DOD's RRPI 2004 Questions and Answers

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

===========================================================
Need to find the right school to fit your needs
CollegeInformation.info has already found it. Get educated
on your future ? degrees, financial aid and more!
http://click.topica.com/caab6afaVxieSa8wsBba/ College Info
===========================================================


Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative Q & A
Source: Department of Defense

Why is DoD seeking changes to environmental regulation?

The Department is seeking legislative clarification where laws are being
applied beyond their original legislative intent.  We believe that
modest legislative reforms are needed to ensure the preparedness of this
Nation's Armed Forces, and we will continue to work with Congress to
seek enactment of legislation to address these concerns.  We are looking
at a combination of narrowly-focused measures to enhance the readiness
of our forces, while maintaining our commitment to environmental
stewardship.  Although DoD is seeking modest clarification in these
laws, our proposals would confirm -- not change -- the regulatory policy
of the last two Administrations and a majority of the States.

The land, sea, air, and space we use to test our weapons and train our
people are essential national assets, but environmental and other
restrictions can have unintended consequences that increasingly limit
the military's ability to effectively train for combat.

Is DoD proposing to exempt itself from environmental laws?

No.  With respect to the RCRA and CERCLA proposals, these changes simply
codify existing regulatory policies that apply to military munitions
activities on operational ranges.  The CAA proposal does not exempt DoD
from any emissions limitations or pollution control requirements under
Federal or State law or regulation.  It simply allows flexibility to the
States and DoD to provide basing efficiencies for new weapon systems or
realigned military readiness activities. DoD will continue to comply
with the same environmental laws as private organizations when engaged
in the same activities.

Can't the President simply waive requirements for national defense
activities if we are at war?

The existing exemptions in environmental law are intended to be
emergency powers exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.  They
are limited in scope and are not meant for managing the Department's
routine training and testing requirements or basing decisions.  In most
environmental statutes, the President may grant national security
exceptions only if it is in the "paramount interest" of the United
States -- the highest standard in our laws.  And, even if an exemption
is granted, our activities will not necessarily be shielded from
challenge in private litigation.

The readiness activities we are concerned with are not "one-time"
events, but part of the day-to-day training regimen for our forces and
we believe it is not good public policy to ask for exemptions for
something that needs to take place on a regular basis.  Rather, we
should resolve the basic issue.

Why shouldn't DoD be subject to the same environmental requirements as
everyone else?

DoD is subject to all federal environmental laws.  But, in addition, the
military has a unique responsibility to prepare for and win armed
conflicts - unlike any private organization, state, or local government
- and has land specially set aside to test and train for that purpose.
The proposed changes are narrowly focused on testing and training, i.e.,
"military readiness activities."  They would not affect DoD compliance
with environmental laws in the management of its infrastructure or
industrial operations that are similar to those of private companies.
For example, DoD will continue to comply with all applicable
environmental laws in the way that it runs its sewage treatment plants,
paint booths, or manages industrial hazardous wastes, etc. and certainly
DoD will continue all environmental cleanup programs.  Further, the
proposals simply clarify that use of a product for its intended
purpose-in this case the use of military munitions for test and
training-is not a waste management activity.  This is the same rule that
applies to everyone else.

Why is DoD worried about readiness given its superior performance in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

Although we are proud of the recent achievements of our forces overseas,
we must continually be ready to face evolving threats, many of which
call for different skills than those required in these recent conflicts.
 DoD faces an increasing challenge in this regard from the cumulative
effect of urbanization and the increasing application of environmental
restrictions on military readiness activities - sometimes through novel
or overly broad legal interpretations.  Although DoD has been able to
find "work arounds" to most restrictions, availability and fidelity of
training have suffered.

Why is DoD seeking so many changes?

DoD is proposing only three legislative clarifications this year
pertaining to military readiness activities.  Each has been previously
submitted to Congress, and we remain convinced they are essential to
effective testing and training.  DoD is subject to a great number of
environmental requirements.  We are able to both protect the nation and
the environment in most cases.  In a few instances, however, the
cumulative effect of environmental restrictions can prevent effective
training for combat.  We are looking at clarifications to give us
flexibility in addressing those relatively few restrictions that
conflict with effective training.

