DOCSLIB.ORG

NSIAD-95-133 Military Bases: Analysis of DOD's 1995 Process

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NSIAD-95-133 Military Bases: Analysis of DOD's 1995 Process United States General Accounting Office Report to the Congress and the GAO Chairman, Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission April 1995 MILITARY BASES Analysis of DOD’s 1995 Process and Recommendations for Closure md Realignment GAO/NSIAD-95-133 National Security and International Affairs Division B-26 1024 April 14,1995 To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives The Honorable Alan J. Dixon Chairman, Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission The Secretary of Defense announced his 1995 recommendations for base closures and realignments to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission on February 28,1995. This report responds to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101~510), as amended, which requires that we provide the Congress and the Commission, by no later than April 15,1995, a report on the recommendations and selection process. We have identified issues for consideration by the Commission as it completes its review of the Secretary of Defense’s recommendations. Given that this is the last of three biennial reviews authorized under the 1990 act, we are also including matters for consideration by the Congress regarding the potential need for continuing Iegislation to authorize further commission reviews and authorize changes, as needed, to prior decisions We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense; Senate Committee on Armed Services; House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on National Security; House Committee on National Security; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the Directors of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Investigative Service. We will make copies available to others on request. This report was prepared under the direction of David R. Warren, Director, Defense Management and NASA Issues, who may be reached on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions. Other major contributors are listed in appendix VI. Charles A, Bowsher & Comptroller General of the United States Executive Summary Purpose realignments, and other actions affecting 146 domestic military installations. Of that number, 33 were described as closures of major installations, and 26 as major realignments; an additional 27 were changes to prior base closing round decisions. The Secretary projects that the recommendations, when fully implemented, will yield $1.8 billion in annual recurring savings. As required by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended, this report presents GAO'S analysis of the Secretary’s recommendations and the selection process used by the various defense components. Background concern about the effects on communities and their economies and concerns about the impaxtiality of the decision-making process. To overcome impediments to base closures, Congress enacted legislation in 1988 (P.L. 100-526) that facilitated a successful round of base closures. Because of that success, Congress enacted the 1990 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (Title XXIX, P.L. lOl-510), which authorized base closure rounds in 1991, 1993, and 1995. The 1990 legislation outlined a process to close and realign military installations, including the establishment of an independent, bipartisan commission to review the Secretary of Defense’s closure recommendations. Base realignment and closure (BRAC)rounds in 1988, 1991, and 1993resulted in decisions to fully or partially close 70 major domestic bases and to close, realign, or otherwise downsize hundreds of other bases, installations, and activities. DOD estimates that when fully implemented, these actions will produce savings of $4 billion per year. The current BRAC round retained basically the same requirements and procedures as those in 1993. It included the requirement to use certified data, that is, information that was accurate and complete to the best of the originator’s knowledge and belief. This requirement was designed to overcome concerns about the consistency and reliability of data used in the process. For the 1995round, DOD emphasized the exploration of opportunities for cross-service use of common support assets, It therefore established cross-service review groups to provide the services with alternatives for realignments and closures in the areas of depot maintenance, laboratories, test and evaluation facilities, undergraduate pilot training, and medical treatment facilities. Page 2 GAO/NSJAD-95-133 MilitaryBases Executive Summary As before, the Secretary’s recommendations were to be based on selection criteria established by DOD and on a 6-year force structure plan. As indicated in table 1, DOD established eight selection criteria; they have remained unchanged since 1991. Table 1: DOD Criteria for Selecting Bases for Closure or Realignment Category Criteria Military value (priority 1. Current and future mission requirements and the consideration is to be given impact on operational readiness of DOD’s total force. to the four military value criteria) 2. The availability and condition of land, facilities, and associated airspace at both the existing and potential receiving locations. 3. The ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization, and future total force requirements at both the existing and potential receiving locations. 