EPA GIVES IN TO DOD ON CLOSED RANGES

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

EPA GIVES IN TO DOD IN MUNITIONS RULE

On November 1, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued its 
proposed rule, under the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, for 
identifying when conventional and chemical munitions become hazardous 
wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The 
proposal contains significant concessions to the military that did not 
appear in drafts previously circulated by EPA.

EPA still proposes, "munitions left at closed ranges, or at ranges 

transferred out of military control, are discarded material" and thus 
subject to hazardous waste laws. However, under pressure from the 
Defense Department and, reportedly, the White House Office Management 
and the Budget, EPA has added a "sunset" clause. Its provisions on 
closed ranges will be superseded by Department of Defense (DOD) 
regulations "if DOD promulgates, pursuant to DOD's own statutory 
authorities, rules that allow for public involvement in cleanups of 
these ranges and that are fully protective of human health and the 
environment." 

DOD's better-late-than-never offer to develop policies on range 
remediation is welcome. Consultation with regulators and other 
stakeholders is to be applauded. But DOD policies should not eliminate 
independent, legally authorized oversight. The principal reason that 
the military is the nation's largest polluter - in geographic terms - 
is that it for many years held itself above outside oversight.

In questioning the applicability of RCRA to closed munitions ranges, 
the Army presented a study estimating the cost of clearing nearly 
800,000 acres of land - at former ranges or ranges undergoing closure. 
The base case estimate totals $25.7 billion, or $31 billion from 1996 
through 2006, assuming 3% inflation. In addition, DOD suggests it would 
cost the government $181 billion more, over the next ten years, to 
clean up 7 million acres of former impact ranges now held by the 
Department of Interior.

However, outside oversight does not mean that the military will be 
required to carry out range remediation if technically unfeasible, 
extremely costly, or is likely to damage the environment. It does keep 
the pressure on, however, to develop new technologies and approaches to 
range management and cleanup. The recent experience with 
industrial-type contamination at military bases suggests that the 
presence of clear regulatory authority enhances, rather than diminishes 
the opportunities for cleanup partnerships.

DOD's own process should determine when and how DOD should respond to 
range contamination. What should be cleaned up, and to what depth? What 
forms of institutional controls, ranging from deed restrictions to 
guarded fencing, should be put into place? At what cost per acre will 
it make sense to clear large areas for general re-use? But DOD alone 
should not be relied upon to protect public health and the environment.

EPA will open a sixty-day public comment period beginning the date on 
which the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. For more 
information, call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800/424-9346. Comments 
(one original and two copies) should be mailed to EPA RCRA Docket 
#F-95-MMP-FFFFF, Mail Code 5305W, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Community groups opposing aspects of the proposed rule are organizing 
through the Military Toxics Project's Conventional Munitions Network. 
MTP can be reached at box 246, Norway, ME, 04268. Phone: 207/743-2541. 
Fax: 207/743-2648. Internet: mtp@igc.org.

Lenny Siegel