From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org> |
Date: | Wed, 09 Apr 1997 09:09:35 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | NATURAL ATTENUATION |
NATURAL ATTENUATION At an increasing numbe of contamination sites, federal agencies and other responsible parties are proposing "natural attenuation" as an innovative cleanup remedy. Approached properly, natural attenuation means more than doing nothing. It means doing careful investigation and analysis to determine the extent of natural biodegradation. The question, for members of affected communities, is not whether natural attenuation ever makes sense? Regulatory agencies have already given their blessing. But we still can help define when is it appropriate? In a recent paper, "Overview of the Technical Protocol for Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in Groundwater ...," some of the nation's leading experts (Wiedemeier et al) on the fate and transport of volatile organic compounds suggested: "Based on the experience of the authors, in an estimated 80 percent of fuel hydrocarbon spills at federal facilities, natural attenuation alone will be protective of human health and the environment. For spills of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons at federal facilities, however, natural attenuation alone will be protective of human health and the environment in an estimated 20 percent of the cases." Are those estimates accurate? Which sites should qualify? How can the affected public take part in answering these questions. Obviously, we need independent technical advice. Does any one know of any technical experts from the environmental movement or who normally work with community groups who are following these issues? Lenny Siegel | |
Prev by Date: Re: Early Public Participation Under NEPA? Next by Date: BOSNIA SAMPLING | |
Prev by Thread: CBO and More Closures Next by Thread: BOSNIA SAMPLING |