Response #2 to Benson Letter

[Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org>]

 March 28, 1995 Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, State of Colorado
 response to Lt. Col. Benson:
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 March 31, 1995

 N. John Benson, Jr., Lt. Col (Promotable)
 Department of the Army
 Office of the Judge Advocate General
 Environmental Law Division
 901 North Stuart Street
 Arlington, VA 22203-1837

 Dear Colonel Benson:

 I am writing to address your March 15, 1995 letter to the Rocky
 Mountain Arsenal SAPC members. Your letter discusses budgetary constraints
 the Army perceives as limiting available cleanup alternatives.

 I understand your desire to communicate information about budget
 realities. However, CERCLA and RCRA require cleanup remedies to be
 protective of human health and the environment. Neither statute allows a
 polluter to set a funding limit under which such protectiveness will be
 defined. While CERCLA and the NCP require that costs and cost-effectivess
 be considered, cost cannot be the driving factor in remedy selection.

 The Army must clean up the Rocky Mountain Arsenal to a standard
 which is protective of human health and the environment, regardless of
 current budgetary forecasts. It is inappropriate for the Army, as a
 responsible party, to take the position that it will spend no more than a
 specific amount on the remedy. It is illegal for a regulatory agency, such
 as the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, to approve a
 cleanup plan which places top priority on cost containment. Accordingly,
 we will view your letter as a background statement that cannot control the
 process.

 I am hopeful that real progress can be gained in the upcoming
 settlement negotiations. We must all work together to find a cleanup that
 is cost-effective and that satisfies other important concerns.

 Sincerely,
 Gale A. Norton 
 Attorney General
 State of Colorado
 ------------------------------------------------------------------