Re: Army Disbands the Fort Ord RAB

[OrdToxics@aol.com]

It's time for the Army to own-up to the facts surrounding its Fort Ord 
Restoration Program.  

1.   The Army has catered to an elite cabal of developers and local 
government officials, while shunning local citizens and community groups.  

2.   They have acted in bad-faith in their relationship with the public and 
in their capacity as "administrator" of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB). 
 
3.   The Army has sought to deceive the public and local citizens, rather 
than workout viable solutions to base conversion issues.  

4.   The Army's Fort Ord managers have mismanaged their responsibilities and 
obligations to protect human health, safety and the environment.   

5.   The Army's Fort Ord managers have acted contrary to an Executive Order 
and regulations that require them to "meaningfully involve the affected 
community." 

It is time for the Army to do the right thing, take corrective action by
replacing the Base Environmental Coordinator (BEC) Gail Youngblood and the
Chief of the Directorate of Natural Resources, Jim Willison.  They are
responsible for the failure of Fort Ord's RAB and the resulting failure of
Fort Ord Restoration Program.

However, the Army has chosen to go down the wrong road again by disbanding 
the RAB.  Why?  Well, one reason is direct community and citizens involvement 
in the military base restoration process DOES work!  Yet the Army Command 
refuses to acknowledge that fact.  And here's the proof ... !

For years, US EPA, Department of Defense, Fort Ord Toxics Project, RAB
Community Members and others have been struggling with the US Army to
resolve major policy issues related to DOD's proposed Range Rule.  The
Army's failure to develop an adequate Range Rule Risk Methodology and
appropriate technologies has caused lengthy delays in adequate unexploded
ordnance (UXO)  cleanups at Fort Ord and other military sites across the
country.  In the meantime EPA has gained valuable practical experience
with unexploded ordnance issues at former and closing bases.  USEPA is
increasingly frustrated with the failure of the Army to develop a
reasonable and adequate UXO cleanup program.

Fort Ord RAB Community Members, Scott Allen, Esq., Curt Gandy, FOTP
Executive Director along with the FOTP Board of Directors are in largely
responsible for the substance of the US Environmental Protection Agency's
expanding positions on the suitability of the US Military's ability to
adequately remediate Ordnance and Explosive Waste from former military
firing ranges that are scheduled to become public lands.
 
As a result of a citizens' lawsuit, FORT ORD TOXICS PROJECT vs. UNITED
STATES ARMY, the Army and DOD are being held accountable for their
flagrant violations of the environmental laws of the United States
(CERCLA) that govern UXO cleanups.  The plaintiffs constant and relentless
pursuit of the Army on unresolved UXO issues and incomplete munitions
cleanups at the former Army base has raised the level of awareness in
EPA's management.  As a result of, FOTP Vs US ARMY, EPA's authority to
regulate the Army's munitions cleanups is clearly established.

	Attached is the text of a recent letter from Acting Assistant EPA 
Administrator Tim Fields to Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Sherri 
Wasserman-Goodman raising many of EPA's concerns regarding the DOD's 
inadequate munitions cleanup program.

Regards,

Curt Gandy
Executive Director
Fort Ord Toxics Project, and
Fort Ord RAB Community Member

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

[dated April 22, 1999]


Ms. Sherri W. Goodman
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security)
Department of Defense
3000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 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