Re: [CPEO-MEF] DOD vs. EPA

[mousekill@hotmail.com]

DoD's importance to national security will not pass.  Only public 
perception 
of this importance changes.

If the EPA decides to "pin the military's ears back", both organizations 

will suffer.  Neither the EPA or DoD are "the bad guys" and neither 
should 
be treated as such.  They both have valid and important funtions within 
our 
society.  I would rather see my taxes go toward DoD and EPA working 
together 
than to fund more pointless infighting within our government.

Brett Wood
Mousekill@Hotmail.com


Well I think it is high time the EPA stepped up to the plate and pinned
the military's ears back
regarding the shameful cleanups that are chosen when the polluting party
is also the financially
responsible party is also the lead agency in determining cleanup
remedies.  I think the EPA has
played little brother to the DOD for too long when doing so makes the
DOD in effect a fourth
branch of government.  If not the EPA then who stands to make the DOD do
the right thing?  If
there is controversey then maybe it is the EPA's cry for public support
in righting past wrongs.
The fundamental issue is whether DOD must do the right thing
environmentally based on objective
analysis of cleanup needs, or whether cleanup remedies will be resized
to the portion of DOD's
budget that they feel they can live without.  In other words does the
budget set the size of the
cleanup or does the size of the cleanup determine the size of the
budget?

Unfortunately this is not a popular time to stand against DOD policy
since their core mission has
become more important to the security of the country than ever before.
But this too shall pass
yet the environment remains forever.

Sincerely,

Steven Pollack
www.familyjeweler.com/fortweb.htm

Lenny Siegel wrote:

