Re: Highlights of the DERTF Conference

[David_Rubenson@rand.org (David Rubenson)]

My final thoughts

To summarize, I believe that the political backdrop for cleanup has changed
dramatically and that bold new ideas and approaches are needed to secure
support for this activity.

In the late 1980s the "compliance" focus was an effective means of ensuring
adequate DoD/DoE environmental budgets. It was the quickest and easiest
way to gain a level of political control over agencies that had had poor
environmental records. Today the perception is different. Many view DoD as
an environmentally responsible player. Some do not believe the detailed
CERCLA/SARA/RCRA laws are a particularly good vehicle for setting
Congressional budget priorities. Compliance does not carry the same
POLITICALLY compelling rationale it did in the late 1980s. And as I argued
in my earlier message, job loss at closing bases has also faded as a
political rationale for cleanup.

An emphasis on STRICT compliance also highlights many of the problems in
the CERCLA/SARA/RCRA framework. These laws were passed in 1984 and 1986
and the primary objective was to control an EPA that had walked away from
its responsibilities in the early 1980s. Control of EPA, rather than
effectiveness or efficiency (environmental or economic), were the
priorities when these laws were crafted.

We are left to work with, and around, this legacy to bring about effective
cleanups. Unfortunately cleanup strategies based on strict
CERCLA/SARA/RCRA compliance are neither "health risk-driven,"
"reuse-driven" or driven by any obvious policy goal. Strict
compliance-driven cleanups only highlight the unusual circumstances
surrounding the birth of these statutes. The most effective cleanup
actions tend to occur when creative people find responsible ways to stretch
the specified procedures. In this sense, I agree with your assessment that
institutional incentives are critical. But I don't think a strict focus
on "legal compliance" will result in the appropriate institutional changes.

Big and New Ideas? Yes, they can be covers for reducing environmental
responsibilities. But significant creativity will be needed to maintain
priority for this activity. The cost of cleanup must be reduced and the
speed increased if political support is to be maintained.

The political backdrop for cleanup is changing. This is not the early
1980s; either in terms of either DoD environmental culture or the types of
arguments that will bring political support for cleanup. We should not be
trapped by a legacy that says all change is an effort to roll back the
past.