4. Cost and manpower implications. Return on investment 5. The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment, for the savings to exceed the costs. Impact 6. The economic impact on communities. 7. The ability of both the existing and potential receiving communities’ infrastructures to support forces, missions, and personnel. 8. The environmental impact. Although the Department of Defense (DOD) has in recent years undergone Results in Brief substantial downsizing in funding, personnel, and force structure, commensurate infrastructure reductions have not been achieved. Despite some progress in reducing excess infrastructure, it is generally recognized that much excess capacity wiU likely remain after the 1995 BRAC round. This view is supported by the military components’ and cross-service groups’ analyses, which showed far greater excess capacity than will be eliminated by the Secretary’s recommendations. Currently, DOD projects that its fiscal year 1996 budget represents, in real terms, a 39-percent reduction to its fiscal year 1985 peak of recent times. By way of comparison, its 1995 BRAC recommendations would produce cumulative BRAC reductions of 21 percent in inventory of major domestic bases since 1988. Page3 GAO/NSlAD-96-133 MilitaryBases ExecutiveSummary DOD'S 1995BRAC process was generally sound and well documented and should result in substantial savings. However, the recommendations and selection process were not without problems and, in some cases, raise questions about the reasonableness of specific recommendations. At the same time, GAO also noted that improvements were made to the process from prior rounds, including more precise categorization of bases and activities; this resulted in more accurate comparisons between like facilities and functions and in better analytical capabilities. GAO raises a number of issues it believes need attention by the Congress and the Commission in considering DOD'S recommendations: l DOD'S attempt at reducing excess capacity by suggesting cross-service opportunities to the services facilitated some important results. However, agreements for consolidating similar work done by two or more of the services were limited, and opportunities to achieve additional reductions in excess capacity and infrastructure were missed. In particuhu-, this was the case at depot maintenance activities and laboratory facilities. Although the services have improved their processes with each succeeding BRAC round, some process problems continued to be identified. In particular, the Air Force’s process remained largely subjective and not well documented; also, it was intluenced by preliminary estimates of base closure costs that changed when more focused analyses were made. For these and other reasons, GAO questions a number of the Air Force’s recommendations. To a less extent, some of the services’ decisions affecting specific closures and realignments also raise questions. For example, the Secretary of the Navy did not consistly apply DOD'S criteria when he excluded certain facilities from closure for economic impact reasons. Because the legislation authorizing BFUC expires this year, some process will be needed to handle changes and problems that arise during implementation of this and earlier rounds. principal F’indings BRAC Savings Are GAO estimates that the 2@yearnet present value of savings from DOD'S Expected to Be recommendations will be $17.3 billion, with annual recurring savings of Substantial, but Estimates almost $1.8 billion. GAO notes that these estimates are not based on budget Are Preliminary quality data and are subject to some uncertainties inherent in the process. However, GAO believes the savings will still be substantial. At the same Page4 GAOIIQXAD-95-133 MilitaryBases Executive Summary time, it should be noted that environmental restoration was not a factor in the DOD base closure decision-making process, and such restoration can represent a significant cost following a base closure. DOD and its components improved their cost and savings estimates for BFW 1995 recommendations. In
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Silicon Valley Chapter Military Officers Association of America
    Silicon Valley Chapter Military Officers Association of America Volume XII Issue 11The Bulletin Dec 2015 OFFICERS, BOARD, AND CHAIRS PRESIDENT: Lt. Col. Mike Sampognaro USAF merry christmas to all 408-779-7389 1st VP: Lt. Col. Jay Craddock USAF 650-968-0446 2nd VP: CWO5 Robert Landgraf USMC 408-323-8838 Secretary: COL Warren Enos AUS Luncheon Program 408-245-2217 Treasurer: CAPT Lloyd McBeth USN 408-241-3514 17 Dec 2015 Past President: CAPT Paul Barrish USN 408-356-7531 Touring Morocco DIRECTORS & COMMITTEE CHAIRS Auxiliary Liaison vacant Chaplain Chaplain Fred Tittle USMC 609-802-3492 Commissary/Exchange Advisory CDR Ralph Hunt USN 650-967-8467 Friends-in-Need (FIN) Program CDR Al Mouns USN 408-257-5629 Programs Lt. Col. Jesse Craddock USAF 650-968-0446 ROTC CWO4 Patrick Clark USA 831-402-8548 Membership/Recruitment CWO5 Robert Landgraf USMC 408-323-8838 Scholarship CAPT Paul Barrish USN 408-356-7531 Travel (Space-A Advisory) CDR V.A. Eagye USN 408-733-3177 Web Master Lt Col Mike Sampognaro USAF 408-779-7389 Veteran Affairs Col Keith Giles,USAF(ret) Lt Col Neil Miles USAF 408-929-1142 Development Officer CAPT Gil Borgardt USN 650-342-1270 Sargeant-at-Arms Social Hour: 11:00 AM CDR Ralph Hunt USN 650-967-8467 Chapter Outreach CWO5 Robert Landgraf USMC 408-323-8838 Luncheon: 11:45 AM CALMOAA, Legislation & Navy League Liaison LCDR Tom Winant USN 650-678-7120 Luncheon is $26.00 Personal Affairs CAPT Robert French USN 650-363-1188 See Back Page for Reservations Form and Directions The Chapter Board meets at the Moffett Air Traffic Control Tower, Moffett Federal Airfield Bulletin Editor It is time to renew your Lt.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Resources Study, February 2017
