RE: Region 6 response - Armando C. Quintanilla

[Rich Puchalsky <rpuchalsky@att.net>]

I read all the way through EPA's response to Armando Quintanilla about the Kelly Air Force Base.  I nominate this response for inclusion as part of the "worst practices" section on public communication and involvement that we're building through this dialogue.  Though maybe it was written by a lawyer who insisted that it needed to be written in the most highly opaque nad insulting bafflegab possible.

Let me see if I can understand/translate the message bit by bit.  I'll keep the section headings.  Please tell me if I got the substance of the message wrong, though I don't think I have.

My suggested translation follows:

EPA Response

Three years after the targeted closure of Kelly Air Force Base, no actual cleanup has started, but the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) has said that they like the Air Force's plan for cleaning it up.  So we at the EPA have decided not to get involved.

Base Closure Decision 

We at EPA Region 6 need to agree that cleanup is happening before the property can be turned over for economic use.  Naturally there is considerable pressure on us to sign off on this as soon as possible.

Administrative Modification to State Hazardous Waste Permit

We sent junk mail to nearby residents in May 2000 telling them that the active duty air force was turning the base over to the closure people.  If any residents wanted to comment on this, they had their chance then, it's too late now.

Ground Water Plume

We know that the pollution extends off base.  We're studying how to clean it up and haven't come up with anything yet.

Prioritizing Corrective Action Measures Under RCRA

This site is polluted in many different places.  We have no idea when cleanup at each of these places will start, much less when it will be finished.

Deferring Federal Facilities to the Superfund Program

Since 1996, we've been letting the governor of each state veto the addition of any site in their state to the Superfund list.  Nothing in the Superfund law says that we have to do this, but it's politically convenient.  In this case, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) has said that the Air Force plan for cleaning up the base is fine and that this doesn't need to be a Superfund site.  So we stopped even studying whether this should be declared a Superfund site, since we knew that we weren't going to list it as one no matter what we found.  We refer to this decision as justified by "support from the state and community", even though we haven't really asked the Governor, and the only "community" that has stated support is TNRCC.

We feel that the current response by the Air Force is proceeding adequately, even though no actual cleanup activities have taken place yet and we have no idea about what activities will take place.

Conclusion

In March 2001 we got a letter about this from a member of the House of Representatives, which is why we prepared this reply.  Although we haven't finished studying the site, we're confident that the state can handle it, and we're bowing out.  We would do this no matter what we found at the site, so the questions about the nature of the pollution at the site are really irrelevant.