EPA Letter To DOD - UXO Issuse

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

[For a few years now, U.S. EPA, the Defense Department, and other
stakeholders have been working in various venues to resolve policy
issues related to the proposed Range Rule and the still-in-development
Range Rule Risk Methodology. Over that period, EPA has also been
accumulating practical experience with unexploded ordnance issues at
former and closing bases, and it has become increasingly frustrated with
the nature of the military's response in the field.

Recently, Acting Assistant EPA Administrator Tim Fields wrote a letter
to Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Sherri Wasserman Goodman raising
many of EPA's concerns. We reproduce Fields' letter below, and we are
posting as a separate document the enclosure describing those issues in
more detail. - LS]


[dated April 22, 1999]


Ms. Sherri W. Goodman
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security)
Department of Defense
3000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-3000

Dear Ms. Goodman:

During the past several years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has made a significant commitment to support the development of a
Department of Defense (DoD) Range Rule.  We have also supported numerous
related DoD efforts, including the Range Rule Risk Methodology and the
Military Munitions Dialogue.  Through our cooperative efforts,
substantial progress has been made on the resolution of many overarching
issues, improving the process presented within the proposed Rule, and
developing a process to assess risks from unexploded ordnance (UXO).  I
am encouraged by DoD's recent decision to modify the Range Rule Risk
Methodology towards a risk management strategy.  I believe this decision
will lead to more realistic assessments for remedial decisions at
military ranges.

Both EPA and DoD had hoped that by this time a promulgated Range Rule
would have addressed the multitude of serious issues at closed,
transferred, and transferring military ranges.  However, the completion
of the Range Rule is still uncertain.  During the last several years,
EPA has become increasingly concerned with the UXO and hazardous
chemical contamination situations at military ranges nationwide.  For
many reasons, it appears that closed, transferred, and transferring
military ranges are not being adequately addressed in a manner
consistent with accepted environmental or explosive safety standards and
practices.  Although the final Range Rule would presumably help to
address some of these issues at specific sites, we feel a number of
these issues go beyond the scope of the Range Rule, and are fundamental
policy issues.  Therefore, I believe these issues are better addressed
by national policy, sooner rather than later.  Judging by the increasing
number of sites with UXO or UXO-related issues, we are now at a juncture
where these issues need both your and my immediate attention.

Many ranges or sites known or suspected to contain UXO and other
hazardous constituents have already been transferred from DoD control,
and many more are in the process of being transferred.  The risks from
many of these Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) ranges and Formerly
Used Defense Sites (FUDS) have not been adequately assessed, and if
required, addressed.  As these formerly remote or restricted ranges are
developed or as the public increases its use of these properties, the
risks correspondingly will increase.   Consequently, I would like to
schedule a two hour meeting with you soon to begin a dialogue on our
concerns.  I do not believe we can resolve the myriad of issues in such
a short meeting, but I feel it is important for us to begin to lay the
foundation for working towards a joint resolution.

The enclosed list of EPA issues should be used as the basis for our
discussion.  Overall, EPA's, and in many cases, the States, Tribes, and
public stakeholders concerns with the Service's and the Army Corps of
Engineer's (USACE) activities can be summarized as follows: 1) range
assessment and investigation issues where utilization of selected field
screening, detection, statistical sampling, and other investigation
techniques often result in mis-characterization of UXO and hazardous
contaminants; 2) non-compliance with EPA and DoD existing regulatory
authorities; 3) generally poor coordination and information distribution
with Federal, State, Tribal and local government regulators as evidenced
by incomplete UXO and contaminant information from the Services and
USACE on a site-specific and national basis; 4) remedy selection and
implementation problems such as large-scale UXO cleanups being planned
or performed as "CERCLA-like" actions; and 5) general concerns over
property transferred with remaining UXO.  The enclosed list of EPA
concerns elaborates on each of these five general points.

Our concerns are critical to ongoing responses as well as longer-term
(Range Rule) efforts at closed, transferred, and transferring military
ranges.  Although I recognize that DoD has made significant progress
over the last several years in addressing or beginning to address a
number of these concerns, we have reached a critical crossroads where we
must address the growing number of issues.  It is my hope that
resolution of these issues will establish a solid foundation for both
EPA and DoD to effectively address future environmental restoration
activities.  I am optimistic we can find an appropriate solution to each
issue, and further develop a viable DoD Range Rule and other policies as
appropriate.  Ultimately, solving these issues will lead to better
protection of human health and the environment and will increase the
public confidence in our actions. 

As always, I look forward to working with you and DoD to resolve these
issues.  My Office will be contacting you in the near future to set up a
meeting.  In the meantime, questions about the enclosure can be directed
to Douglas Bell at (202) 260-8716, or Ken Shuster at (703) 308-8759.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   /signed by
     
                                   Timothy Fields, Jr.
                                   Acting Assistant Administrator

Enclosure

cc:  Raymond Fatz, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety, and
Occupational Health, Army
     Elsie Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment and Safety,
Navy
     Thomas McCall, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment,
Safety, and Occupational Health, Air Force
     Patricia Rivers, Chief, Environmental Division, USACE
     Col. Wilkerson, Deputy Director, Army Environmental Programs
     Col. Tompkins, Chairman, DoD Explosives Safety Board