    NASA Ames Research Center Archaeological Resources Study Prepared for: Prepared by: February 2017 NASA Ames Research Center Archaeological Resources Study Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description...................................................................................................1 1.2 Preparers ..................................................................................................................1 2. CULTURAL SETTING ................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Prehistoric and Ethnohistoric Context .....................................................................4 2.2 Historic Context .......................................................................................................5 2.2.1 Spanish Period ..............................................................................................5 2.2.2 Mexican Period ............................................................................................6 2.2.3 American Period ...........................................................................................6 2.2.4 Moffett Field ..............................................................................................13 2.2.5 Ames Research Center ...............................................................................17 3. ARCHIVAL RESEARCH.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001
    CALIFORNIA HISTORIC MILITARY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY VOLUME I: INVENTORIES OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ON CALIFORNIA MILITARY INSTALLATIONS Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001 Prepared by: FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Sacramento, California 95834 and JRP JRP HISTORICAL CONSULTING SERVICES Davis, California 95616 March2000 Calirornia llisloric Miliiary Buildings and Structures Inventory, \'olume I CONTENTS Page CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... i FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ ii TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... viii SERIES INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1 I. I Purpose and Goals ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life
    Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life JUNE 2003 PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Commercial/Primary (29) Metropolitan (20) Regional (66) Community (102) Limited Use (33) Joint Use — Military/Commercial (2) The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. This report was prepared with funds from a grant provided by the United States Government (80%) and funds from the State of California (20%). Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life FINAL REPORT Prepared for BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS Submitted by Economics Research Associates JUNE 2003 ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Nancy Benjamin Alan R. Tubbs Study Project Manager District Field Services Manager California Department of Transportation Airborne Express, Mather Field Division of Aeronautics Chuck Oldham R. Austin Wiswell Robert Chung Chief California Transportation Commission California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics Carl Williams Senior Policy Director Michael Armstrong California Space Authority, Inc. (CSA) Senior Lead Planner Southern California Association of Governments Bonnie Cornwall (SCAG) Program Manager Division
    [Show full text]
  • Eugene Tu Takes the Helm As New Ames Center Director
    July 2015 - A Quarterly Publication New Horizon’s Pluto images amazes and surprises everyone After more than nine years and more than three billion miles, NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft made its Pluto in this image from the Long closest approach, its primary mission, Range Reconnaissance Imager to Pluto on July 14, 2015. (LORRI) aboard NASA’s New The spacecraft was launched Jan. Horizons spacecraft, taken July 19, 2006, from Cape Canaveral Air 13, 2015, when the spacecraft was Force Station in Florida, and it is the 476,000 miles (768,000 kilome- first spacecraft to explore the Pluto ters) from the surface.This is the system with its five known moons and last and most detailed image sent the Kuiper Belt. With this milestone, to Earth before the spacecraft’s closest approach to Pluto on July the United States becomes the first 14.The color image has been com- nation in the world to have landed on bined with lower-resolution color or flown by every major body in our information from the Ralph instru- solar system. ment that was acquired earlier on Ames has three scientists who July 13.This view is dominated by play key roles on the New Horizons the large, bright feature informally science team. Kim Ennico, as New named the “heart,” which measures Horizons deputy project scientist approximately 1,000 miles (1,600 and co-investigator, manages the kilometers) across. instrument readiness and calibration aspects of the mission. Her expertise includes instrument development, space qualification and calibration; NASA photo by NASA/APL/SwRI optical/infrared astronomy; optical/ infrared detectors, optics, cameras, hands-on classroom activities.) tigator, Jeff Moore is the imaging node spectrometers; and science communi- As Geology and Geophysics Inves- leader for the New Horizons mission.
