process (tbh it looks like it really is on your end) but when the data is presented to stakeholders are they really going to have a choice to make here? Especially with all the well publicized "potential impacts".  They already voted to close the range, the option is leave it as a haz mat site, with the only potential use being a gun range, or clean it up.  Doesn't seem like much option there. 

In regards to natural vs current lead amounts in the soil.  None of the news reports I've seen report leaching to have been an issue (the only water showing signs are creek waters which havent been pinpointed to the range nor does it point toward leaching).  So if it measures 10 or 1000, if theres no evidence that lead is leaching it's still just lead in dirt. 

Back to my first statement, lead is just the scapegoat here.  All the original complaints and requests to shut the place down focus on noise and people generally not liking firearms.  Lead was just a means to an end. 

Alex, maybe you can update us when the data starts coming in (from your firm or whoever gets the initial contract, I assume at some point it will be public).  I'd certainly like to know what evidence there was showing how big of an issue this really was (or wasnt)....with real evidence pointing one way or the other, not just how much we found and potential impacts which is all anyone is able to run on at this time.

It's a gun range.  There is undoubedtedly lead contamination to be found.  Your firm will contract to collect samples and provide options on how to proceed based on measured lead levels. Then your firm will compete in the rfp process to clean it up. 

I believe that sums up what you posted and isn't too far off my original statement of we found lead (aka sky is falling, Scurvy's already comparing us to flint) gimme money (heres my proposal). 

We just don't see this the same way. In reality, the process of investigating and remediating firing ranges has been studied to death and numerous guidance documents have been been written to define how these sites get handled. Long story short, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference which firm gets hired to do the work. We'll all end up collecting samples from the same areas, identifying the same sensitive receptors (both human and animal), and investigating the same areas where surface runoff leaves the site. It seems the surface water leaving Chabot and entering nearby creek(s) was found to contain enough lead to warrant further action. Such is life. Any decent consultant would have come to the same conclusion.

I'm sure from your perspective it's a tidy little process (tbh it looks like it really is on your end) but when the data is presented to stakeholders are they really going to have a choice to make here? Especially with all the well publicized "potential impacts".  They already voted to close the range, the option is leave it as a haz mat site, with the only potential use being a gun range, or clean it up.  Doesn't seem like much option there.

You are somewhat correct. Once a site is found to be contaminated enough that it could impact humans or animals, it must be dealt with. That part is a given. Since this range is in a public space, they must ensure that the public is not impacted by it. The public DOES get to weigh in on the potential cleanup options, and we are required to consider their opinions.

In regards to natural vs current lead amounts in the soil.  None of the news reports I've seen report leaching to have been an issue (the only water showing signs are creek waters which havent been pinpointed to the range nor does it point toward leaching).  So if it measures 10 or 1000, if theres no evidence that lead is leaching it's still just lead in dirt.

The presence of elevated levels of lead in creeks downhill from a place where lead has been blasted into soil for over 50 years seems like pretty solid evidence the lead is migrating off site.

Back to my first statement, lead is just the scapegoat here.  All the original complaints and requests to shut the place down focus on noise and people generally not liking firearms.  Lead was just a means to an end.

The loud community members didn't put the lead there, but they have every right to be protected from it. If you feel they used the lead as a scapegoat to get the range closed, so be it. No matter how you look at it, the lead is there and the laws in place here in America say that it must be addressed.

Alex, maybe you can update us when the data starts coming in (from your firm or whoever gets the initial contract, I assume at some point it will be public).  I'd certainly like to know what evidence there was showing how big of an issue this really was (or wasnt)....with real evidence pointing one way or the other, not just how much we found and potential impacts which is all anyone is able to run on at this time.

Most cleanup projects don't fit the model you might have seen in Erin Brockovich. Thankfully, we address most of them BEFORE people start getting sick. We will probably never know whether Chabot actually made anyone sick, but when the cleanup is done we'll be able to confidently say that it WON'T harm anyone (else).

The "how much we found" is pretty much all you're gonna get. And then we compare the numbers of how much we found against risk-based screening levels like these:

http://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables-november-2015

I have an EPA lead dust removal certificate, all licensed contractors are supposed to have them but its taking time to get everyone on board, then that start fining violators at $32,000 a violation, yup 32k per. Cant wait till they start that up, ill start making real money. One of my duties as a rookie painter in the seventies was to add lead powder to paint. With my bare hands. Got to love the lead. I thought this thread would be dry by now but its as tacky as oil paint.

I have an EPA lead dust removal certificate, all licensed contractors are supposed to have them but its taking time to get everyone on board, then that start fining violators at $32,000 a violation, yup 32k per. Cant wait till they start that up, ill start making real money. One of my duties as a rookie painter in the seventies was to add lead powder to paint. With my bare hands. Got to love the lead. I thought this thread would be dry by now but its as tacky as oil paint.

Oh, there's still plenty of fun to be had here. Jump on in!

Agreed, we were about to declare your hands a toxic waste site, cut then off and ship them to utah, then send you a bill for keeping you safe.

Some of my friends have enjoyed that range and it is kinda sad that people will no longer have that place that feels like the country so close to the city to shoot at.
At the same time a lot more people who were enjoying the same area were being effected by the noise, so lead or no lead I am not surprised that it is being shut down.

Thanks Alex for the thorough description of how this sort of area is "cleaned up". I feel you presented your points clearly and with an appropriate amount of humor even though it is not a fun subject.

Thanks, Tsuri. And thanks everyone else for keeping this discussion more or less on topic.

I do agree that responsible gun owners should have a place to practice. I just think it should be a modern, safe, and environmentally responsible facility.

I've said his before, and I'll say it again. I am NOT anti-gun, I am anti-idiot with gun. Education and training are great means to reduce the number of idiots out there with guns. Hell, maybe we can even make it through a month or two without hearing about some poor toddler accidentally capping one of his parents? I'd call that a win.

That is all.

Cheers,

~Alex

Im just anti-idiot, not saying anyone is,l anti-gun or not, some people are just best off with a case of tetanus.

One more lost freedom with that closing. There will never be a range there again.

This topic came up in a discussion with a friend this morning. He brought up a good point, they should be excavating the sand back stops annually and shipping the "contaminated" material to a mill to recover and recycle the metals.
The tailings could be tested and used for engineered fill.

In regards to the neighbors...when they purchased their home, it was disclosed to them there was a gun range. In my opinion, you have no right to complain about any business in that regard. It was disclosed, and they made a concerted decision to make the purchase regardless.
If it becomes too much for you, MOVE!