Response to Community Options to Resolve Disputes

[Don Zweifel <zweifel@chapman.edu>]

USEPA Region Nine is usually loath to press the matter because the
spectre of fiefdoms or territorial turf often raises its ugly head. EPA
and the service branches are both in actuality, federally mandated to
remediate and transfer expeditiously on a fast-track basis, but these
well-meaning and not often misguided people are often common bedfellows
which thus engenders a delicate balancing act between sensibilities. 

They in essense, shirk their duty to the public when internecine
squabbling becomes a fait accompli. It becomes a zero-sum game or a
lose-lose scenario for everyone on this "blue marble," as the late Carl
Sagan inferred.

The Navy could be deathly fearful of continued liability at closed 
installations. There seems to be a distinct tendency to want to wash their
hands of any costly long-term responsibility for continued clean-up. This
essentially appears to be the crux of the problem. It's undoubtedly become
a Gordian knot or conundrum to them. 

The issue is whether Congress will feel obliged to fund long-term
remediation projects that may last generations. The service branches no
doubt, believes their Operations and Maintenance or O&M budget will
ultimately have to be dipped into, thereby detrimentally affecting force
levels and readiness. Preparedness is a most laudable goal.

However, in order to have a win-win situation all parties must out of
necessity forget superfluous or extraneous issues and instead focus on the
common need to follow the President's directive, i.e., make a meaningful
movement towards conciliation or get off the pot.

 * * *

Regarding disputation on screening methodology for FOSLs and FOSTs or
Finding on Suitability to Lease or Transfer.

When DON ostensibly refuses to compare their chosen remediation and
restoration technology to standards for screening property via American
Society for Testing and Materials or ASTM then one should try to determine
their rationale and every subtle nuance for this decision. If its
foundational support appears to be built upon shifting sands then a
frontal assault from a position of strength is probably within the realm
of feasibility. Namely holding the EPA's feet to the fire so that they
pick up the ball and run with it. Existing case law appears to uphold this
contention. 

In summation may we reiterate that a FFSRA or Federal Facility Site
Restoration Agreement as well as other vitally crucial issues should in
certain cases be referred directly to the good offices of EPA Secretary
Browner thereby hopefuly lessening the possibility of regional
politics unduly influencing the deliberations. 

 Don Zweifel