TESTIMONY OF
JOHN PETER SUAREZ
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND
PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
APRIL 2, 2003
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me to speak with you
today on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the Administration’s
proposed National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004. We believe the proposed bill appropriately
addresses two important national priorities: military readiness and the
protection of human health and the environment. These priorities can both be achieved at the same time, and we
appreciate the Defense Department’s willingness to work with us to craft the
proposals before you today.
As you know, the proposed bill would make changes to
certain pollution control laws that EPA administers and to laws concerning
wildlife protection and habitat preservation, which are the province of other
Federal agencies. I’ll confine my
remarks here today to the laws under EPA’s jurisdiction.
In the wake of September 11th, we
understand more than ever the importance of military readiness in combating
traditional and emerging foes. Both EPA
and DoD leadership recognize the vital importance of both the mission of
protecting human health and the environment and the mission of protecting
national security. Both believe
that neither mission should be sacrificed at
the expense of the other.
Toward that end, EPA and DoD have for years worked cooperatively toward
achieving these goals, with tangible benefits to the American people.
The bill before this Committee is the result of just
such collaboration. Together, the two agencies
resolved key issues in a way that allows the Services to continue to “train the
way they fight,” while protecting the health of our citizens and
safeguarding our natural resources. Indeed, we have recently reached agreement with DoD on
language clarifying that the proposed changes to solid waste and Superfund laws
apply only to operational ranges under the jurisdiction and control of the
military services. The Administration has cleared this language and intends to
send it to Congress in the near future.
This action underscores the Administration’s interest in keeping any
changes limited and sharply focused.
Today, I would like to highlight for the Committee several of these
proposed statutory changes the two agencies developed to facilitate our twin
missions.
Proposed changes to the Clean Air Act provide the
armed forces with needed flexibility, while protecting air quality
EPA recognizes that military readiness depends on
DoD’s ability to move assets and materiel around the nation – perhaps on short
notice. Such large-scale movements of
people and machines may have impacts on State Implementation Plans (or SIPs)
for air quality.
Accordingly, EPA and DoD developed proposed changes to
the Clean Air Act’s SIP provisions to allow the armed forces to engage
in such activities while working toward ensuring that its actions are
consistent with a SIP’s air quality standards. Under the proposed bill, the
armed forces would still be obliged to quantify and report their
impacts on air quality prior to initiating the readiness activity, but would be
given three years to ensure that their actions are consistent with a given
state’s SIP. We believe this compromise
effectively addresses military readiness concerns, while ensuring timely
compliance with air quality standards.
Proposed changes to RCRA will allow flexible and
appropriate munitions oversight
The Administration’s bill also proposes two changes to
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, the nation’s solid and
hazardous waste law. First, the bill
contains language that would change the statutory definition of “solid waste” under RCRA to provide
flexibility for DoD regarding the firing of munitions on operational ranges,
while clarifying that the definitional exemptions are not applicable once the
range ceases to be operational. This
change comports with existing EPA policy and the Military Munitions Rule that
have defined EPA’s oversight of fired munitions at operational ranges since
1997. The bill specifically maintains
the ability of EPA, the states and citizens to take actions against the U.S.
Government in accordance with the law in the event that munitions or
their constituents migrate off-range and may pose an imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health or the environment, if such materials are not
addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA).
Secondly, the agencies worked together to craft a
clear, common-sense definition of “range.” Under the revised definitions of “solid waste” and “range,”
the armed forces will have statutory assurance that EPA will not
intervene in the firing of or training with munitions, while the public may
rest secure in the knowledge that EPA, states and citizens have authority to
take action against the U.S. Government in accordance with the law if
munitions pose a threat off-range or after a range is closed.
The history of interaction between EPA and DOD
demonstrates that the two can work together effectively to achieve their
respective missions, and this should instill confidence that the two agencies
will continue to work together well to carry out those missions under the
proposed legislation. EPA has in
only one instance found it necessary to take an enforcement action that
resulted in the cessation of live fire training at a military base – namely, at
the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. There, EPA took action under the Safe
Drinking Water Act when it determined that the groundwater aquifer
underlying MMR, the sole source of drinking water for hundreds of thousands of
Cape Cod residents, was threatened with contamination – and only after efforts
to support voluntary action failed to stop the spread of contamination. Today at MMR, EPA is overseeing cleanup work
to ensure that the drinking water supply for Cape Cod residents meets all
relevant standards now and in the future.
