RESOLVING DISPUTES AT ALAMEDA

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

RESOLVING DISPUTES AT ALAMEDA

Bill Smith's posting, Community Options to Resolve Disputes, raises a 
number of important issues. Here are my comments.

Lenny Siegel

1. Navy headquarters does indeed believe that it is spending too much 
money on cleanup in California. However, no one has established how 
much, if any, of the higher cost is due to more stringent standards.

2. Alameda, as a non-NPL ("Superfund" National Priorities List) 
facility, is still subject to the dispute resolution process built into 
the Defense State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA). That process may 
lack teeth because it does not contain site-specific milestones 
characteristic of a Federal Facilities Agreement.

3. Neither "lead authority" nor regulatory oversight change just 
because a base is closed or property is transfered.

4. Superfund legislation, if it ever passes, is likely to give state 
regulators cleanup oversight authority that now lies in the hands of 
U.S. EPA. However, since Alameda is a closing base with other reasons 
for U.S. EPA involvement, the practical impact will be limited.

5. Over the years, many of us have looked at ways to fund base cleanup 
outside of the Defense Department budget. We have concluded that it 
would be much harder to fund such a program, and that it would reduce 
the Pentagon's incentive to improve waste management and pollution 
prevention practices.

6. The Navy's hesitance to negotiate new Federal Facilities Agreements 
(including two-party agreements with the states) should be relieved by 
the recent negotiation of model language, in the Northeast, 
incorporating the recommendations of the Federal Facilities 
Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee.

7. At Moffett Field, which is on the NPL, we benefit from the existence 
of a Federal Facilities Agreement, signed by the Navy, U.S. EPA, the 
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Regional Water 
Quality Control Board.

8. Alameda Naval Air Station reportedly qualifies for the NPL, but 
Governor Wilson's objection has kept it off.

Here's my advice:

The Alameda community - the RAB, the local reuse authority, elected 
officials, etc. - should present the Navy and DTSC with a deadline for 
the successful negotiation of a Federal Facilities Site Restoration 
Agreement. There should be a public presence - or at least frequent 
reports to the public - at those negotiations. 

If the deadline is not met, the Governor should lift his objection to 
NPL listing for the base. That could mean that U.S. EPA will play a 
more significant role in oversight, but that's not necessarily a bad 
thing. And given likely changes in the Superfund law, the state is 
likely to regain its role as lead regulator.