From: | Vernon Brechin <vbrechin@igc.org> |
Date: | Mon, 04 Nov 1996 14:49:57 -0800 (PST) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | Re: LAND USE: HAUNTING QUESTIONS |
From: Vernon Brechin <vbrechin@igc.org> Reply to "A Modest Proposal for Halloween 1996" Conf. 631 <cpro.military@igc.org> Career/Pro My historical view. Sam Goodhope is correct in urging communities and state regulators (and, for that matter, EPA), to take steps now to avoid being haunted years later. I hope that the exposure of the proposition's mythical nature will not require the intervention of much litigation and result in the waste of resources and time. My understanding is that regulatory instruments such as CERCLA were originally created to serve the general public and contained tools for fining federal agencies which were out of compliance. When this power to fine was tested in a Federal Court it lost, leaving the EPA in a timid position. Since Federal Courts and Federal Agencies can't be relied upon to regulate each other the burden is passed back to the general public who require enormous resources to challenge the Feds. CERCLA was created with many legal loopholes and there are many forces out there that would like to dump the law or modify it so that Mack trucks can drive through the loopholes. This law may not be useful for litigation that may occur decades from now. It is true that there is a gauntlet of applicable remediation laws, but there is also the danger that federal judges may throw up their hands in frustration when confronted with the complexity of cases and they will rule in favor of the polluting federal agencies rather than plow through all the Byzantine regulatory laws. The myths, concerning future land use policy decisions (and so-called "institutional controls"), need to be blatantly exposed now, before they become the purview of expensive legal attorneys and the courts. ================================================================= What follows is a Department of Energy (DOE) cleanup definition that may interest some readers. The Ten Year Plan is expected to play a significant role in the formulation of the FY 1998 Congressional Budget Request for the DOE's Nevada Test Site. ................................................................. DEFINITIONS: Complete Cleanup: That land, facilities, and materials are determined to be remediated to a condition where they are adequately safe to be available for alternative use, based on future land use policy decision, with a minimum cost for long-term surveillance and monitoring. Facilities where only surveillance and maintenance are to be performed, or where remedies such as groundwater pump and treat operations are installed and operational, or where the government will retain storage responsibilities are considered to be complete for this purpose. ................................................................. Source: "DOE/Nevada Operations Office Environmental Management Ten Year Plan," September 17, 1996, Draft Revision 3, page 3. ================================================================= Vernon J. Brechin | |
References
| |
Prev by Date: FUTURE LAND USE response Next by Date: Response to NPL listing controversy | |
Prev by Thread: LAND USE: HAUNTING QUESTIONS Next by Thread: Re: LAND USE: HAUNTING QUESTIONS |