DERA Funding for Rocky Mtn. Arsenal

[Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org>]

 These are excerpts from a series of letters regarding the DERA (Defense
 Environmental Restoration Account) funding for RMA (Rocky Mountain
 Arsenal). They are followed by all of the letters in their entirety. The 
 letters will appear as individual postings in the conference. For more 
 information contact the Pacific Studies Center (415)969-1545 in Mountain
 View, CA or send e-mail to lsiegel@igc.org. However, feel free 
 to generate discussion in this conference.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------

 On March 20, Elliot P. Laws (Assistant Administrator at EPA) wrote the
 following to Joel Hefley (Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Installations
 - Committee on National Security):

 Contamination from the (Rocky Mountain) Arsenal has caused
 unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Contaminants
 continue to kill wildlife on the Arsenal. There are several areas with
 concentrated toxins creating unacceptable risks of cancer to wildlife
 workers. If unabated, pollution in surface soils would continue to affect
 wildlife and prevent future visitors from using a large portion of the
 future National Wildlife Refuge, the Congressionally-authorized future use
 of the RMA. Ground water is contaminated over many square miles, on-post
 and off-post. In addition to direct site threats, RMA's environmental
 problems have depressed property values and economic development in the
 adjacent communities.

 Recognizing these threats and economic concerns, EPA Region VIII,
 the Army, the State of Colorado, and Shell Oil Company have worked together
 over the past several years to pioneer multiple Interim Response Actions
 which have allowed for some early cleanup actions before all studies at the
 Arsenal have been completed. All parties agree that much has been
 accomplished at the Arsenal to initially protect human health and the
 environment. However, nearly all of the on-site soil remediation remains
 to be done.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 On March 15, N. John Benson, Jr.(Lieutenant Colonel (Promotable), U.S.
 Army) wrote the following to SAPC members:

 Gail Schoettler (Lieutenant Governor of Colorado)
 Dr. Ralph Morgenweck (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)
 Mr. Larry Smith (Shell Oil Company)
 Mr. William P. Yellowtail (Regional Administrator - Environmental
 Protection Agency)

 Based on our review of the costs of the Army proposal in the Detailed
 Analysis of Alternatives (DAA) and the Army's additional offer, the recent
 actions that have reduced the Defense Department's environmental budget and
 additional proposed reductions to that budget, the Army has determined that
 realistically we cannot seek funding for a remedy that would bring the
 total Arsenal clean up cost over $2 billion. The Army will have already
 spent more than $750 million at the site by the signing of the ROD.
 Consequently, I have $1.25 billion with which to negotiate.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------

 On March 27, Jack W. McGraw (Deputy Regional Administrator at EPA) wrote to
 Lieutenant Colonel N. John Benson, Jr. (Department of the Army - Office of
 the Judge Advocate General/Environmental Law Division):

 You should be aware,however, that the statutory mandate of the
 Environmental Protection Agency requires us to place paramount importance
 on the protection of human health and the environment and we cannot
 subjugate that goal to the Army's budget planning. The NCP does not allow
 EPA or any other lead agency to define protectiveness by the amount of
 funds available at hand. While we agree that the selected remedy must be
 cost effective, in accordance with the NCP, that the remedy must first meet
 the criteria of protecting human health and the environment, complying with
 ARARs.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------

 On March 31, Gale A. Norton (Attorney General, State of Colorado) wrote Lt.
 Col N. John Benson, Jr.(Department of the Army - Office of the Judge
 Advocate General/Environmental Law Division):

 I understand your desire to communicate information about budget
 realities. However, CERCLA and RCRA require cleanup remedies to be
 protective of human health and the environment. Neither statute allows a
 polluter to set a funding limit under which such protectiveness will be
 defined. While CERCLA and the NCP require that costs and cost-effectivess
 be considered, cost cannot be the driving factor in remedy selection.

 The Army must clean up the Rocky Mountain Arsenal to a standard
 which is protective of human health and the environment, regardless of
 current budgetary forecasts. It is inappropriate for the Army, as a
 responsible party, to take the position that it will spend no more than a
 specific amount on the remedy. It is illegal for a regulatory agency, such
 as the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, to approve a
 cleanup plan which places top priority on cost containment. Accordingly,
 we will view your letter as a background statement that cannot control the
 process.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------

 On March 28,Thomas P. Looby (Director, Office
 of the Environment at the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment)
 wrote to Lieutenant Colonel N. John Benson, Jr.(Department of the Army -
 Office of the Judge Advocate General/Environmental Law Division)

 ...the Superfund NCP and Colorado Hazardous Waste Laws and Regulations
 establish standards and criteria for acceptable cleanups which are
 necessary to protect public health and the environment. Under these laws
 cost is an important consideration but not the driving force. We are
 hopeful of formulating remedies which both comply with federal and state
 protectiveness requirements and which are sensitive to annual budget
 limitations of the Army.

 ...the level of funding the Army seems willing to provide is less than what
 you committed to Governor Romer and the Lieutenant Governor Schoettler and
 is less than the $2.3 billion offered in Colonel McGowan's October 24, 1994
 letter. With approximately $.75 billion already committed to or spent, the
 Army indicated you would provide an additional $1.5 billion. What is the
 basis now for reducing this level by $.25-$.30 billion from your earlier
 commitments?

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------------------------