Re: [CPEO-MEF] Pentagon Environmental Proposals

[rst195005@aol.com]

Mr. Feigenbaum misreads the effect of the proposed change in CERCLA.
The proposal would change the definition of "release" for purposes of
CERCLA, and only for the purposes of CERCLA.  This modest change in 
CERCLA would have no effect whatsoever on the Safe Drinking Water Act.  
The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the Administrator of EPA "upon 
receipt of information that a contaminant which is present in or is 
likely to enter a public water system or an underground source of 
drinking water may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to 
the health of persons ... may take such actions 
as he may deem necessary in order to protect the health of such
persons."  

SDWA section 300i(a).  This provision is the basis for the orders on
Cape Cod.  The definition of "contaminant" in the SDWA is "any physical, 
chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water."

There is no reference to a "release" under CERCLA, and it does not
matter whether the contaminant is the result of a release, naturally 
occurring, or in the water as a result of any other cause. 

Moreover, the proposed CERCLA legislation would not eliminate EPA's
authority to take action with respect to a "threat of release" -- so if 
there is concern that contamination will move off the range at a 
concentration that could adversely effect human health or the 
environment, then CERCLA itself (in addition to the Safe Drinking Water 
Act) would remain a tool to address such concern. 

In sum, this proposed change in CERCLA is a small change that leaves
tools in place to deal with real or even perceived problems.

Then why, you might ask, did the Pentagon propose this change?  The
reason is to ensure that the use of a range for its intended purpose is 
not treated as if that very use were a bad act -- like an unpermitted 
release of contaminants on the ground.  This proposal is very modest and 
sensible.
 

All of DoD's environmental proposals should be read carefully, and be 
carefully considered.  But just because they involve changes in existing 
environmental laws is no justification for suspending thought and 
opposing each provision reflexively. 

Let there be free, open, and informed debate.

Robert S. Taylor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~