Why is legislative action necessary -- can't these issues be addressed
by administrative action within the agencies?

Not in these three cases.  Our military forces need to test and train
with the weapons and equipment they use in battle.  This includes the
use of live ammunition.  It is imperative that our ranges remain open
for realistic use.  Lawsuits and other challenges to live fire range
activities cannot be addressed through administrative action; only
Congress can clarify its intent to ensure our military readiness.
Similarly, DoD must often base new weapons systems or reposition forces
to ensure we can test, train and operate effectively.  Current Clean Air
Act law does not provide DoD and the States with the flexibility
necessary to make such moves in a timely manner.  We are asking for a
legislative adjustment that will grant such flexibility while continuing
to protect air quality. 

However, DoD is looking beyond just legislative fixes for these issues.
We are in the process of evaluating all of the circumstances that
interfere with military readiness.  Some of these may be solved with
administrative or regulatory changes.  We are working with the military
services, other federal agencies, tribes, states and local communities
to find ways to better balance military, community and environmental needs.

The Department also is developing a suite of internal policy and
procedure adjustments, the capstone of which is a Department of Defense
Directive signed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense in January 2003 to
ensure long-range, sustainable approaches to range management.  In
addition, we intend to strengthen and empower management structures to
deal with range issues.  We also have taken a proactive approach to
protect bases from urbanization effects by working with local planning
and zoning organizations, non-government conservation organizations and
other stakeholders.


Can't DoD find a new way to train, using simulators and other
technologies, to avoid conflict with environmental requirements?

Models and simulators can only teach so much.  Military training
involves integrating unit maneuver with employment of munitions under
conditions of stress.  This can be safely done only on training ranges
set aside for that purpose. 

The DOD has stated that reliance upon more frequent and extensive
"work-arounds" will seriously degrade training and readiness.  Can you
provide some clear examples where "work-arounds" go beyond being an
inconvenience to fundamentally undercutting the realism and quality of training?

Camp Pendleton is often used as an example, especially in the mission
areas involved in the conduct of an amphibious landing.  The numerous
environmental restrictions there resulting in lack of realism and
segmentation of training events is very illustrative of the common
problem.  But there are many others:
o National Guard units traveling between states to train when backyard
ranges are restricted or closed to live fire training (in the case of
Massachusetts Military Reservation, Guard forces now travel to Fort
Drum, a 6 to 8 hour trip by road, which produces more wear and tear on
both personnel and equipment, and results in less overall training.)
o Aircrews taking off, recovering or dropping ordnance from non-tactical
altitudes (examples include Oceana, Virginia, plus many other airbases
around the Nation)
o Soldiers not actually digging fighting holes or equipment emplacements
during basic and intermediate training (Fort Hood and Camp Pendleton are
only two of many so restricted.)

Increasingly, DoD is forced to restrict or relocate training and testing
when encroachment affects our ranges.  Both alternatives degrade the
readiness of U.S. military forces.




Clean Air Act (CAA)

Why is DoD proposing to modify the Clean Air Act?

The Clean Air Act's "general conformity" requirement, applicable only to
federal agencies, has threatened deployment of new weapons systems and
the movement of forces among installations despite the relatively minor
levels of emissions involved.  Our military forces must routinely
operate out of their home bases and transit to nearby training ranges to
maintain readiness.  Without a reasonable time period to meet Clean Air
Act conformity requirements, the ability to operate in non-attainment
regions is threatened.

What is the rationale for a three-year exemption period?

DoD's proposed legislation would provide more flexibility for the
Defense Department in ensuring that emissions from its military training
and testing are consistent with State Implementation Plans under the
Clean Air Act by allowing DoD and the State a reasonable time period (3
years) to accommodate or offset emissions from military readiness
activities.  The provision is essential both to basing of vital new
weapons systems and to the repositioning of forces to best meet the
needs of national and homeland security.

Isn't Air Quality threatened by this proposal?

No, in fact we believe the opposite is true.  By facilitating the
repositioning of our military forces, our proposal would not only
improve military preparedness but also could improve air quality by
contributing to a more efficient basing structure.

How would you address possible disproportionate local or regional impact
of the 3-year exemption? Could individual states be hit particularly hard?

