Benicia EIR Scoping

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

[I submitted the following comments on May 16, 1999 to the city of
Benicia as part of the scoping process for the Environmental Impact
Report on the cleanup of the Tourtelot property, a former portion of the
Benicia Arsenal where unexploded ordnance has been found.

As of this date, Cal-EPA's Department of Toxic Substances Control still
not not clarified how it expects to regulate the Tourtelor cleanup
project. - Lenny Siegel]


The cleanup of the Tourtelot Property within the former Benicia Arsenal
is a highly unusual project, for the project sponsor proposes to
construct housing and perhaps create open-access open space on property
known to have contained - and suspected to still contain - unexploded
ordnance (UXO). There are no scientifically developed or
regulator-accepted risk management methodologies for such projects. I do
not argue that it is impossible to conduct such a project. Rather, I
believe it must be subject to intensive review by the public and
regulatory oversight by state and/or federal environmental regulatory
agencies.

Under both state and federal law, unexploded munitions at disposal and
demilitarization sites are clearly hazardous wastes and hazardous
substances, so the cleanup must be carried out in accordance with
applicable statutes. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being
prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act does not
substitute for that process. Instead, the EIR should explain which
regulatory process applies to the site; in what form regulatory approval
may be given for both work plans and remedial action; and at what stages
the public will have an opportunity to comment.

This is not simply an abstract issue of process. Unexploded ordnance is
deadly, and it does not attenuate naturally. Unless a complete, careful
remediation of the property is undertaken, the risk to the future
residents and visitors to the property is likely to be unacceptably
high.

I recognize that the city of Benicia and the developer, Granite
Management, have proposed, in general terms, a combination of
electromagnetic surveys and earth-moving which might prove sufficient to
manage those risks, particularly if combined with carefully designed and
legally enforceable institutional controls. To be sufficiently
protective, the standards and plans for such remediation must be
reviewed and approved beforehand by environmental regulators. Those same
regulatory agencies must maintain an on-site presence to ensure that the
plans are followed. And they must sign off on the results. 

Many risk management question must be answered before remedial action is
undertaken. While the EIR may address these issues, they should
primarily be dealt with in the documents that are part of the
environmental cleanup process. These questions include, but are not
limited to:

* What is the sufficient depth of clearance necessary to allow
unrestricted use at the surface?

* What geophysical processes, such as erosion, might bring buried,
undiscovered UXO to the surface?

* What human activity, such as construction or utility installation,
might bring people or their equipment into closer contact with buried,
undiscovered UXO?

* What restrictions will be placed on future site activity, and how will
they be enforced?

* How will future property owners and others users of the property be
notified of the site's history and possible future risks?

* Are educational programs necessary to inform the public - including
children - of the potential risk from UXO?

* What is the best available technology for detecting buried UXO at this
site?

* What is the best available technology for mapping and analyzing data
collected through site surveys?

* What criteria will be used to determine the destruction or removal
method for UXO at the site? That is, how is open burning/open detonation
justified?

* What method will be used to ensure that excavation does in fact "go
down to bedrock"?

* What criteria will be used to ensure that fill is indeed clean?

* Has all information about the use of the property, such as interviews
with former base workers and service personnel, as well as information
on previous studies and remedial action, been plugged into the current
process?

* What will be the process for reporting and responding to UXO, if it is
found in the future?

* Who will be liable for damages resulting from UXO found at the site
after clearance is complete?

Furthermore, the project sponsor should be responsible for ensuring that
the regulators are adequately funded to ensure full protection of human
health and the environment. This should include support, if the Army
does not fund it, for a restoration advisory board, required at formerly
used defense sites regardless of who is conducting remediation. A
restoration advisory board is a forum for public participation in which
critics as well as supporters of a project from the neighboring
community have the opportunity to conduct ongoing, in-depth review of a
project.

Such a process, necessary to meet legal requirements and to protect
public safety, may slow the pace of development, but the investigation
of sites known or suspected to contain unexploded ordnance is fraught
with so much technical uncertainty that a deliberate approach is
absolutely essential. In this instance, an attempt to skip or streamline
regulatory oversight is both morally and legally unacceptable.

Finally, it is my understanding that an Environmental Impact Review
should consider, at least for comparison purposes, a series of project
alternatives. Even though residential development of significant
portions of the property is likely, it is essential to consider other
scenarios, including residential construction with less significant
grading of the terrain.



-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/968-1126
lsiegel@cpeo.org
(PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ARE PHASING OUT
MY OLD E-MAIL ADDRESS: lsiegel@igc.org)
http://www.cpeo.org