 > Relations between the environmental bureaucracy at the Defense
 > Department (DOD) and the regulators who oversee Defense cleanup at 
the
 > U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are rapidly deteriorating.
 > The primary areas of dispute appear to be post-remedy selection
 > activities such as the enforcement of land use controls, authority 
over
 > the cleanup of former Defense properties now in non-federal 
ownership,
 > and the remediation of land contaminated with unexploded ordnance. 
Each
 > agency is sharply contesting the other's policies. Mistrust is
 > approaching the levels of the early 1990s. They've even reportedly
 > started arguing about the timely availability of each other's 
documents
 > for review.
 >
 > Though, as a community activist, I tend to take EPA's side in many of
 > these arguments, I believe that no one is served by the increasingly
 > adversarial relationship between the two agencies. Both the Defense
 > Department and EPA should be fighting pollution, not each other.
 >
 > The new political leadership at both agencies should step forward and
 > attempt to resolve major policy disputes. In some cases, they should
 > involve representatives of other stakeholders groups, including state
 > and tribal regulators; local governments, community activists, and
 > environmental justice representatives; and other federal agencies. 
This
 > was the formula that allowed the Federal Facilities Environmental
 > Restoration Dialogue Committee (FFERDC) to overcome significant
 > obstacles in the 90s. If the conflicts cannot be resolved, or at 
least
 > reduced, non-federal stakeholders groups will need to ask Congress to
 > clarify who's "in charge" of each aspect of federal facilities 
cleanup.
 >
 > Long-Term Stewardship
 >
 > In the 90s, most questions about federal facilities cleanup focused 
on
 > the selection of remedies. By now, however, a large number of 
remedies
 > have been selected and memorialized in Records of Decision (RODs). 
Many
 > key decisions involve remedy operations (such as pump-and-treat),
 > long-term monitoring, and the implementation of land use controls. To
 > deal with such issues, a multi-agency task force wrote "The Road to 
Site
 > Close-Out." The Navy recently published an innovative report, 
"Guidance
 > for Optimizing Remedial Action Operation ." Both EPA and the Defense
 > Department have published recent documents on land use controls.
 >
 > Despite agreement with regulators and public representatives on many
 > issues involving long-term stewardship, including progress in the
 > structuring of land use controls, the Defense Department has taken 
what
 > appears to me to be a new position: It doesn't recognize regulatory
 > authority over most post-ROD decisions. I won't argue the legal basis 
-
 > I'm not a lawyer. But I don't see how the regulatory agencies - state
 > and federal - can remain partners in the post-ROD process if they 
don't
 > have a recognized decision-making role. In fact, the military's 
failure
 > to recognize post-ROD regulatory authority is likely to force 
regulators
 > to oppose, up front, those cleanup plans that rely on monitoring and
 > land use controls.
 >
 > The Defense Department seems to want to limit its ongoing cleanup
 > responsibilities - through mechanisms such as early transfer - but 
its
 > current posture will make that difficult. Ironically, I've seen much
 > more conflict over the right to make decisions than disputes over
 > post-ROD cleanup activity itself.
 >
 > Formerly Used Defense Sites
 >
 > For years, state and federal regulators have complained about the 
slow
 > pace of the Pentagon's Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program,
 > executed by the Army Corps of Engineers on behalf of the Army - and
 > funded through the Defense budget. Cleanup progress has been slow. 
Many
 > contaminated sites were prematurely declared to need "no further
 > action." High-profile sites such as Tierra Santa, Spring Valley, and 
the
 > Marion Depot have siphoned off funds from other sites, with little
 > formal justification of the Army's priorities. In response, the Army 
has
 > reformed its program, but the FUDS universe remains enormously
 > underfunded.
 >
 > A couple of years ago EPA lawyers came up with a new interpretation 
of
 > Executive Order 12580, which delegates the President's authority 
under
 > CERCLA (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
 > Liability Act). They determined that EPA could play a greater role in
 > FUDS cleanup decision-making, a role that grew in importance with the
 > demise of the Defense Department's proposed Range Rule last year. 
Most
 > ranges that would have been subject to that Range Rule are found on 
FUDS
 > properties. EPA appears to want to use its authority selectively.
 >
 > The Defense Department, however, believes that its authority over the
 > FUDS program is intact. It's willing to work with EPA, but it wants 
to
 > remain in charge of the program and make reform decisions itself. 
Once
 > it admits that EPA can exercise the authority it has recently started 
to
 > assert, there's nothing - the Defense Department seems to fear - to 
keep
 > EPA from taking over the entire program.
 >
 > I'm not sure where I stand on the FUDS authority issue. It's 
important,
 > however, for EPA, the Defense Department, and the states to work
 > together. No matter how the regulatory issues are resolved, little
 > additional cleanup will be accomplished unless all parties work 
together
 > to boost FUDS funding.
 >
 > Unexploded Ordnance
 >
 > Throughout the long discussions over the Defense Department's 
proposed
 > Range Rule, I argued that state and federal regulators needed 
ultimate
 > decision-making authority over range response. The Defense Department 
is
 > now engaged in discussions with state representatives to resolve that
 > point, but I'm not optimistic. Too many of the discussions over range
 > cleanup authority have historically degenerated into arguments over
 > definitions and their implications for CERCLA, RCRA (the Resource
 > Conservation and Recovery Act) and other statutes.
 >
 > I think it makes more sense to consider the Defense Department's
 > concerns over the potential recognition that range cleanup is just 
one
 > more form of hazardous waste cleanup. I think the military has at 
least
 > three valid concerns:
 >
 > 1) Explosive safety. The Defense Department doesn't want regulatory
 > agencies ordering ordnance technicians to take unnecessary explosive
 > safety risks. No regulator has ever ordered an individual to approach 
or
 > handle ordnance against his/her will, but some response strategies
 > entail more risk to personnel than others do. There needs to be a way 
to
 > weigh risk management for the public against risk management for
 > response workers.
 >
 > 2) Active ranges. The military doesn't want to be forced to clean
 > operational ranges. This has actually happened at the Massachusetts
 > Military Reservation, for good reason, but the evidence elsewhere 
thus
 > far doesn't show many comparable threats to public drinking water
 > supplies. Perhaps the military should do a better job of keeping the
 > public away from active impact areas, but no one expects active 
ranges
 > to be cleaned to a level safe enough for a kindergarten field trip.
 >
 > 3) Budget. Using today's technologies, requirements to conduct 
response
 > actions at former ranges, even at minimal levels, could break the 
bank.
 > (Army experts have told me that even site security plans could drain 
all
 > other resources, if mandated in the near future.) The Pentagon 
doesn't
 > want outsiders to insist that it spend billions of dollars on range
 > cleanup. No matter what the regulatory framework, however, it could 
take
 > hundreds of years to address ordnance contamination, at former 
ranges,
 > at the current rate, and that's unsatisfactory. Ideally, all parties
 > would work together to ask Congress to establish a higher level of
 > effort for range cleanup - and promote the development and prove-out 
of
 > cost-saving technologies.
 >
 > At some point, the Defense Department, EPA, and other regulators will
 > have to resolve who's in charge, when, and where. But there doesn't 
have
 > to be a complete resolution. As with FFERDC, agreements could be 
reached
 > that answer that question most of the time, or at least reduce the 
need
 > to ask it because everyone's already on the same track.  Eventually
 > Congress will need to step in, but the more the agencies work out on
 > their own, the better the solutions will be.
 >
 > --
 >
 > Lenny Siegel
 > Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
 > c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
 > Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
 > Fax: 650/961-8918
 > lsiegel@cpeo.org
 > http://www.cpeo.org
 >
 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~