In response to EPA's decisions, the Defense Department shifted
some of this training to another facility and limited its training at
MMR to using small arms, as well as other training without using
explosives, propellants and pyrotechnics.
Analogous changes to CERCLA will preserve the Agency’s
Superfund authority to address contamination which presents an imminent and
substantial endangerment
The Administration’s bill proposes analogous changes
to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), also known as the Superfund law.
It would exempt from the definition of “release” under CERCLA explosives
and munitions deposited during normal use while on an operational range. It is important to note that EPA would
retain authority to take action to abate an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health and the environment due to the deposit or
presence of explosives and munitions on an operational range. As with the proposed changes to RCRA, the
change to CERCLA affords flexibility to the armed forces in handling
munitions at operational ranges, but ensures that EPA has the ability to act
when necessary to address the most important public health and
environmental concerns.
Ongoing collaboration on munitions
Meanwhile, EPA continues to collaborate with
DoD and state and tribal regulators to develop a new approach to cleaning up
ordnance, explosives and munitions at non-operational ranges throughout the
United States. This new approach, an expected product of the Munitions Response
Committee (MRC), is designed to work within the framework of existing Federal
and state authorities. Under the new process, Military Departments, EPA,
Federal Land Managers, and the states and tribes will coordinate, where
appropriate, and integrate their respective statutory and administrative
authorities under Federal and state environmental laws. The development of
Federal, state and tribal partnerships and public participation will be key
characteristics of the new process. We
believe that the proposed bill complements the partnerships we are building
through the Munitions Response Committee and will help the Agency ensure that
munitions at both operational and non-operational ranges are subject to sound
environmental management.
The new proposal would authorize the transfer of
obsolete vessels for use as artificial reefs
The bill would also authorize the Secretary of the
Navy to transfer certain vessels for use as artificial reefs, but retain key
environmental safeguards under CERCLA, RCRA and the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA). These ships are often
contaminated with asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). EPA is working closely with the Maritime
Administration to determine if and when reefing is appropriate, and to find
suitable ship-scrapping facilities at home or abroad to dispose of obsolete
ships in a safe and environmentally sound manner.
One other environmental provision of the bill deserves
mention here. It would allow military
departments to use military construction funds to make payments to wetlands
mitigation banking programs and consolidated user sites when the Department is
engaged in an activity that may adversely affect a wetland. A wetlands mitigation bank is typically a
privately-owned site – in many instances, prior converted crop land – where
wetlands are restored. Wetlands
mitigation banks have enjoyed increasing acceptance and success since the
mid-1990's, and the new bill would simply clarify that military funds could be
used for this purpose.
Conclusion
Working together, EPA and DOD have developed a
legislative proposal that addresses the concerns of the armed forces about
future applications of EPA’s statutes and regulations, while at the same time
preserving the Agency’s ability to protect public health and the
environment. In the context of MMR, for
example, EPA would still have the authority to protect the drinking
water from imminent and substantial endangerment under the provisions of the
proposed bill.
Similarly, the proposed legislation would codify the
so-called “munitions rule” under RCRA – an existing EPA regulation that sets
forth the conditions under which EPA and the states can respond under RCRA to
environmental threats at both operating and closed military ranges. The proposed legislation also states clearly
that EPA is authorized under CERCLA section 106 to address imminent and
substantial environmental threats at both operating and closed ranges.
In conclusion, both the Administrator and I support this bill. We believe that it appropriately takes account of the interests of the American people in military readiness and in environmental protection. I am confident that DoD and EPA can work together within the framework of the proposed law to ensure that America’s armed forces are able to train to carry out their national security mission and that the Agency is able to carry out its mission of protecting human health and the environment.
This concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to present
EPA’s views. At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.