    [Show full text]
  • LC Store List Non Club.Xlsx
    Address City State ZIP Code 600 Continental Boulevard Danville PA 17821 1571 Rt 209 Millersburg PA 17061 313-327 W Bald Eagle St Lock Haven PA 17745 793 State Route 590 Hamlin PA 18427 720 Hanover Pike Hampstead MD 21074 924 Weir Lake Road Brodheadsville PA 18322 Route 29, Village Shop. Ctr. Tunkhannock PA 18657 695 N. Courtland St E. Stroudsburg PA 18301 Carbondale Plaza, 97 Brooklyn St. Carbondale PA 18407 19 St. Mary's Square (per GPS-21600 Great Mills. Rd.) Lexington Park MD 20653 210 H.G. Trueman Road Lusby MD 20657 17600 Old National Square Pike Frostburg MD 21532 503 Memorial Ave. Suite 1 West Spfld MA 1089 441 N Main Street East Long MA 1028 25 Robert Drive Easton MA 2375 BLDG 3323 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 7806 BLDG 364 BARSTOW CA 92311 185 CHAPPIE JAMES BLVD BOLLING AFB, WASHINGTON DC 20032 BLDG 990,NAVAL BASE KITSAP BREMERTON WA 98314 1230 HOLCOMB BLVD CAMP LEJEUNE MARINE CORPS BASE NC 28547 1 CAMP WAHSEGA RD DAHLONEGA GA 30533 VANDEGRIFT BLVD CAMP PENDLETON CA 92055 3918 ROOSEVELT BLVD CHERRY POINT MCAS NY 28533 02023 INYOKERN RD CHINA LAKE NAVAL AIR WEAPONS STATION CA 93555 10801 D. STREET BLDG 337 NAS CORPUS CHRISTI TX 78419 300 HIGHWAY 361 NSWC CRANE IN 47522 5114 SECOND STREET DUGWAY UT 84022 5800 WESTOVER AVE JOINT BASE ELMENDORF - RICHARDSON AK 99506 6205 MISSILE DRIVE, BLDG #720 F. E. WARREN AFB CHEYENNE WY 82005 1620 MARSHALL RD, BLDG 1620 FORT BLISS TX 79916 3571 BUTNER RD FORT BRAGG NC 28307 689 N TERMINAL RD FORT BUCHANAN PR 934 BLDG 1382 13TH AND LEE BLVD FORT EUSTIS VA 23604 37200 3RD AVE FORT GORDON GA 30905 BLDG 115 WHITE AVE FORT HAMILTON BROOKLYN NY 11252 WARRIOR WAY & 10TH ST FORT HOOD TX 76544 BUILDING S-182 APACHE RD FT.
