[CPEO-MEF] CPEO questions about the Vieques (PR) Federal Facilities Agreement

[Lenny Siegel <lennysiegel@gmail.com>]

[I just submitted the following to EPA. For more information about the 
FFA, as well as about making comments, go to 
http://www.epa.gov/region02/vieques/. - LS]

CENTER FOR PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL OVERSIGHT
A Project of the Pacific Studies Center
278-A Hope Street, Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650-961-8918 or 650-969-1545  Fax: 650-961-8918 
<lsiegel@cpeo.org> http://www.cpeo.org

October 24, 2007

Daniel Rodríguez
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Vieques Field Office
PO Box 1537
Vieques, P.R.  00765
rodriguez.daniel@epa.gov

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Federal Facilities 
Agreement (FFA) for the Vieques, Puerto Rico National Priorities List 
site (Administrative Docket Number: FFA-CERCLA-02-2007-2001).

While completion of the FFA is a major step forward, I am concerned that 
it does not clarify, for individuals who do not have significant 
experience in environmental law, key issues of concern to the public - 
at a site with a long history of intense public concern.

First and foremost, are munitions that were fired or dropped on or near 
Vieques fully subject to the investigative and remedial requirements of 
the FFA, even if they primarily pose an explosive risk? The agreement 
repeatedly refers to "release of hazardous substances, pollutants, and 
contaminants." Have the parties agreed to what degree those terms apply 
to munitions, explosives, and explosive by-products? I believe all 
munitions response activities should be subject to the Agreement, but in 
the absence of a clear statement I am not sure that they area.

Second, and clearly related, are decisions about the demilitarization 
and disposal of ordnance subject to the FFA? This is an issue repeatedly 
raised by local stakeholders. I recognize that it raises difficult 
questions weighing near-term safety against releases potentially causing 
long-term hazards to public health and the environment. However, the 
National Contingency Plan is an excellent tool for resolving such 
competing requirements.

Third, to what degree are offshore areas subject to the FFA? Appendix B 
does not list any underwater sites, despite clear evidence that 
munitions lie in shallow waters near the island. Such areas should be 
covered, and the parties should begin to add such sites to the Appendices.

These are not theoretical questions. There is some evidence that 
chemicals from underwater ordnance - most of which appears to have been 
fired or dropped, as opposed to dumped - are damaging coral reefs. 
Deciding whether to remediate such areas will be difficult, so it's 
important that the process for making such decisions be clear and 
transparent.

I believe there should be a wide-area visual and magnetic survey of 
underwater ordnance, sampling for explosive chemicals, and an evaluation 
of the health of coral in areas where munitions appear to lie. This 
should take place, not only along East Vieques shoreline, but near the 
former ordnance disposal area on West Vieques. The FFA should provide 
clear guidance for moving ahead with such an investigation.

Sincerely,

(submitted electronically)

Lenny Siegel
Executive Director




--


Lenny Siegel
Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
a project of the Pacific Studies Center
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



_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military