Environmental Health Coalition resigns from Navy RAB

[Laura Hunter <LauraH@environmentalhealth.org>]

Community members resign in protest from Navy Hazardous Waste Cleanup
Committee

	Two community representatives resigned today from a Navy committee
charged with oversight of contaminated Navy sites.  Laura Hunter,
Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) spokesperson and Richard Dittbenner,
Coronado resident, resigned from Naval Air Station, North Island RAB in
San Diego.

	 Laura Hunter, a founding member of the NASNI RAB stated "After
five years of membership on the RAB, Environmental Health Coalition is
resigning in protest of the Navy's refusal to include the public regarding
its collective impact on the health of our region. We can no longer sit at
a table while the Navy is all ears about the harm of the past, but
completely deaf to community concerns about the harm they are causing
today".
						
	Hunter included a list of actions that have frustrated public
participation in issues of on-going and future pollution of San Diego by
the Navy.  These include refusal to allow the RAB to discuss issues such
as the Navy's creation of new waste sites, refusal to allow public comment
on the Navy's pollution prevention plan, Navy's obstruction of an
informational committee for operations at the Hazardous Waste Facility
that was requested by the community and proposed by DTSC, and continued
failure of the Navy to release relevant information regarding health
impact of the proposed nuclear home porting project.

	EHC stated that the Navy uses the existence of the RAB and its
community representation to credit its public outreach and represent a
caring attitude toward protecting its neighbors.  However, its attitude
toward the public regarding on-going pollution of the community is
entirely different. Hunter said, "If the Navy truly cared about us, it
would allow a dialogue and input to take place on all the pollution it
causes.
	 
	Richard Dittbenner, Coronado resident, stated in his resignation
that "Local senior naval leaders seek to insulate themselves from direct
and meaningful contact with thoughtful and concerned citizens while Navy
operations planning continues to portend an unprecedented burdening of our
air, land, and water resources in Coronado".

	Hunter stated the most recent example of the Navy turning a deaf
ear to community concerns occurred when RADM. Veronica From refused to
meet with a small group of neighbors and community leaders, even refusing
to accept a notebook detailing their concerns.  "At the same time Admiral
Froman is telling the media she is "confused" about community opposition
to the arrival of nuclear carriers in San Diego Bay, she is refusing
community requests to meet about this subject or to receive information
about their concerns." stated Hunter.  "The Nuclear Navy makes a very
nasty neighbor. San Diego residents should take note of the disregard the
Navy has shown for legitimate concerns of local residents .

Statement or resignation attached below.
	 
Statement of Resignation of Environmental Health Coalition from the
Restoration Advisory Board, Naval Air Station North Island.

	Environmental Health Coalition resigns membership of the
Restoration Advisory Board, Naval Air Station in protest of the Navy's
failure to include the public in all aspects of Navy impacts on health and
the environment. The Navy operations at North Island and in the region,
collectively, constitute an enormous environmental impact on the health of
our region.  We can no longer sit at a table that uses addressing the
legacy of past toxic contamination as an excuse to avoid discussion of
current and future pollution of San Diego.

	Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) has been a member of the
Restoration Advisory Board, Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI RAB)
since its inception in 1994.  In that time we been active in trying to
make the public process at NASNI a success and even received Navy
commendation for our participation.  We worked to reduce the operating
costs of the RAB so that it was not an undue burden on the Navy and worked
with the Navy to implement a very successful pilot Technical Assistance
program for the RAB-- the first in the nation.  We have worked in good
faith and demonstrated our commitment to increasing environmental
protection by the Navy during this time.  In spite of these successes, the
refusal of the Navy to engage in meaningful public participation or
respond to public concern regarding all of the environmental and human
health impacts from its pollution has made it impossible for us to justify
continued participation in the RAB.

	The Navy uses the existence of the RAB and its community
representation as evidence of its public outreach and caring attitude
toward protecting its neighbors.  However, its attitude toward the public
on matters not related to a set of narrowly defined and politically "safe"
issues (cleanup of historical pollution) demonstrates contempt for public
participation and constitutes a solid refusal to allow a voice to those
people most seriously impacted by Navy activities. The Navy is all ears
about harm of the past and completely deaf to public concerns about the
harm of today and the harm they will cause tomorrow. If the Navy truly
cared about the health impacts to its neighbors, it would allow a dialogue
and input to take place on current and future pollution issues.

	The facts are these: San Diego's environmental quality is already
seriously degraded, in part, through significant pollutant contributions
from Navy operations.  For example,

* risks of cancer in Coronado and Barrio Logan are up to 3,000 times above
healthful levels (based on data recently released by the Environmental
Protection Agency from total current emissions in the region),

* risks of respiratory and reproductive effects are up to an estimated 200
times higher.

* the Navy has increased hazardous waste storage and treatment has
increased by 600% to accommodate the carriers

* new radioactive and hazardous waste storage treatment plants and two
nuclear repair facilities have been built and,

* over 65 million pounds of hazardous waste are generated annually at
Naval facilities and contracting industries immediately adjacent to our
neighborhoods.

Yet, the Navy would have us ignore their exacerbation of these existing
environmental insults.	
			
	Failure to hear and respond to public input regarding all of the
current and proposed pollution, (the creation, transportation, storage,
disposal, and cleanup creation of new waste sites)  constitutes a sham
public participation effort.  A controlled one-way dialog is not
acceptable and does not respect community concerns or wisdom.  Nor does
such behavior honor the Navy.

