[CPEO-IRF] "No Further Action" process at McClellan AFB (CA)

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

[As the letter below shows, U.S. EPA is challenging the Air Force's 
process for making "no further action" determinations at McClellan Air 
Force Base (CA). McClellan was part of the 1995 Base Closure round. It 
is also the Defense Department's most expensive base closure cleanup. In 
its Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual 
Report, the Pentagon tabulated the environmental cleanup bill to date 
for McClellan at $471.9 million and projected the cost to complete at a 
whopping $685.8 million, bringing the estimated total cleanup cost for 
this base alone up to $1167.7 million. - LS]

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

April 20, 2005

Mr. Paul Brunner
AFRPA/DD-McClellan (BEC)
3411 Olson St.
McClellan, CA 95652

SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AIR FORCE RISK-BASED RESTORATION DECISION 
MAKING POLICY AT McCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE

Dear Mr. Brunner:

The purpose of this letter is to discuss the potential negative impacts 
to cleanup at McClellan Air Force Base (AFB) as a result of the 
implementation of the Air Force October 27, 2004 policy titled, "Cleanup 
Program Performance-Based Management Policy" (Air Force policy). We 
believe implementation of this Policy may result in less protective 
cleanups of the Base. At a recent RPM meeting and during our recent 
telephone discussions, the Air Force has stated that implementation of 
the new Air Force policy will result in a revised approach to 
determining whether or not a site will be included in the Feasibility 
Study (FS) phase. The Air Force approach would result in a site being 
selected as no further action in a Record of Decision (ROD) if the 
cumulative risk is less than 1 x 10-4 and hazard index less than 1.

Historically at McClellan AFB and other Department of Defense (DoD) 
facilities throughout the country, the approach has been to only select 
no further action in a ROD under these conditions 1) if the cumulative 
risk is less than lxl0-6 and a hazard index less than 1 or 2) upon 
completion of the FS and Proposed Plan phases of the process. For sites 
with cumulative risk above Ix 10-4 or within the risk range of 1 x 10-4 
and 1 x 10-6, cleanup alternatives that meet a range of cleanup 
standards would be evaluated against the nine criteria in the FS and 
then the recommended alternative and cleanup standards would be proposed 
as part of the Proposed Plan. A final remedy and cleanup standard is 
then selected in the ROD. At McClellan, there are sites with sufficient 
characterization and risks greater than 10-4 and/or a hazard index of 
greater than 1, that have moved into the FS process and some actions 
have already been initiated.  Once action is initiated, the cleanup 
goals strive to reach the low end of the risk range, which is 10-6 risk 
and hazard index of 1. Other sites at McClellan which have not yet been 
sufficiently characterized are still being evaluated. During the FS 
phase, there is flexibility to evaluate a range of alternatives, 
including no action. During the ROD phase there is flexibility to select 
a remedy and a cleanup standard within the risk range, as long as the 
Applicable, Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are met and 
the remedy is overall protective of Human Health and the Environment. 
The U.S. EPA and State of California believe this approach is consistent 
with CERCLA and the NCP and should continue to be implemented at 
McClellan AFB to ensure protectiveness and facilitate reuse of the Base.

One of the citations included in the new Air Force Policy is EPA's OSWER 
Directive No. 9355.0-30, "The Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in 
Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions, dated April 22, 1991 (EPA 
Directive). The U.S. EPA has applied the OSWER 1991 Directive at private 
and DoD NPL sites across the country, including McClellan AFB. This 
Directive was written to assist project managers in making decision 
regarding whether or not actions should be taken at an NPL site and how 
to justify those actions. The determination for action is to be based on 
a cumulative baseline risk assessment, including all exposure pathways, 
to evaluate the site in total. The definition of "Site", for the 
purposes of the Directive, was the entire area listed on the NPL; not an 
installation restoration (IR) site or Operable Unit (OU). Therefore, the 
action determination is based on the cumulative baseline risk assessment 
(all pathways, including groundwater) for the entire listed site and not 
for individual IR sites or OUs.

Both the OSWER 1991 directive and the new Air Force policy address sites 
in which sufficient information has been collected to fully characterize 
the releases and have completed a cumulative baseline risk assessment. 
Currently, McClellan does not meet these standards outright. Most 
Installation Restoration (IR) sites have significant data gaps due to 
funding and scheduling constraints but are being moved forward in the 
process. The Air Force plans to address these sites with its new policy. 
Given that funding levels have been reduced, it is our understanding 
that most data-gaps--will not be filled before completion of the ROD and 
that development of a cumulative baseline risk assessment of these sites 
are not planned. Instead, a risk assessment is being developed or has 
been developed for each individual IR site or Area of Concern (AOC).

Due to the varying extent of characterization, data gaps and 
uncertainties in the risk assessment, EPA believes that it is necessary 
to evaluate those sites that are within the risk range, thus using the 
NCP defined point of departure, i.e. 10-6 cancer risk and a hazard index 
of 1, to evaluate the need for site remedial action. Evaluation of sites 
with incomplete characterization are addressed as a screening level 
evaluation as presented in U.S. EPA Soil Screening Guidance 
EPA/540/R-95/128 dated May 1996 which supports the use of the point of 
departure. Then the project team must balance all the unknowns and level 
of confidence in the site assessment information, as well as, create 
sufficient documentation supporting the final outcome. Currently at 
McClellan, this is being handled in the FS and Environmental Site File 
(ESF) documents. This is consistent with both EPA directives and 
guidance and we expect that this will continue in future FS evaluations.

This letter is a clarification, so that there will be no 
misunderstandings within the project team, of our expectation that any 
site with a risk greater than 10-6 or hazard index greater than 1 be 
included in the FS. All remedial action decisions must be based on as 
complete a site characterization as possible and allow the project team 
to balance the inherent uncertainties through the risk management 
process. EP A will not agree to no further action decisions based on 
10-4 risk without sufficient evaluation in a FS document. If you have 
any questions regarding this letter, please contact me ...

Sincerely,

Kathleen Johnson,
Chief, Federal Facility and Cleanup Branch


--
Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
http://www.cpeo.org


_______________________________________________
Installation_Reuse_Forum mailing list
Installation_Reuse_Forum@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/installation_reuse_forum