CALIFORNIA HEARINGS TUESDAY

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE PLANS HEARINGS

On Tuesday, August 26, 1997, the California Assembly Select Committee on
Defense Conversion, headed by Assemblyman Joe Baca, will conduct a
hearing on "Environmental Issues Relating to Base Conversion and
Retention." (8 am - 9 am, Room 444, State Capitol, Sacramento). All of
the witnesses will represent either the armed services or the
Administration of Governor Pete Wilson .

According to the Committee's briefing paper: "The purpose of this
hearing is to explore ways that California can improve its partnership
with the Department of Defense, in the area of environmental protection.
While there have been a number of success stories over the years, there
may be possible areas for improvement.

"It is important that our state continue to be perceived by the
Department of Defense as friendly to the military: California must
remain competitive with other states in attracting and retaining
military operations.

"A smooth working relationship with the military will also ensure that
closed bases are cleaned up more quickly, allowing for civilian
re-reuse. This will pave the way for economic growth in communities that
have suffered base closure."

The Committee will address seven issues:

1) Building upon existing partnerships. In particular, the Department of
Defense (DOD) seeks greater state participation in the California
Military Environmental Coordination Committee (CMECC). 

[As far as I'm concerned, that's a no-brainer. CMECC is a national model
for constructive dialogue between state and federal regulators, on the
one hand, and the armed services, on the other.]

** 2) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is probably the
most controversial issue. DOD feels that federal documents, such as
those prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
should substitute for state required documents. Cal-EPA's Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), on the other hand believes that it has
fairly applied CEQA at military installations where it is the lead
regulator. 

[Environmental groups generally believe that DOD should be subject to
the same laws, such as CEQA, as non-federal entities.]

3) Munitions Rule. DOD wants the state to adopt and implement U.S. EPA's
munitions rule, but DTSC is still evaluating the rule. California played
an active role in discussions of the rule before it was promulgated this
February

4) Hazardous waste fees. DOD believes the $2-3 million a year it pays to
the state in hazardous waste fees is too high, particularly since - says
DOD - 30% of those fees pay for non-DOD cleanups within the states.

5) Air successes. According to DOD, California's Air Resources Board
(ARB) is "a national model for incorporating national security measures
in regulation and recognizing DOD's unique needs."

[That has me worried. The reason there is so much contamination at
military bases and nuclear weapons plants and labs is that they used
their national security missions as a license to pollute. A state so
impacted by air pollution shouldn't be competing to keep military bases
by allowing special treatment for the armed services in peacetime.]

6) Shipping channel at Point Mugu. One of the possible means of
achieving air pollution reductions in accordance with the State
Implementation Plan would be to relocate the Southern California
Shipping Channel. Among the issues: Does U.S. EPA or the South Coast Air
Board decide?

7) Beale Air Force Base. DTSC is threatening a clean-up enforcement
order, but that appears to be part of its strategy for negotiating a
Federal Facility Site Remediation Agreement (FFSRA). Both negotiations
and the order are on hold while DTSC negotiates a similar agreement at
the North Island Naval Air Station. That agreement will likely serve as
a model for agreements at other bases not on the "Superfund" National
Priorities List (NPL).

[At other bases - such North Island, Mare Island, Alameda - which would
be on the NPL if Governor Wilson removed his objections, NPL listing
would make it easier to put a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) in
place, with U.S. EPA's direct involvement. Whether an FFSRA or FFA, I
believe the agreement should be based upon the recommendations of the
Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee (FFERDC)
(Final Report Chapter 5). That's the basis for model language agreed to
by regulators and the Navy in the northeastern U.S. In this instance,
California is behind the curve because no state officials took part in
FFERDC meetings.]

(For more information, contact the committee at 916/323-5883.)

Lenny Siegel
Director, SFSU CAREER/PRO (and Pacific Studies Center)
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/968-1126
lsiegel@igc.org