TX AG RESPONSE TO 346 AMMEND -Reply

[Sam.Goodhope@igc.org]

From: Sam Goodhope <Sam.Goodhope@OAG.STATE.TX.US>
Subject: Re: TX AG RESPONSE TO 346 AMMEND -Reply

Long message...

I am uncertain what results will be forthcoming from DoD's and DoE's
"hard look" at institutional controls. It is my personal opinion as a member
of DERTF that the effort to look meaningfully at such controls has been
stymied, if not altogether sandbagged by those working on the issue. 
Furthermore, I am no longer sanguine about DoD's commitment to cleanup
in conformance with state and federal regulator oversight. I think the
actions regarding DSMOA cuts and RAB funding cuts, devolvement, the
establishment of DoD's self-determined prioritization scheme which may
not fit within the desired priorities set by the fifty states and EPA, this
year's backdoor attempt to amend CERCLA 120(h)(3), last year's
backdoor amendment of 120(h)(3) to allow for long-term leasing, and the
unilateral DoD movement during the past few years towards
over-reliance on future land use (including the desire to go to a "no
future land Use " option (e.g., some portions of Kelly AFB)), risk
assessment, and risk management during priority setting are not positive
indicators that successful partnering between the regulators and the
DoD has adequately developed and/or has been sufficiently
institutionalized. 
 Moreover, these indicators evince, if anything, a retreat by DoD to a
cleanup program in which the states and state regulators are left outside
the fence. (I do not doubt, however, that many of the folks involved with
the cleanup programs at the DoD and service level remain committed to
cleaning up the mess at some of these bases, so long as it done in
accordance with DoD's priorities and under the terms set forth by DoD.) 
 Again, it is my personal belief (i.e., no official view) that we may very
well be at the beginning of the end of the truly partnering state/federal
relationship in the cleanup program which many have worked together
during the past few years to try to establish. This is not an irredeemable
situation, but continued efforts to lobby our communities for an
amendment that is not needed, or, rather for which no need has yet been
shown, will only exacerbate a growing feeling out here in the hinterland
that something is amiss inside the Beltway on these very important
cleanup issues.