From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 16 Aug 2004 20:32:37 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | Re: Trabuco Range debate (2nd of 4 messages) |
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Shop online for Discount Auto Parts: Mirrors Headlights Tail Lights Bumpers Fenders Window Regulators Spoilers Altezza Lights and a Full Line of Auto Body Parts. www.partstrain.com http://click.topica.com/caacxygaVxieSbnA7rua/Parts Train ------------------------------------------------------------------- Department of the Army Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 532711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 April 28, 2004 Mr. John Scandura Chief, Office of Military Facilities Department of Toxic Substances Control 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Dear Mr. Scandura: This is in response to your letters dated March 16, 2004 and April 16, 2004 concerning the United States Army Corps of Engineers' ("Corps") Trabuco Creek Bikeway Time Critical Removal Action ("TCRA)" at the former Trabuco Bombing Range, in Rancho Santa Margarita, California. The removal action involves disposal of unexploded ordnance (3-lb miniature practice bombs) discovered during construction of the bikeway. In your letters, you requested that the schedule be revised to allow sufficient time for your agency to complete its review of our planned removal activity for compliance with California Health and Safety Code and California Environmental Quality Act requirements. Because of the urgency of this removal action, we decline to delay it in order to accommodate your request. We assure you that our removal plan considers impacts upon the environment and is designed to minimize them while accomplishing the safe and efficient removal of the practice bombs. The on-site disposal of unexploded ordnance at a former bombing range does not require a permit from the Department of Toxic Substance Control ("DTSC"). Your letters focus upon DTSC's responsibilities with respect to the disposal of hazardous wastes pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Recovery [sic] ("CERCLA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, and California Health and Safety Codes, and other environmental statutes. Contrary to the views expressed in your letters, the removal action at the former Trabuco Bombing Range does not involve hazardous waste, as the Environmental Protection Agency's implementing regulations define them. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. [section] 261.20, a hazardous waste is defined as a solid waste that exhibits certain characteristics. In this case, more specific regulations exclude the unexploded ordnance at the former Trabuco Bombing Range from the definition of "solid waste" and thus also from the definition of "hazardous waste" and the regulations that generally govern the disposal of hazardous wastes. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. [section] 266.202(a)(1)(iii), "a military munitions is not a solid waste when ... used for its intended purpose, including: ... Recovery, collection and on-range destruction of unexploded ordnance and munitions fragments during range clearance activities at active or inactive ranges." The removal action at the former Trabuco Bombing Range falls under this provision. Accordingly, it is not subject to DTSC regulation. The Corps is conducting the removal action at the former Trabuco Bombing Range as a TRCA [sic] pursuant to the Federal regulations implementing CERCLA, 40 C.F.R. [section] 300.415. As you probably know, CERCLA grants the President authority to conduct response actions, and the authority has been delegated to the Corps. In determining the appropriate response action to be taken at Trabuco, the Corps is the lead agency, and we are obligated to comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements under federal environmental or state environmental or facility siting laws only to the extent practicable in light of the urgency of the situation, the scope of the removal action, and other considerations. 40 C.F.R. [section] 300.415(j). We have undertaken to complete this removal action as soon as possible in order to protect public health and welfare by promptly removing the potential hazard posed by these articles. In so doing, we are being responsible to concerns expressed by local government both as to public safety and the costs of delay. In accordance with 40 C.F.R. [section] 300.415 and Corps policy guidelines, the Corps has consulted with the community and State and local government, including DTSC, to the extent possible without allowing the process of consultation to delay actions necessary to prevent potential accidents. Our current TCRA schedule will not be changed merely to accommodate further studies. Should you have any further questions, please address them to our District Counsel, Lawrence N. Minch, at the address above. Sincerely, Richard G. Thompson Colonel, U.S. Army District Engineer -- 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 free subscription is supported by today's sponsor: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Amazing Diet Patch The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE! http://click.topica.com/caacvgtaVxieSbnA7ruf/MyDietPatches ------------------------------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 | |
References
| |
Prev by Date: Trabuco Range debate (1st of 4 messages) Next by Date: Re: Trabuco Range debate (3rd of 4 messages) | |
Prev by Thread: Trabuco Range debate (1st of 4 messages) Next by Thread: Re: Trabuco Range debate (3rd of 4 messages) |