We will not know the impacts to specific regions until the changes in
readiness activities are identified.  However, it is important to bear
in mind that the readiness activities that will be eligible for the
three-year extension typically are a negligible amount of added
emissions to the local airshed-normally less than .05 percent, and this
increase would be temporary. 




Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

Why is DoD trying to change some of the Nation's key laws protecting our
citizens from hazardous wastes, i.e. RCRA and CERCLA?

In reality, our initiative simply confirms the prevailing regulatory
policies and practices of EPA and the States, which have not sought to
exercise regulatory oversight over our operational ranges absent
suspected off-range health effects.  It codifies existing definitional
provisions of the EPA's existing Military Munitions Rule (40 CFR
260.10).  It also clarifies an existing ambiguity in the Rule by
providing that military munitions and their constituents on operational
ranges are not "solid waste" when used for their intended purpose.

Our CERCLA amendment, like our RCRA amendment, confirms existing EPA
regulatory policies and practices, which have not sought to exercise
CERCLA regulatory oversight over our operational ranges absent suspected
off-range health effects.  A very dangerous precedent would be set if
this accepted practice were to change, potentially allowing restrictions
or closure of any live-fire test or training range nation-wide, with
severe readiness implications.

Under our proposal, EPA would retain all its existing authority under
the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure community health is fully
protected.  And because EPA's sweeping CERCLA section 106 authority
covers not only actual but "threatened release," our proposal would
therefore clearly enable EPA to address groundwater contamination before
the contamination leaves DoD land-which is also the objective of DoD's
existing management policies.  And neither provision would apply in any
way to closed DoD ranges or ranges owned and operated by defense
contractors, only to operational ranges which are being used for
readiness purposes.

If RRPI passes, won't it prevent Federal and state regulators from
protect drinking water from contamination in situations similar to that
found at Camp Lejeune, NC, in the 1980s?

RRPI applies only to military munitions used for military training and
testing on operational ranges; not to the kind of industrial activities
or commercial operations that were discovered to be the sources of
contaminants impacting some of Camp Lejeune's drinking water wells in
the 1980s (on-base industrial operations and an off-base, privately
owned and operated commercial dry cleaner).  And, even if contamination
of drinking water were to occur from munitions activities--the only
activities covered by RRPI--RRPI has no effect whatsoever on State and
Federal EPA authorities to respond when contaminants impact drinking
water systems or sources of drinking water, even if the water sources
are on an operational range.


Is RRPI about perchlorate?

Although RRPI would apply to perchlorate contamination from munitions
test and training activity on an operational range, as it would to any
constituent from test and training activity on an operational range, it
applies only as long as the munitions and their constituents remain on
range and don't create an imminent threat to public health or the environment.

Nothing in RRPI alters the financial, cleanup, or operational
responsibilities of DoD contractors, or of DoD with respect to its
contractors, either regarding perchlorate or any other chemical, or
DoD's responsibilities with respect to closed ranges, Formerly Used
Defense Sites, ranges that may close in the future, DoD's non-readiness
activities, or for any constituents (including perchlorate) that migrate
off an operational range.

Nothing in RRPI applies to perchlorate contamination resulting from
manufacture, storage, maintenance, or disposal of perchlorate, either on
or off DoD ranges.

Nothing in RRPI affects state or federal authority to address
perchlorate or other munitions constituents under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.

How will enactment of these proposals improve readiness?

These changes will reduce the likelihood of range closures or
restrictions affecting live-fire readiness activities on military
ranges.   The provisions will ensure that critical live-fire training
and testing opportunities for our service men and women are protected,
and that the health and welfare of our military personnel on these
ranges or installations as well as all citizens outside our range
boundaries will remain secure.


--


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org

===========================================================
Your opinion counts! We're conducting a survey for a
computer service/repair company. When you complete our
survey, you will also be entered into a drawing for one of
ten $100 prizes. Just click
http://click.topica.com/caab6PiaVxieSa8wsBbf/ Val Rad
===========================================================
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CPEO: A DECADE OF SUCCESS.  Your generous support will ensure that our
important work on military and environmental issues will continue.
Please consider one of our donation options.  Thank you.
http://www.groundspring.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2086-0|721-0