The following comments address the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and Removal Action Workplan for the marsh crust contamination at East Housing, Alameda Naval Air Station Parcels 170 and 171. The proposed marsh crust remedy, a threshold depth map, is similar to the precautions taken over 30 years ago during development of a hazardous waste landfill in Love Canal, New York. These types of remedies do not work.

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Catellus Mixed Use Development (LSA Associates, Inc., December 1999) identified the Marsh Crust Ordinance and the Covenant with DTSC as mitigation measures necessary to reduce a significant environmental impact to insignificance. To the contrary DTSCÕs Initial Study states that the marsh crust contamination has no environmental impacts, and the Negative Declaration proposes no mitigation measures.

DTSC's Initial Study contradicts not only this EIR but also a March 23, 1999, letter from DTSC to the US Navy, wherein the marsh crust is identified as a significant impact if brought to the surface. In the March 23, 1999, letter DTSC wrote:

"Any statement that dismisses the potential for exposure to subsurface contamination that may be raised to the surface during construction activities may lead future property owners and regulatory agency representatives to misunderstand the nature of this very real risk. All statements that dismiss the potential for this risk must be removed from the document."

In fact, DTSC's Removal Action Workplan and Initial Study make statements that dismiss this very real risk and such statements should be removed from these documents. In addition, the covenant and marsh crust ordinance should be identified in CEQA documents as necessary mitigations.

Under CERCLA Section 121(e) no federal, state, or local permits are required for on-site CERCLA response actions. The Navy's, DTSC's and Alameda's attempt to require a local permit to excavate the marsh crust contamination is therefore unenforceable.

Under the Covenant, DTSC will step in to approve excavations into the marsh crust if the City of Alameda repeals its marsh crust ordinance. The covenant therefore has the affect of appropriating DTSC's discretionary regulatory authority to the City of Alameda with respect to marsh crust contamination.

The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Chapter 6.11 Health and Safety Code Section 25404 et al.) describes the procedures for, and the limits to, delegating DTSC regulatory authority to a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Has the Secretary of the Environment qualified the City of Alameda as a CUPA? Does state law allow DTSC to delegate their regulatory authority with respect to removal actions to a CUPA?

No evidence of the marsh crust contamination has been found at the subject site. The threshold depth for the marsh crust has been arbitrarily established. No information is available on the fate and transport of groundwater contamination at the site. No evidence is available on landfill gas generation and the potential for explosion hazards caused by decaying hazardous wastes.

The only site specific information referenced by DTSC was the Navy Environmental Baseline Survey which did not test for PAHs, and a July 1999 letter from ERM-West, which reported PAH sample results without certified analytical reports, evaluated risks using average rather the 95 percent confidence limit values, and did not report sample results from a depth consistent with the marsh crust.

In proceeding with a remedy for East Housing, how can DTSC be satisfied with the level of site investigation that has been performed? How can DTSC prepare an Initial Study without the data normally found in a Remedial Investigation Report?

DTSC claims that the marsh crust is the result of sediment contamination by pre-World War II industries. How do PAH concentrations found in the marsh crust compare to the maximum concentrations of PAHs found in bay sediments?

Within the 700 plus acre marsh crust area that borders San Francisco Bay, have PAHs (total of all PAHs by EPA Method 610) been found in groundwater samples above the water quality control plan limit of 15 µg/L?

The Initial Study, Negative Declaration and RAW propose the same type of remedy that was used at Midway Village, in Daly City, California, to address PAH contamination in soils. Residents of this housing project now report chromosome abnormalities in addition to other health affects. The County of San Mateo is discussing relocation of residents and demolition of Midway Village. What has DTSC learned from their mistake at Midway Village that is being applied to East Housing?

CEQA decisions frown on piece-meal review of environmental impacts such as this Initial Study and Negative Declaration.

If DTSC is under the opinion that filled marshlands beyond the Naval Air Station contain similar contamination at shallower depths; and, developments on these filled marshlands include elementary schools, day care centers, and residential housing; and, the marsh crust contamination represents a "very real risk" if brought to the surface; why has DTSC excluded this area of the marsh crust from the proposed remedy? Why has DTSC taken no action to notify property owners within the marsh crust boundaries of the potential human health risks?

As of January 2000, East Housing was included within the scope of a Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan proposed for the US Navy owned marsh crust. The decision to prepare a separate RAW for Parcels 171 and 172 needlessly increases the burden on the public and regulators to review these documents. A separate RAW also reduces public input to the remedy decision. The RAW delays the Navy's responses to comments it has received from the public on the marsh crust remedy.

A single document should be prepared to address the marsh crust contamination in its entirety. DTSC's piece-meal approval of a RAW based on property lines rather than the extent of contamination demonstrates that DTSC is driven by developers, and not by a duty to protect public health and the environment.

The Initial Study, Negative Declaration and RAW address 60 acres of an over 700 acre hazardous waste site. DTSC has failed to consider the cumulative impacts from such an extensive area of contamination on San Francisco Bay.

The Marsh Crust Ordinance and East Housing Removal Action Work Plan are an attempt to use a cleanup plan and local laws within an area of the City of Alameda to prevent state and federal environmental standards from being applied. This is a disparate environmental impact not only for the future residents of East Housing, but also on the surrounding community.

Disposal of hazardous wastes by the US Navy is solely responsible for the observed marsh crust contamination. DTSC should forego any remedy that does not address the entirety of the US Navy's hazardous waste disposal site, and establishes such a low standard of accountability for hazardous waste generators.