Back to the Table of Contents Page

Back to the Voice Home Page

Classifieds

Publication Date: Friday, May 04, 2001

"When (the Navy) did the risk assessment, and the ecological assessment, that was based on the current usage (of the surrounding area). If they change the usage, is that going to be a concern?" @dropname:Lenny Siegel, Moffett Restoration Advisory Board

Navy plots course for cleanup of Moffett landfill

By Justin Scheck

At a meeting Thursday, April 26, officials from the U.S. Navy presented their proposal for cleaning up one of numerous sites at Moffett Field listed as potentially hazardous to the environment or human health under the federal superfund law.

"Site 22" is an old landfill that now has a golf course built on top of it. It has encountered recent problems with burrowing animals digging down and bringing long-buried waste to the surface.

"There's a very, very prolific squirrel population in the whole South Bay, and for some reason, they seem to really like this area (of the golf course)," said Andrea Muckerman, the Navy's environmental coordinator for the Moffett base realignment project.

But according to residents involved with the Moffett cleanup, future uses of the area surrounding Site 22 could create issues not addressed by the proposed remedy.

The 9.4-acre landfill was used from 1950 to 1967, and samples show that most of the garbage is domestic waste. The Navy's proposed solution would have a "biotic barrier" of soil, gravel, cement, and cobblestone built atop the landfill to prevent burrowing animals access to the garbage.

The plan includes groundwater and gas monitoring wells, but individuals with knowledge of the site warned the Navy of potential problems with the plan at Thursday's meeting.

Lenny Siegel, a Mountain View resident and the director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight, has been active in military base realignment actions throughout the country, and is a member of the Moffett Restoration Advisory Board, a group of citizens, naval representatives, and cleanup experts advising the Moffett cleanup.

He expressed concern that the Navy's proposal was chosen in favor of a more comprehensive, and expensive, "multi-layer cap," which would cover the fill with a low-permeability layer to prevent water infiltration of the landfill, as well as a biotic barrier, a six-inch erosion control layer, and a two-foot barrier beneath all these.

The estimated cost of the biotic barrier is about $1.8 million, while the multi-layer cap would cost an estimated $4.1 million.

Siegel said that, while the current problems at the landfill may be limited to gopher access, long-term changes in the area surrounding the site -- such as the potential restoration of the Cargill Salt Ponds into wetland habitats -- could impact the effectiveness of the proposed solution.

"When (the Navy) did the risk assessment, and the ecological assessment, that was based on the current usage (of the surrounding area). If they change the usage, is that going to be a concern?" asked Siegel.

He said he is also concerned about the apparent lack of a contingency plan -- or the factoring in of funds for unexpected problems -- in the Navy's proposal.

"When you put in any kind of a containment strategy, there's a strong likelihood that it will leak. You ask, 'what will last longer, the cap or the toxicity of the contamination?'" said Siegel.

Bob Moss, a Palo Alto resident and co-chair of the Restoration Advisory Board, said the lack of funds for such contingencies is a problem for all military cleanups.

"I completely agree with Lenny that there's no money for any contingencies, but I can guarantee you that you're not going to get the federal government to put money aside... That's not the way they work," said Moss.

Moss characterized Site 22 as "one relatively innocuous portion of the entire (Moffett) site." He said that, while the multi-layer cap is probably better than the biotic barrier, he did not think it was worth the price difference.

"I'd hate to put all this money into this project and not have enough for the more important things," said Moss.

Jim McClure, an environmental engineer who has worked extensively on the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman Superfund sites, as well as with the Restoration Advisory Board, raised the question of cost at the meeting.

McClure pointed out that unsure military cleanup funding could hinder the progress of expensive cleanups, and this should be taken into account when planning remedial actions.

Muckerman said the funding for the Site 22 cleanup was secured in last year's defense budget process, although only enough funding for the biotic barrier was allocated. She said that if changes are made to the proposal, or another remediation measure is chosen, the Moffett effort will require a re-appropriation of funds from another area.

Both Moss and Siegel said the cleanup strategy should not be based on the prospect that the funding may run out. Moss said that cleanup funding is rarely secure; between fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the budget for the military cleanup in the Bay Area military was cut from $11 million to $2 million. The funding was later restored.

According to Rep. Anna Eshoo, whose district includes Moffett Field, the federal funding for base cleanup was cut from $670 million in fiscal year 1999 to $322 million in fiscal year 2000. But she said this was "a little misleading, because the Republicans... lopped over funding of many things to a new fiscal year from the old fiscal year to balance the budget, so there's some budget trickery involved."

Eshoo said the federal cleanup budget for the current fiscal year is $865 million, and while projects included in this year's budget are secure, she has questions about next year's funding, which will remain unknown until Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld completes his operations and maintenance review of the Department of Defense.

"I'm anxious about it, because so far the administration has really relegated environmental concerns to the bottom of the list," said Eshoo.

She said that even if the funding is not cut, each base must fight to secure its share of defense cleanup funding as the budget process nears finalization in the fall.

"We have to bring forward a meritorious case, which I think we have, and we have to compete for the dollars... But it's a lot easier when you have an administration that's with you and puts a priority on these things," Eshoo said.

The cleanup plan for Site 22 has not yet been finalized; the public comment period for the cleanup closes May 9, and the final plan will be announced shortly after that.