From: | CPEO Moderator <cpeo@cpeo.org> |
Date: | Fri, 19 May 2000 10:00:14 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] Range Rule |
[This was posted to the list by Vicky Peters, <vicky.peters@state.co.us>] please post May 18, 2000 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL 750 FIRST STREET NE SUITE 1100 WASHINGTON, DC 20002 (202) 326-6054 (202) 408-6999 CHRISTINE T. MILLIKEN Executive Director General Counsel CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE PRESIDENT Attorney General of Washington PRESIDENT-ELECT ANDREW KETTERER Attorney General of Maine VICE PRESIDENT CARLA J. STOVALL Attorney General of Kansas IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT MIKE MOORE Attorney General of Mississippi Jacob J. Lew, Director Office of Management and Budget Old Executive Office Building, Room 252 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20503 Dear Director Lew: We, the undersigned Attorneys General, understand the Department of Defense recently submitted to OMB proposed language for a final rule ("the range rule") governing response actions at closed, transferred, and transferring military ranges that may contain unexploded ordnance ("UXO"). We have serious concerns with the proposed final rule. In short, we believe that the proposal contravenes Congressional intent that the States and the Environmental Protection Agency should share regulatory authority over cleanup of UXO, and that DOD does not have the statutory authority to promulgate the range rule. Further, we understand that the rule does not contain adequate standards to protect human health and the environment. This lack of standards, combined with DOD's track record in responding to UXO contamination, persuades us that the proposed rule will not adequately protect human health and the environment. There is no accurate inventory of former military ranges that may contain UXO, but they likely number in the thousands. Many of these ranges are located on military bases that are being transferred to private ownership as part of the base closure process. Others, already in private ownership, face increasing development pressures. Consequently, potential public exposure to the UXO hazards present on these ranges is rapidly increasing. The increasing threat to the public from UXO heightens both our concerns with DOD's proposed rule, and the need for state oversight. In 1992, Congress passed the Federal Facility Compliance Act. Section 107 of the Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 6924(y)) directed the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, after consultation with the States and with the Secretary of Defense, to promulgate regulations defining when military munitions become hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), and prescribing safe storage and transportation requirements for such waste. In adopting section 107 of the Act, the Conference Committee rejected a provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have authorized the Secretary of Defense to promulgate regulations governing the safe development, handling, use, transportation, and disposal of military munitions. This legislative history clearly demonstrates that Congress intended that states and EPA, rather than DOD, should regulate management of waste munitions. Director Jack Lew May 18, 2000 Page Two In 1997, pursuant to section 107 of the Act, EPA promulgated a rule defining various circumstances under which military munitions were considered hazardous waste. In that rule, EPA postponed making a final decision to regulate military munitions left on closed or transferred ranges, in part because DOD was proposing to draft a range rule, and EPA wanted to evaluate DOD's rule to determine whether it adequately protected human health and the environment. In light of the legislative history described above, the decision to defer EPA regulation of munitions on ranges in favor of DOD regulation flies in the face of Congressional intent. It also undermines the Congressional goal of independent state oversight of UXO cleanups, and could set the stage for significant federal-state conflicts. Furthermore, as many states noted in commenting on the draft range rule, DOD does not have statutory authority to promulgate such a rule. Executive Order 12580 expressly gives EPA, not DOD, "lead agency" authority to oversee cleanups at sites no longer under DOD's jurisdiction, authority or control, and also gives EPA exclusive authority to promulgate rules affecting such sites. Nor does the Defense Environmental Restoration Program ("DERP") authorize DOD to promulgate such regulations. DERP merely makes DOD responsible to carry out the cleanup of UXO. In addition to these legal flaws, the range rule simply does not adequately protect human health and the environment. Our understanding is that the rule itself sets no substantive criteria or standards for investigating or remediating UXO sites; instead, it is largely procedural. EPA has expressed concerns that the rule relies heavily on the concept of "technical impracticability" to excuse a decision not to remediate UXO. In practice, DOD continues to rely on statistical characterization and risk assessment models that do not protect human health and the environment. Although we understand that these models are not expressly incorporated into the proposed range rule, they are in fact the heart of DOD's UXO cleanup program. Experience with these models at the Lowry Bombing Range in Colorado, Ft. Ord in California, and other sites across the country amply demonstrates their shortcomings. DOD's characterization methodology routinely concludes that contaminated sites are clean, and the risk methodology plays a numbers game to manipulate clearly unacceptable levels of UXO contamination so that they fall within EPA's risk range. Promulgating the range rule will lead to protracted litigation and lengthy delays in responding to a serious and widespread environmental problem looming on the horizon. Because the proposed range rule lacks legal authority, conflicts with Congressional intent, and fails to protect human health and the environment, we urge you to disapprove this fundamentally flawed rule. Instead, we urge you to direct EPA to consult with the states and with DOD in promulgating regulations under RCRA to govern cleanup of UXO at closed, transferred, and transferring ranges, as we believe Congress intended when it passed the Federal Facility Compliance Act in 1992. Thank you for considering our views. Director Jack Lew May 18, 2000 Page Three Sincerely, Attorney General Bruce M. Botelho Attorney General of Alaska Attorney General Janet Napolitano Attorney General of Arizona Attorney General Bill Lockyer Attorney General of California Attorney General Richard Blumenthal Attorney General of Connecticut Attorney General John F. Tarantino Attorney General of Guam Attorney General Earl Anzai Attorney General of Hawaii Attorney General Tom Reilly Attorney General of Massachusetts Attorney General Jennifer Granholm Attorney General of Michigan Attorney General Jeremiah W. Nixon Attorney General of Missouri Attorney General Joseph P. Mazurek Attorney General of Montana Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa Attorney General of Nevada Attorney General John J Farmer, Jr. Attorney General of New Jersey Attorney General Eliot Spitzer Attorney General of New York Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp Attorney General of North Dakota Director Jack Lew May 18, 2000 Page Four Attorney General W. A. Drew Edmondson Attorney General of Oklahoma Attorney General Hardy Myers Attorney General of Oregon Attorney General Angel E. Rotger Sabat Attorney General of Puerto Rico Attorney General Mark Barnett Attorney General of South Dakota Attorney General Jan Graham Attorney General of Utah Attorney General Iver A. Stridiron Attorney General of the Virgin Islands Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire Attorney General of Washington ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html. If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to: cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Senate Vieques language Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] McClellan Air Force Base (California) RAB Dissolution | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Senate Vieques language Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] McClellan Air Force Base (California) RAB Dissolution |