Coastal
Post Online
January
2002
Toxic Dump Under Ballfield; Army Blows Off Other Agencies
By Elena Belsky
In the latest episode of the bizarre story
that is the Hamilton Air Force Base (HAFB) re-use, the United States Army has
unilaterally declared that it is the lead regulatory agency for toxic clean up
work on their own parcels, blatantly dismissing the authority of other
agencies. This move attempts to
eliminate the roles of State of California environmental regulatory and
oversight agencies-namely, the State Department of Toxic Substances Control
[DTSC] and the Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]-from key positions
of authority on Hamilton clean up issues.
Army Gives Oversight Agencies the 'Brush-Off'
At a public meeting in December, Ed Keller,
coordinator of the Army's Base Re-use and Closure (BRAC), announced that
remediation work had already begun on two sites in the wetlands project, near
the Coastal Marsh (a critical habitat area), with two additional hazardous
excavation and removal sites being added to the work schedule in
mid-January.
State regulators and members of the public
in attendance were surprised by the Army's statements, and expressed confusion
at the lack of procedure, and dismay at the "we're taking over"
attitude. The announcement by the Army that it had already begun work implies
apparent violations of process, in that the Remedial Action Plan for the
Wetlands Project (which is mandated by the State) has not been finalized or
approved, nor has the Army responded to comments from the public or the
regulatory agencies, or completed the California Environmental Quality Act
process - all of which are necessary prior to the Army receiving final approval
of the Remedial Action Plan, and PRIOR
to the Army beginning any work.
The DTSC representative, Lance McMahon, in
particular, took exception to the Army's insistence that they were now in
charge of their own oversight.
Naomi Feger, the Regional Board representative, surprisingly did not
express similar concerns, and merely pointed out that the Army was
"running a risk of the agencies not being happy with the work, and having
to do it over again."
Tom
Roth, aide to Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, asked the Army if there was a
potential conflict with other agencies.
Mr. Keller responded, "Yes, there are potential conflicts, no
doubt." Then went on to say that
if the Army 's "new found" authority were challenged, it would end up
in Federal Court.
The Army
provided no information as to under what legal authority the military believes
it can commandeer the role of lead oversight agency for their own project,
superseding California State Environmental laws.
The bigger and more frightening question is
whether the Department of Defense (DOD) should be allowed to choose which
potential toxic sites should undergo investigation, which should receive
remediation, and the extent of clean up efforts. Keeping in mind that the DOD will have to pay the clean up costs
for whatever is uncovered, it seems a great disincentive to the DOD actively
looking for hazardous sites, or properly cleaning the ones they DO find.
Toxic
Dump Believed Under Ballfield
The military's site investigations at Hamilton, so far, have been less
than thorough. Just as the Army
announced their oversight "take over," a new, previously uninvestigated toxic dump has been discovered
under a children's playground and community ballfield.
Not surprisingly, the disclosure of this hazard was not brought forth by
the Army, the Navy, the Army Corps, or any other government military branch
owning property at Hamilton. The disclosure was made by a State Department of
Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) regulator doing the job we taxpayers pay him to
do - provide regulatory oversight to protect the public and environmental
health. In contrast to the obfuscation techniques employed by HAFB's military
tenants, as they protect their own narrow interests, this is yet another
example that speaks to the benefits to the public of the role of the State and
other oversight agencies.
In a
July of 2001 Army Archive Search Review (precipitated by retired 6th Army
Inspector Robert Foley's report of an previously unknown hazardous dump site),
another retired military officer stepped forward to report yet another
unidentified toxic dump near the southern end of the base. The witness
remembered a "cattail swamp" in which there was upwelling oil, and
seeing trucks backing up to the swamp, and dumping materials that had been
collected from the airplane hangars and aviation maintenance shops. The Archive
Search Review was released in September, including interviews and aerial photos
confirming the reports of the witness. In the mid-1950s, the site was filled
with dirt, and graded into a ballfield.
Just last year, community volunteers built a children's playground and new baseball field - unwittingly and
unfortunately on top of a possible toxic dump site.
Although in possession of this information
from July to December of 2001, there was no further investigation by the
military of the site in question or of the witness' claims.
Interviews and aerial photo
examination by the DTSC indicate that further investigation of the potential
toxic waste dump is warranted. The next step is for the military (whichever
branch ends up having jurisdiction of the property!) to conduct a detailed site
inspection and various physical samples to confirm suspicions and determine the
possible extent of any contamination.
The latest unknown hazardous dump should have been identified long ago,
especially as the site has changed hands a number of times over the years; most
recently from the Navy, to the Department of Interior, in preparation for sale
to the City of Novato. However, it seems clear, from the preponderance of
evidence in the HAFB re-use conversion process, that the military's various
branches were far from exemplary in documenting their use of the property and
cleaning up after themselves.
Note: Mr. Foley, a retired 6th Army Hazardous Materials Inspector, who
has been the subject of an aggressive campaign to discredit him in relation to
his reports of inappropriate hazardous waste disposal at HAFB, also reported a
second hazardous waste dump on the Rio Vista Army base in the Sacramento Delta
area, the existence of which-while initially denied by the Army-was subsequently
confirmed.
The military cannot
seem to find their own hazardous waste sites, even with dozens of years to
look. What protections for the public
and environmental health and welfare can we expect, looking at the military's
track record at Hamilton?
It is
time for Army and whomever else, to step in and figure out where all the
hazardous sites are, submit to close supervision of the state regulators, and
to do the remediation work ONLY if approved by the State agencies. The Army must recognize that they own
property and are working in the State of California, and therefore must accept
State jurisdiction and get their projects moving forward in a safe, legal, and
respectful manner.
Follow up to December's Coastal Post Article on
Landfill 26/Regional Board Action against Army:
While
occasionally asking tough questions regarding HAFB issues, Lynn Woolsey's
office nevertheless has 'played ball' with the Army in certain critical areas.
In a late breaking move, just before the November 29, 2001 Regional Board
Hearing to adopt the Clean Up and Abatement Order for Landfill 26,
Congresswoman Woolsey intervened on the Army's behalf, altering the RWQCB's
Order for Landfill 26 from an immediate timeline, to one that begins in 2005
(to coincide with Federal funding) leaving the environmental concerns and the
interim status of Landfill 26 and adjacent properties in question.