    [Show full text]
  • (Demolition) Project, Moffett Federal Airfield, NASA Ames Research Center, Santa Clara County, CA
    State of California • Natural Resources Agency Gavin Newsom, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Lisa Ann L. Mangat, Director OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95816-7100 Telephone: (916) 445-7000 FAX: (916) 445-7053 [email protected] www.ohp.parks.ca.gov June 10, 2020 VIA Email In reply, refer to: NASA_2019_1216_001 Mr. Jonathan Ikan Center Cultural Resources Manager NASA Ames Research Center Mail Stop 213-8 Moffett Field, CA 94035 Subject: Hangar 3 Hazard Remediation (Demolition) Project, Moffett Federal Airfield, NASA Ames Research Center, Santa Clara County, CA Dear Mr. Ikan: The California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has received the May 11, 2020, letter continuing consultation regarding an undertaking at NASA Ames Research Center (ARC). NASA is consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 U.S.C. §306108), as amended, and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800. Along with the letter, NASA submitted a Section 106 technical report prepared by Stantec May 11, 2020, that provides Section 106 analysis, project maps, and photographs. As previously described, NASA’s structural engineering studies have led the agency to the conclusion that Hangar 3 is structurally deficient, unsafe, and vulnerable to damage or partial collapse. In analyzing project alternatives, NASA finds that repairs to return the building to occupancy would be “extensive, undefinable, and cost-prohibitive,” and, therefore, proposes to demolish the building. The proposed undertaking, as described, involves: • Systematic, controlled demo of Hangar 3 down to the concrete slab, including any necessary hazardous material abatement.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain View and Los Altos VITAL FACTS of FEATURED NEIGHBORHOODS in the COMMUNITY Mv-Voice.Com EXPERIENCE MATTERS! OVER 1,800 HOMES SOLD in 33 YEARS
    MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE | 2019 EDITION PROFILES, MAPS AND Mountain View and Los Altos VITAL FACTS OF FEATURED NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE COMMUNITY mv-voice.com EXPERIENCE MATTERS! OVER 1,800 HOMES SOLD IN 33 YEARS MOUNTAIN VIEW, LOS ALTOS & SURROUNDING AREAS “Howard helped us sell our home in Mountain View and did a great job. The real estate market can be fast moving and we really appreciated Howard’s hands-on and reassuring presence. His years of experience and connections paved the way for us. We recommend him highly.” - Martin L., Mountain View HOWARD BLOOM Lic. #00893793 650.619.2737 REALTOR® – SINCE 1985 I WWW.HOWARDBLOOM.COM I [email protected] 2 | Mountain View Voice | mv-voice.com Derk Brill’s success in the Mid- Peninsula real estate market is no secret. Derk has been a Mountain View resident for over 20 years, having raised his family in Waverly Park. His experience and expertise have enabled Derk to attain the status of top producing agent in the local Alain Pinel office, as well as being among the elite agents in the United States. Derk’s philosophy of client service differs significantly from most top producing agents. He offers a hands-on, personal approach to the sale of a home. This extends from the preparation process through the close of escrow. Rather than handing a client off to a series of assistants, Derk manages every aspect of the sale including property prep, marketing, open houses, negotiation, and closing. This provides a seamless transaction from beginning to end. Alain Pinel Realtors’ partnership with Luxury Portfolio International ensures that in addition to local and national marketing, Derk’s clients benefit from extensive international exposure through a large network of brokerages throughout the world.
    [Show full text]
  • 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View California 94043 United States
    1600 amphitheatre parkway mountain view california 94043 united states Continue This article is about Google's headquarters. For the large number, see Gogolflex. Google and Alphabet's headquarters complex in California, Usa GoogleplexBuiltJuly 2004; 16 years ago (2004-07)Location Mountain View, California, United StatesBoard37°25′19N 122°05′02W / 37.422°N 122.084°W / 37.422; -122.084Jords: 37°25′19N 122°05′02W / 37.422° N 122.084°W / 37.422; -122.084Address1600 ParkwayMountain View Amphitheatre, CA 94043 Googleplex is a headquarters complex of Google and its parent company Alphabet Ltd. It is located at 1600 Parkway Amphitheater in Mountain View, California, United States. The original complex, with 2,000,000 square feet (190,000 square feet) of office space, is the company's second-largest mr. lineup of Google buildings, after Google's 111 Eighth Avenue building in New York, which the company bought in 2010. Googleplex is Google's portmanté and complex (i.e. a complex of buildings) and a googolplex reference, the name given to the large number 10(10100), or 10googol. Facilities and history The south side of Googleplex's former entrance to the lobby of the original 40 campus SGI campus site building was previously populated by Silicon Graphics (SGI). The office space and corporate campus are located within a larger 11-acre site containing Charleston Park, a 5-acre public park; Improved access to Fermananta Creek; and public roads connecting the company's site to Shoreline Park and the Bay Trail. The project, launched in 1994, was built on the site of one of the few work farms in the area and was then owned by the city (identified as an agricultural field in the planning documents).
