PaintSquare.com
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on LinkedIn Like us on Facebook Follow us on Instagram Visit the TPC Store
Search the site

 

Advertisement

PaintSquare


Coatings Industry News

Main News Page


Cleanup Battle Brewing at Bay Bridge Site

Thursday, July 5, 2018

More items for Environmental Controls
More items from North America

Comment | More

Five years after the new Bay Bridge eastern span opened in San Francisco, bridge-painting waste is at the center of a budding conflict over continuing site cleanup.

At a meeting late last month of the Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee, a multi-agency consortium that oversees the bridge, California Department of Transportation officials briefed executives on the state of Site 11, a U.S. Navy-owned area of Yerba Buena island used for access during the 12-year-long construction project. Caltrans could be on the hook for a significant portion of the cost of cleaning up the site despite the fact that it was already in need of remediation before the project ever began.

Eastern span
Dllu, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Cleanup at a site related to the $6.5 billion Bay Bridge eastern span replacement is at the center of a conflict that's brewing between Caltrans and the U.S. Navy.

The site, which had been used as a landfill for household waste when the Navy occupied the area before a base closure in 1997, is one of three Navy-owned parcels taken by Caltrans for access to build the new eastern span starting in 2001. According to Caltrans environmental manager Hardeep Takhar, who spoke at the June 21 meeting, the Navy was in the process of remediating the site for future civilian use when Caltrans took control of it at the beginning of the bridge project.

Now, some 17 years later as demolition winds down, the agency is preparing to turn the land back over to the Navy when it completes its pier retention project in the area. Takhar notes, though, that Caltrans may be responsible for some of the cleanup at the site due to waste from bridge-painting and other construction activities; the estimate given to the committee at the meeting was between $5.5 million and $11 million, the projected total cost of cleanup at the site.

According to a 2015 Navy report, Site 11 was documented as a landfill as far back as 1935, and more recent testing before the bridge project began found construction debris and petroleum-contaminated sand at the site. The 2015 document stated that the area "may be contaminated by lead and other metals as a result of vehicle emissions, as well as bridge and ramp painting and maintenance." It added that "construction activities associated with the new Bay Bridge have greatly altered the landfill surface, which is currently being used by Caltrans as a laydown area for bridge construction materials."

Past Conflict

The possible $11 million price tag, a risk taken on because there seems to have been no concrete agreement between the Navy and Caltrans regarding the responsibility for cleanup, raised concerns for some on the committee, including Bay Area Toll Authority executive director Steve Heminger, who brought up bad blood between the Navy and Caltrans over the Bay Bridge project stretching back years.

Site 11
U.S. Navy

Site 11 was documented as a landfill as far back as 1935, and more recent testing before the bridge project began found construction debris and petroleum-contaminated sand at the site. 

“The United States Navy owned the property we needed to build the bridge and it refused to turn over the property to the department so it could even [provide] access for department personnel to drill test pilings,” Heminger said at the meeting.

Heminger questioned the seriousness of the waste left behind by Caltrans in comparison with the dump left by the Navy, calling the agency’s contribution to the mess “a few drops of paint.”

The bill is far from final, however. One Caltrans official said the agency plans to begin negotiations with the Navy this fall in relation to the cleanup effort at Site 11, noting that it’s possible the agency may have “accepted more [risk] than we should have,” but that Caltrans’ legal team disagrees with that notion.

Steel Rods Settlement

Caltrans also reached an agreement last month with bridge contractor American Bridge/Fluor, which had sued the agency for $40 million in part because it said Caltrans specified the steel rods that failed early in the bridge’s life. The settlement, according the NBC Bay Area, involves Caltrans paying $25.5 million to the joint venture and forgiving an $8.5 million fine it had levied on the contractor.

After numerous delays and cost overruns, the Bay Bridge replacement came to a cost of $6.5 billion, an incredible 25 times the original cost estimate, in 1995, of $250 million.

Problems with the bridge have included the faulty anchor rods, rainwater leaks, concerns about corrosion on the main cable and questions about the strength of the steel used in its construction.

