| From: | CPEO Moderator <cpeo@cpeo.org> |
| Date: | Fri, 19 May 2000 10:00:14 -0700 (PDT) |
| Reply: | cpeo-military |
| Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] Range Rule |
[This was posted to the list by Vicky Peters,
<vicky.peters@state.co.us>]
please post
May 18, 2000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL
750 FIRST STREET NE SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20002
(202) 326-6054
(202) 408-6999
CHRISTINE T. MILLIKEN
Executive Director
General Counsel
CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE
PRESIDENT
Attorney General of Washington
PRESIDENT-ELECT
ANDREW KETTERER
Attorney General of Maine
VICE PRESIDENT
CARLA J. STOVALL
Attorney General of Kansas
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
MIKE MOORE
Attorney General of Mississippi
Jacob J. Lew, Director
Office of Management and Budget
Old Executive Office Building, Room 252
17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Director Lew:
We, the undersigned Attorneys General, understand the Department of
Defense recently submitted to OMB proposed language for a final rule
("the range rule") governing response actions at closed, transferred,
and transferring military ranges that may contain unexploded ordnance
("UXO"). We have serious concerns with the proposed final rule. In
short, we believe that the proposal contravenes Congressional intent
that the States and the Environmental Protection Agency should share
regulatory authority over cleanup of UXO, and that DOD does not have the
statutory authority to promulgate the range rule. Further, we
understand that the rule does not contain adequate standards to protect
human health and the environment. This lack of standards, combined with
DOD's track record in responding to UXO contamination, persuades us that
the proposed rule will not adequately protect human health and the
environment.
There is no accurate inventory of former military ranges that may
contain UXO, but they likely number in the thousands. Many of these
ranges are located on military bases that are being transferred to
private ownership as part of the base closure process. Others, already
in private ownership, face increasing development pressures.
Consequently, potential public exposure to the UXO hazards present on
these ranges is rapidly increasing. The increasing threat to the public
from UXO heightens both our concerns with DOD's proposed rule, and the
need for state oversight.
In 1992, Congress passed the Federal Facility Compliance Act. Section
107 of the Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 6924(y)) directed the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, after consultation
with the States and with the Secretary of Defense, to promulgate
regulations defining when military munitions become hazardous waste
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), and
prescribing safe storage and transportation requirements for such waste.
In adopting section 107 of the Act, the Conference Committee rejected a
provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have authorized
the Secretary of Defense to promulgate regulations governing the safe
development, handling, use, transportation, and disposal of military
munitions. This legislative history clearly demonstrates that Congress
intended that states and EPA, rather than DOD, should regulate
management of waste munitions.
Director Jack Lew
May 18, 2000
Page Two
In 1997, pursuant to section 107 of the Act, EPA promulgated a rule
defining various circumstances under which military munitions were
considered hazardous waste. In that rule, EPA postponed making a final
decision to regulate military munitions left on closed or transferred
ranges, in part because DOD was proposing to draft a range rule, and EPA
wanted to evaluate DOD's rule to determine whether it adequately
protected human health and the environment. In light of the legislative
history described above, the decision to defer EPA regulation of
munitions on ranges in favor of DOD regulation flies in the face of
Congressional intent. It also undermines the Congressional goal of
independent state oversight of UXO cleanups, and could set the stage for
significant federal-state conflicts.
Furthermore, as many states noted in commenting on the draft range rule,
DOD does not have statutory authority to promulgate such a rule.
Executive Order 12580 expressly gives EPA, not DOD, "lead agency"
authority to oversee cleanups at sites no longer under DOD's
jurisdiction, authority or control, and also gives EPA exclusive
authority to promulgate rules affecting such sites. Nor does the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program ("DERP") authorize DOD to
promulgate such regulations. DERP merely makes DOD responsible to carry
out the cleanup of UXO.
In addition to these legal flaws, the range rule simply does not
adequately protect human health and the environment. Our understanding
is that the rule itself sets no substantive criteria or standards for
investigating or remediating UXO sites; instead, it is largely
procedural. EPA has expressed concerns that the rule relies heavily on
the concept of "technical impracticability" to excuse a decision not to
remediate UXO. In practice, DOD continues to rely on statistical
characterization and risk assessment models that do not protect human
health and the environment. Although we understand that these models
are not expressly incorporated into the proposed range rule, they are in
fact the heart of DOD's UXO cleanup program. Experience with these
models at the Lowry Bombing Range in Colorado, Ft. Ord in California,
and other sites across the country amply demonstrates their
shortcomings. DOD's characterization methodology routinely concludes
that contaminated sites are clean, and the risk methodology plays a
numbers game to manipulate clearly unacceptable levels of UXO
contamination so that they fall within EPA's risk range.
Promulgating the range rule will lead to protracted litigation and
lengthy delays in responding to a serious and widespread environmental
problem looming on the horizon. Because the proposed range rule lacks
legal authority, conflicts with Congressional intent, and fails to
protect human health and the environment, we urge you to disapprove this
fundamentally flawed rule. Instead, we urge you to direct EPA to
consult with the states and with DOD in promulgating regulations under
RCRA to govern cleanup of UXO at closed, transferred, and transferring
ranges, as we believe Congress intended when it passed the Federal
Facility Compliance Act in 1992. Thank you for considering our views.
Director Jack Lew
May 18, 2000
Page Three
Sincerely,
Attorney General Bruce M. Botelho
Attorney General of Alaska
Attorney General Janet Napolitano
Attorney General of Arizona
Attorney General Bill Lockyer
Attorney General of California
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
Attorney General of Connecticut
Attorney General John F. Tarantino
Attorney General of Guam
Attorney General Earl Anzai
Attorney General of Hawaii
Attorney General Tom Reilly
Attorney General of Massachusetts
Attorney General Jennifer Granholm
Attorney General of Michigan
Attorney General Jeremiah W. Nixon
Attorney General of Missouri
Attorney General Joseph P. Mazurek
Attorney General of Montana
Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa
Attorney General of Nevada
Attorney General John J Farmer, Jr.
Attorney General of New Jersey
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General of New York
Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp
Attorney General of North Dakota
Director Jack Lew
May 18, 2000
Page Four
Attorney General W. A. Drew Edmondson
Attorney General of Oklahoma
Attorney General Hardy Myers
Attorney General of Oregon
Attorney General Angel E. Rotger Sabat
Attorney General of Puerto Rico
Attorney General Mark Barnett
Attorney General of South Dakota
Attorney General Jan Graham
Attorney General of Utah
Attorney General Iver A. Stridiron
Attorney General of the Virgin Islands
Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire
Attorney General of Washington
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at
http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html.
If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to:
cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
| |
|
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Senate Vieques language Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] McClellan Air Force Base (California) RAB Dissolution | |
|
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Senate Vieques language Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] McClellan Air Force Base (California) RAB Dissolution | |