The remaining disagreements that were made public contradict statements made to the Restoration Board at its November 1996 meeting that an agreement in principle had been made between the Navy and state regulatory agency. Cal-EPA is now considering a law-suit against the Navy. At the RAB meeting Cal-EPA suggested community members may wish to consider a law-suit as well.
The Restoration Advisory Board took issue at the failure of the Navy and state to reach an agreement on the cleanup method for NAS. The RAB feels that this threatens to delay reuse and transfer of the base to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the community. The RAB has sent a letter to Navy, state and political representatives to ensure that reaching an agreement remains a top priority.
Since 1981, DTSC has performed inspections of NAS less than once per year. In nearly every inspection dating to this time DTSC has identified serious violations of hazardous waste laws.
After losing its sovereign immunity, NAS was the first federal facility in California to be fined by DTSC paying an $80,000 fine in December 1994 for hazardous waste violations that have repeatedly been observed during DTSC's annual enforcement inspections. The most recent notice of violation occurred in November 1996 and involved violations by the NavyÕs cleanup program (see inside).
On February 28, 1997, a complaint was filed with DTSC that alleged this recycled hazardous waste had been spilled on Main Street from a tank truck involved in the storm sewer cleanup process. The Navy indicated to DTSC that the tank trucks hold "clean water only" and some spillage from the trucks is inadvertent. The Navy has made two contradictory statements to DTSC. Is the Navy recycling hazardous waste (by spilling it on city streets) or are they not recycling, and therefore treating hazardous waste illegally?
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) existing hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities were required to apply for an interim status or Part A permit in 1981. Many existing facilities required structural modifications before a final or Part B permit could be issued. The Navy received a final Part B permit for NAS in 1994. Four of the facilities in the NavyÕs Part A application were not included in the Final Part B permit. These facilities were out of service and promised to be closed.
Closure is a requirement of a hazardous waste facility permit. A written closure plan must be prepared to describe the method for removing all hazardous wastes and describing how the structures and equipment will be decontaminated to remove any hazardous waste residues. Soil sampling or "wipe samples" from equipment are generally collected during closure to confirm that no hazardous waste contamination remains.
As a condition of its Part B permit the Navy agreed to investigate a number of areas of the base where hazardous waste had historically be used and stored. These corrective action sites included seven 90-day generator accumulation points (GAPs), and six active and 26 inactive underground storage tanks.
Despite the complaints from several local residents at public hearings, Cal-EPA issued NAS a Part B Permit in 1994 for eight separate hazardous waste facilities. Residents complained that the Navy did not adequately evaluate the risk to children living in on-base housing, had a poor compliance record, and they would be allowed to store acutely toxic cyanide wastes for extended periods.
Tiered permits is a relatively recent program that was introduced by Cal-EPA to streamline the permitting of the most common hazardous waste operations. NAS has a total of eight operations that operated under tiered permits.
A May 1996 letter from NAS to the ARRA states that: " The Navy is willing to go one step further and as an interim measure, to amend the Navy's current permit to include the ARRA as an operator, as long as ARRA agrees, prior to beginning operations, to assume all permit responsibility for permit fees, responsibility for any fines incurred as a results of the sublease operations, training of operators, a financial responsibility for permit closure, and any other provisions which are spelled out in the desired permit."
The Navy has modified closure plans for IWTP-24, IWTP-25, and IWTP-32 leaving chemicals and equipment behind for future ARRA tenants. The Navy has also proposed to leave its tiered permitted facilities available for reuse.
| PART B PERMIT HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES | Industrial Waste Treatment Plants | Building 5 (IWTP-5) Building 24 (IWTP-24) Building 25 (IWTP-25) Building 32 (IWTP-32) |
To be closed. Planned reuse. Planned reuse. Planned reuse. |
Tank and Container Storage Areas | Building 13 Yard D-13 Structure 598 |
UNPERMITTED AND INACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES | Industrial Waste Treatment Plants | Building 410 (IWTP-410) Building 360 (IWTP-360) Building 360 pH Adjustment |
Out of Service 1989. Closure plan Sept. 1996. Misrepresented in Part B permit |
Underground Storage Tanks and Pipelines | Area 37 | Seven 25,000 gallon tanks. | RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION AREAS | Generator Accumulation Points (GAP) | GAP-26 GAP-27 GAP-7 GAP-8 GAP-9 GAP-15/29 |
Area 342 Area 374 Area 420 Area 166(NE) Area 528 Area 67 |
Active Underground Storage Tanks (6) | 398-1,2; 615-1,2,3; Bldg-397. | Abandoned Underground Storage Tanks (26) | Area 37; 6-1,2,3; 13-1,2,3; 15-1,2,3; 117; 411; 261-1,2,3; 372; 374-1; 393; 420-1,2; 442; 473; 506; AV-1,2; FS. | TIERED-PERMIT HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES | Permit-by-Rule | Building 360 pH Adjustment | Conditional Authorization | Bilge Oil Wsatewater | Conditional Exemption | Building 360 Medical Clinic Building 5 Building 5 Building 32 Building 25 |
Triple Rinsing Drums Medical Clinic Photo Shop Inspection Shop Triple Rinsing Drums Triple Rinsing Drums |
Despite the importance of the pollution cleanup issue there has been no open discussion among the city, county, state or federal politicians about pollution cleanup at NAS.
The lack of direct involvement by city representatives contributes to the Navy's open disregard of public safety standards in the management of hazardous waste and the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. A city government that has collectively ignored this public health problem rather that deal with it in an open and thorough manner does a disservice to the City of Alameda and its future.
The Navy's hazardous waste fines and disputes with the State on cleanup methodology should be a wake-up call to the ARRA, Alameda city government, and residents of Alameda.