Re: National Stakeholders' Forum on MNA Report

[Tony Chenhansa <tonyc@cpeo.org>]

Original message from Peter Strauss:

> From: peter strauss <pstrauss@igc.apc.org>
> Re: National Stakeholders' Forum on MNA Report -Reply
>
>
> Bruce,
>
> While you point out some of the more favorable aspects of the
> containment zone policy (not to be confused with natural attenuation),
> it does have many problems.
>
> First of all, the policy as I understand it, requires that plumes be
> contained.  I expect that many future applications of the policy will
> require some measure of pumping to halt migration of a plume past an
> artificial boundary. Second, it places a heavy emphasis on benefit/cost
> analysis.  In my opinion this analysis has been abused in the past and
> will be abused in the future.  Regulators would be talking about the
> discount rate rather than how to effectively clean up.  The policy as I
> have read it does not lay out sufficient guidelines for the types of
> assumptions that would go into this analysis.  Third, in California we
> have a state law and state regulations that protect "potential drinking
> water supplies".  In my opinion, implementation of this policy would
> contravene this protection.
>
> If you have had experience with implementation of the CZ policy, I would
> be interested in hearing about it.
>
> Peter Strauss
>
>
> >
> > 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
> > so).
> >
> > 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
> > constructively.
> >
> > Thanks again for the report.