    [Show full text]
  • Only the Best
    October 2011 Vol. 6 No. 10 GRIZZLYOfficial Newsmagazine of the California National Guard Only the 6 best CNG Soldiers jump at the chance to prove their warrior skills CNG youth academy shapes citizens www.calguard.ca.gov/publicaffairs14 Leadership Corner Serving our state and nation October Maj. Gen. David S. Baldwin The National Guard has been protecting Americans for nearly four centuries. Long be- Support–Counterdrug, for instance, serve in Title 32 status under Gov. Brown’s com- fore the citizens of this land established a nation, they organized militias to defend their mand. Title 32 also covers out-of-state missions such as the CNG’s post-hurricane recov- communities. The National Guard traces its roots to the first of these militias, created ery efforts in recent years. Disciplinary proceedings for Soldiers and Airmen on Title 32 in 1636 in Massachusetts to defend against attack. When the time came, militias in each incorporate the California Military Veterans Code, whereas Title 10 federal active duty colony played a significant role in defeating the British and gaining independence for proceedings follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice. the United States. Each of us in the National Guard also serves within either the Army or the Air Force, and After the war, the U.S. Constitution ensured those militias would stay intact, relegat- President Barack Obama is our commander in chief when called to Title 10 federal ac- ing the appointment of officers and training of militia to each of the states instead of the tive duty. The Guard has provided nearly half of the military force deployed to Iraq and federal government.
    [Show full text]
  • Hazards and Hazardous Materials
    4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This chapter discusses existing conditions in the EA Study Area and potential impacts of future develop- ment that could occur by adopting and implementing the proposed Housing Element Update, General Plan Consistency Update, and associated Zoning Ordinances amendments, together referred to as the “Plan Components,” related to hazardous materials, airport hazards, emergency response plans, and wildland fires. A. Regulatory Framework This section summarizes key State and local regulations and programs related to hazardous materials. 1. Federal Laws and Regulations The following federal agencies oversee hazards and hazardous materials concerns. a. Environmental Protection Agency The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) laws and regulations ensure the safe pro- duction, handling, disposal, and transportation of hazardous materials. b. United States Department of Transportation Transportation of chemicals and hazardous materials are governed by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), which stipulates the types of containers, labeling, and other restrictions to be used in the movement of such material on interstate highways. c. Occupational Safety and Health Administration The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversees administration the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which requires: specific training for hazardous materials handlers; provision of in- formation to employees who may be exposed to hazardous materials; and acquisition of material safety data sheets (MSDS) from materials manufacturers. Material safety data sheets describe the risks, as well as proper handling and procedures related to particular hazardous materials. Employee training must include re- sponse and remediation procedures for hazardous materials releases and exposures. 2. State Laws and Regulations a.
    [Show full text]
  • Norman Mineta Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt2n39r8jd No online items Norman Mineta Papers SJSU Special Collections & Archives © 2009 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library San José State University One Washington Square San José, CA 95192-0028 [email protected] URL: http://library.sjsu.edu/sjsu-special-collections/sjsu-special-collections-and-archives Norman Mineta Papers MSS-1996-02-17 1 Language of Material: English Contributing Institution: SJSU Special Collections & Archives Title: Norman Mineta Papers Identifier/Call Number: MSS-1996-02-17 Physical Description: 366.0 boxes(368.72 linear feet) Date (inclusive): 1961-2001 Date (bulk): 1975-1995 Abstract: The Norman Mineta Papers, 1961-2001 (bulk 1975-1995) document the long-term political career of Norman Mineta. Mineta began his career in local politics as a member of the San José City Council in 1967 and served as mayor from 1971-1975. In 1974, Mineta was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, serving from 1975-1995. Mineta retired from Congress in 1995, retuning briefly to San Jose; to assume the position of Vice President at the Lockheed Martin Corporation. Mineta became the first Asian Pacific American to serve under two Presidents. From 2000-2001, he served under President Clinton as the Secretary of Commerce, and from 2001-2006, he served under President Bush as the United States Secretary of Transportation. Access The collection is open for research. Due to their fragile nature, access to audio and video cassettes is restricted. Publication Rights Copyright is assigned to the San José State University Special Collections & Archives. All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Director of Special Collections.
    [Show full text]