1998 CPEO Brownfields List Archive

From: Tony Chenhansa <tonyc@cpeo.org>
Date: 27 Oct 1998 15:58:37
Reply: cpeo-brownfields
Subject: Re: National Stakeholders' Forum on MNA Report
Original message from Bruce Klafter

From: Bruce Klafter <bklafter@orrick.com>

I'm curious whether anyone suggested that the SWRCB's
Containment Zone  (CZ)Policy might be a viable model.  CZ
requires a showing before monitored natural attentuation is
permitted: either that source removal has been
accomplished and cleanup has reached asymptotic levels
or that a cleanup is impracticable or that the "burden" of
cleanup is disproportionate" to the benefits.

In addition, the designation of CZ requires the discharger to
pay a "mitigation" fee.  The amount of the fee may be as
high as 10% of the avoided cleanup costs (although only a
few of these fees have actually been imposed to date).

This seems like a model that might allow community groups
to get comfortable with natural attenuation (or at least more

P.S. Pump and treat is becoming a disfavored remedy not
just because of the excessive cost; it just doesn't work in
many cases because of DNAPLs or other problems.  DOD
or other dischargers shouldn't be required to "buy" a
community's trust by installing a system that's ultimately
ineffectual.  The dollars should be spent more

Thanks again for the report.

  Prev by Date: Community/EJ Discussion: EPA's Lead "TSCA 403 Rulemaking"
Next by Date: Re: National Stakeholders' Forum on MNA Report
  Prev by Thread: National Stakeholders' Forum on MNA Report
Next by Thread: Re: National Stakeholders' Forum on MNA Report

CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index