	Below are some examples of the continuing actions that evidence
the Navy's efforts to frustrate the public's desire to become informed or
participate in areas of concern to them.

1. Refusal to expand subjects addressed by the Restoration Advisory Board

	EHC has made multiple requests through the RAB process to allow
the RAB to expand its areas of discussion to include on-going initiatives,
on-going pollution from operations, and future projects. These requests
were denied. However, when it suited the Navy's public relations agenda to
discuss its current hazardous waste management and recycling programs, the
Navy had no qualms about expanding the RAB agenda.  If the Navy is
agreeable to the RAB discussing Navy initiatives, then they should also
respect the community's desire to discuss its current pollution activities
as well.

	The Navy's claim that such an expansion is disallowed by the Navy
policy is not credible.  NASNI is a one of two specially designated Naval
Environmental Leadership Program (NELP) bases in the Country.  The mission
of the NELP is to test innovative environmental techniques and strategies.
In fact, the RAB was listed as a one such project in the 1995 NELP report.
 EHC requested that such an expansion of a successful RAB be proposed as a
NELP project.  This was refused.

2. Navy creates new toxic waste sites outside of the purview of the RAB or
the public

	At the same time considerable attention is being spent on cleanup
of past contaminated sites, with frequent and emphatic assurances that the
Navy manages waste differently now, the Navy created a new toxic waste
site at the Outlying Field in Imperial beach. The Navy dumped dredge
material from San Diego Bay that was too toxic for ocean disposal in an
un-lined dirt pit close to a sensitive estuarine resource.  This is
exactly the kind of outdated toxic waste disposal method that was
publically promised as a "thing of the past".  Fortunately, the Imperial
Beach City Council and EHC were able to stop the dumping from continuing.  
However, the site has yet to be cleaned up.  When a community member of
the RAB suggested that this issue (i.e. the creation of a new toxic waste
site)  should have been subject to overview by the RAB, the suggestion was
denied.

3. Refusal to allow public comment on draft Pollution Prevention Plan

	While EHC regularly receives and comments on draft cleanup
documents, the Navy does not apply the same openness when it comes to
preventing pollution.  Earlier this year, EHC secured the services of a
pollution prevention expert to conduct a review of the NASNI Pollution
Prevention Plan.  EHC requested an opportunity to make comments to the
Navy on the draft so that the comments would be more helpful and timely,
and would have a chance of being reflected in the final.  Mr. Ed Bonnes,
NASNI Pollution Prevention Coordinator, refused release of the document to
us for comment and review by our technical expert. The effect of this
action is that the community will not be able to comment before the final
decisions are made. A earlier attempt by EHC to secure professional
technical resources through a non-profit technical assistance program were
also frustrated by Mr. Bonnes.

4. Navy Leadership refuses to meet with community leaders on critical
community issues

	Many people in the community have expressed deep concern about the
impacts to health, environment, and economy from increased nuclear
activity in our city.  This project will profoundly change our lives in
San Diego.  A small group of local religious, academic, public interest,
and neighbors requested meetings with both RADM. Veronica Froman and
Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig about this project.  These requests
were denied.  At the same time Admiral Froman is telling the media she is
"confused" about community opposition to the arrival of nuclear carriers
in San Diego Bay, she is refusing community requests to meet about this
subject.  Her disdain for civilian opinion could not be more powerfully
communicated than by her actions in this regard.

5. Navy obstructed oversight committee for operations at the Hazardous
Waste Facility that was requested by the community and proposed by DTSC.

During the negotiations and comment period for the massive increase in
capacity of the NASNI Hazardous Waste facility, EHC and community members
requested that an oversight committee be established such as had been done
before for the Hazardous Waste Facility at Naval Station.  It is our
understanding that the DTSC suggested creation of such a committee and the
legal offices of the Navy opposed the committee. DTSC capitulated and the
creation of the committee was not adopted as a requirement for the permit.
					
6. Information on area of impact from a nuclear accident on a nuclear
carrier and hazardous waste spills are denied to the public

The area of impact in the event of any size nuclear release from a
carrier has been steadfastly denied to the public.  One nuclear carrier is
here and more are coming –and we have no idea of the magnitude of the
risks.  Even non-nuclear information is kept secret.  A spill of mercury
from a submarine rescue vessel and cleanup efforts which occurred at NASNI
Turning Basin were discussed at the RAB in 1996.  Over 150 documents
related to the cleanup, including the Lessons Learned Report, are still
denied to the public.

	EHC respects the participation of other community members in this
process but urges them to look critically at how the Navy is operating
regarding their interests and input.  While, within its limitations, the
NASNI RAB has been functional, we would encourage all members to consider
the value of cleaning up past pollution without a voice or knowledge about
the current pollution. We would point out the futility of spending
precious time on clean up of historical contamination while the Navy
refuses to allow the RAB to consult about the creation of new waste sites
and on-going exposure.

	 If the Navy is willing to engage in a credible and defensible
public dialogue about the pollution it is emitting into the environment
today and the health risks that its operations and proposed projects will
cause in the future, EHC will once again return to the table.  We have
offered to work with the Navy to design an acceptable forum for this kind
of dialogue to occur.

	We would like to thank Bill Collins, Richard Mach, and Mark
Bonsavage, Navy representatives, for their efforts to involve and support
the RAB.