|From:||Lenny Siegel <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:18:02 -0700 (PDT)|
|Subject:||[CPEO-MEF] Comments on EPA's Draft FUDS Policy|
[I am submitting these comments to U.S. EPA today. - LS] EPA's draft policy on Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) is a significant breakthrough. If implemented throughout the regions, it should force the "re-opening" of sites which have been inappropriately "closed out." In reviewing the policy, however, I have two concerns: First, the scope should be more carefully defined. The term "privately-owned" does not actually describe the universe of non-federal entities. Properties owned by state, tribal, and local governments are not privately owned. Furthermore, the policy should look closely at the various forms of federal trust responsibility, included Native Alaskan land allotments. If the U.S. government retains trust responsibility over property, is it subject to EPA involvement? ] Moreover, there are many FUDS where the impacted property is held by a mix of federal and non-federal entities. Should EPA play a role where the source area is in federal ownership but private or tribal property owners live "downstream," where contamination may flow. At Alaskan sites that I visited, debris from U.S. military operations - most of which took place before property ownership was assigned - is spread over wide areas of multiple types of ownership. Second, the requirement to consult with States and Tribes is too vague. I anticipate unnecessary conflict with other regulatory agencies, many of which share EPA's concerns. Perhaps the policy should base EPA's role on the legally recognized capacity of states and tribes to enforce hazardous waste laws as well as the existence of adequate public involvement programs at the state or tribal level. Perhaps it should provide for statewide or tribal-wide memoranda of agreement between EPA and state or tribal agencies. There should be a mechanism for adding properties to the CERCLIS database even if state or tribal agencies take the lead in site assessment. Whatever the mechanism, EPA should focus its energies on sites where 1) other regulators are inactive, 2) state or tribal regulators seek EPA assistance, or 3) members of the public petition for EPA action. I believe that clarifying these issues will strengthen the document and make it possible for EPA to more effectively move contaminated FUDS properties into the process of remediation. Lenny Siegel Executive Director Center for Public Environmental Oversight -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/968-1126 email@example.com http://www.cpeo.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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: firstname.lastname@example.org ___________________________________________________________ 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] Air Force audit filename|
Next by Date: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Legislation Creates Problematic UXO "Definition"
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Air Force audit filename|
Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] SFAAP: Where's the Beef?