NAVY CLOSURE CLEANUP POLICY

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

Navy Land Use Policy Memo

On August 17, the Robert Pirie, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
(Installations and Environment) issued a policy memorandum, 
prepared for Navy officials in the field, clarifying how the Navy will 
determine the cleanup of property to be transferred as part of Base 
realignment and Closure. The memo refers to CERCLA (the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act, the NCP (National Continency Plan for Oil and 
Hazardous Substance Pollution, and a May 25, 1995 directive from 
U.S. EPA, "Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Section." (I 
described the EPA directive in a June 8, 1995 posting to this news 
group.)

The new Navy policy states that remedies and cleanup levels must 
comply with CERCLA and the NCP, and they should be "consistent 
with approved community reuse plans." It adds, "In the absence of 
an approved reuse plan, remedies and cleanup standards should be 
based on either the current land use, or the most likely land use as 
identified in the reuse Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 
Communities should be encourage to develop reuse plans that 
consider reusing the land in the same manner (industrial, commercial, 
residential) as it is being used at the time of closure. This will result 
in cost effectrive and timely cleanups, ultimately providing 
opportunity for quicker economic revitalization of the property. It is 
recognized, however, that cleanups based upon projected land use 
which is different than the current land use will sometimes be in the 
best interest of both [the Navy] and the community."

In other words, the Navy would like its industrial facilities reused as 
civilian industrial facilities, since in that case cleanup is likely to be 
faster and less costly. However, it recognizes that a more complete 
cleanup may at times make more sense.

Furthermore, the Navy promises to return to do more cleanup if (a) 
new contamination is discovered, (b) remedial action proves 
unsuccessful, or (c) as part of the normal CERCLA five-year review, 
the remedial action is determined to be no longer protective for the 
assigned land use.

The Navy does not assume responsibility, however, if the land use 
later changes. In fact, it argues that the new landowner may be 
deemed a potentially responsible party if it creates exposures by 
failing to comply with applicable land use restrictions. 

It is on this critical point that the Navy's position has been challenged 
by state authorities. Some state Attorney General offices argue that 
the Navy (or any other polluter) is responsible for cleaning up any 
contamination that it has released. The fact that it has been left off the 
hook temporarily by a restrictive land use does not eliminate that 
obligation.

The difference reflects fundamentally different world views. Many 
polluters feel an obligation to restore the environment only if it can be 
proven that people or ecosystems are being harmed by pollution. 
Many regulators and environmentalists believe the best way to protect 
people and the environment is to restore property as close as possible 
to its original state. 

In fact, some of us consider such "restoration" intrinsic to sound 
environmental policy. That is, restoring the environment is not only 
the best way to protect human health and the environment, but 
leaving property the way we found it is an important goal in itself.