The old eastern span of the Bay Bridge was replaced due to concerns about its safety under earthquake conditions; part of the span infamously collapsed during 1989’s Loma Prieta earthquake, killing one driver. While the western span—a suspension bridge reaching from San Francisco to Yerba Buena—was retrofitted for seismic durability, Caltrans determined.

   

Tagged categories: Bridges; Lead; U.S. Navy

Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (7/5/2018, 8:47 AM)

Any paint waste should have been dealt with before the painting subcontractor demobilized.


Comment from Scott Youngs, (7/5/2018, 12:26 PM)

Looks the painting contractors free hazardous waste dumping site plan may have backfired on them...


Comment from Michael Beitzel, (7/9/2018, 9:07 AM)

This makes an excellent case for bridge owners to have third party environmental consultants involved in monitoring of paint contractors activities and to provide defensible pre job and post job conditions and to conduct monitoring of the work in progress.


Comment from Michael Halliwell, (7/13/2018, 12:36 PM)

Michael...that and having proper access / lease documents finalized before going on site to start the work.


Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

Advertisements
 
Novatek Corporation
 
Dustless Coatings Removal
 
Novatek Corporation, Dustless Coatings Removal Strip, clean and profile all dust free! Comply with new lead standards. Contact today: (866) 563-7800 www.Novatekco.com
 

 
Industrial Vacuum Equipment Corp.
 
Hurricane Vacuums
& Dust Collectors
 
Vacuum and dust collector hose, filters and related accessories.
IndustrialVacuum.com
 

 
Tarps manufacturing, Inc.
 
QUALITY MADE IN AMERICA —Available near you!
 
CLICK to get a behind-the-scenes look at how Tarps Manufacturing makes the highest-quality tarps right here in the USA — available nationwide.
 

 
SAFE Systems, Inc.
 
Portable Dust Collectors for Tough Environments
 
Trailer and skid-mounted models in numerous sizes, powered by electric and/or diesel. Sloped roofs, multiple dust inlets, high static, dampered fans. Lockable power & drive compartments.
 

 
HoldTight Solutions Inc.
 
Full Surface Protection for Up to One Year
 
HT 365 is a preservation, single component, anti-corrosive coating, a water displacing agent, a lubricant, and a penetrating fluid. It creates an imperceptible thin-film coating that offers excellent salt contaminant and humidity protection. Contact your HoldTight® representative or visit Holdtight.com for more information.
 

 
SABRE Autonomous Solutions
 
Quality
 
The ALPHA1 provides a consistent finish day-in
day-out; job to job.
 

 
Blastox/The TDJ Group, Inc.
 
Blastox® - One Step Lead Abatement
 
Sandblast additive delivered to jobsite pre-blended to eliminate hazardous abrasive wastes. Why mix, meter or apply at the job-site? Blast with ease and
Let your painters paint!
1(800)-252-7869
 

 
Absolute Equipment/Grand Rental Station
 
TIER 4 EQUIPMENT
 
We have Tier 4 Equipment including Air Compressors & Generators for Sale & Rent! Your job may now require Tier-4. www.absoluteequip.com or Call 412-931-6655.
 

 
Graco Inc.
 
Graco EcoQuip 2: Experience the Difference
 
While others claim their equipment is the same, none of them compare to Graco’s EcoQuip 2™ Vapor Abrasive® blasting line. Visit graco.com/ecoquip to learn more.
 

 
BASF
 
New resins from BASF will have metals loving water!
 
Excellent corrosion resistance, low VOC, high gloss, thin films www.basf.us/industrialcoatings dpsolutions@basf.com 800-231-7868
 

 
 
 

Technology Publishing Co., 1501 Reedsdale Street, Suite 2008, Pittsburgh, PA 15233

TEL 1-412-431-8300  • FAX  1-412-431-5428  •  EMAIL webmaster@paintsquare.com


The Technology Publishing Network

Durability + Design PaintSquare the Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings Paint BidTracker

 
EXPLORE:      JPCL   |   PaintSquare News   |   Interact   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   Resources   |   Classifieds
REGISTER AND SUBSCRIBE:      Free PaintSquare Registration   |   Subscribe to JPCL   |   Subscribe to PaintSquare News
MORE:      About PaintSquare.com   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms & Conditions   |   Support   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us