The Debate Continues

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

I RECEIVED A REPLY TO STEVEN POLLACK'S MESSAGE FROM THE PERSON INSIDE
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHO SENT THE ORIGINAL POSTING. BECAUSE THE
VARIOUS GENERATIONS OF COMMENT ARE INTERMINGLED, I HAVE PLACED THE
LATEST (INSIDE DOD) COMMENTS IN [BRACKETS]. THE ORIGINAL DOD COMMENTS
ARE IN "QUOTATION MARKS," AND STEVEN'S RESPONSE IS NOT DELIMITED.

I WANT TO REMIND OUR READERS OF OUR POLICY ON 'ANONYMOUS' SUBMISSIONS.
FIRST, WE KNOW WHO IS SUBMITTING THEM. SECOND, WE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE AT
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS TO MAKE UNATTRIBUTED POSTINGS
BECAUSE MOST AGENCIES REQUIRE THAT A) ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE MAKE PUBLIC
PRONOUNCEMENTS AND B) THAT STAFF COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE,
OUTSIDE OF NORMAL MEETINGS (SUCH AS RABS), BE REVIEWED (AND THUS
DELAYED). THAT IS, WE INVITE UNATTRIBUTED COMMENTS BECAUSE THEY ADD TO
THE DIALOGUE. FREQUENTLY SUCH COMMENTS ARE ALREADY CIRCULATING
PRIVATELY, AND WE SUGGEST THAT ATTRIBUTION BE REMOVED SO THEY CAN GO TO
A WIDE AUDIENCE.

LENNY

[Well thought out response. Will insert additional info into Steve's
comments.]

"Have been reading with interest the flurry of e-mails on institutional
controls. Certainly feel the emotion transmitted. In a perfect world
(with unlimited money), there would be no need for controls of any type
---but we are not there."

Agreed. There will be instances where institutional controls are
warranted
but not in areas where clearance would free up land for productive use.

[Agree. NO policy can be perfect for each situation. Rather, any
responder,
in conjunction with the agency directing the remediation and the
community,
must review and agree on the right solution for the area in question.]

"A cost-benefit analysis is not the perfect approach but there must be
consideration of a number of factors before we opt for either
unrestrained
cleanup or institutional controls. If the land is government, then the
cost of cleanup is ultimately born by the taxpayer whereas commercially
owned property/facilities will ultimately be cleaned up using the
consumer price increases not by reducing profit margins."

The difference between a Federal Facility cleanup and a private industry
cleanup is that the corporation has no say in the amount of cleanup
costs. The EPA tells them what cleanup standards are to be obtained and
the
costs follow. The government, by contrast, budgets in advance for
cleanup
costs on a national level and then alters the remediations to fit the
budget.
If the citizenry is calling for higher cleanup standards of Federal
Facilities, who is the government to argue budget? It is as if the
government was a separate entity from the tax paying citizen. It is a
thin
line between higher consumer prices due to environmental regulations and
higher direct taxes because of Federal Facility cleanups. Cleanup
standards are public policy issues, not the sole domain of the
regulatory and scientific communities.

[Actually, EPA and State regulators do tell DOD what cleanup standards
are
required and resort to court or administrative procedures to direct what
their (EPA/State) experts dictate. There is some negotiation but not
less
than the public may believe. Two UXO cleanups are examples --- Lowry
Bombing Range and Mass Military Reservation.]

[DOD does budget for cleanups but there are several external influences
that
on occasion change the priority of work. These changes may come about
because of technical necessity (cannot clean up to standard), regulator
direction or political pressure. Therefore, although DOD can and does
plan,
program and budget for short and long term objectives, changes do effect
the
tempo of operations.]

[I agree that the taxpayers set the standards by either supporting
appropriate taxes or not. However, issues arise locally with the impact
of
increasing costs to clean to a higher standard by all taxpayers. DOD's
budget is a zero sum game. If environmental funding goes up, something
goes
down. This makes environmental cleanup costs a true national issue as
the
impact may be to readiness.]

[The public has several opportunities to influence policy and cleanup
standards. First, by electing state and federal representatives who can
promulgate public policy reflective of their constituents. Second,
either
together or individually, the public can influence policy through NGOs.
Third, through stakeholders on a site specific basis.]

"Current/future land use, risk (now and in future), cost to cleanup vice
cost of land, etc. need to enter the equation. Why would you pay
$20,000
to clear an acre of land worth only $500 if the risk is or can be
contained? This is a great area for public dialogue."

$500/acre implies farmland but the principle is noted. Acres of land in
a
residential use scenario can range from $15,000 to $500,000. Because of
inflation, a $40,000 home bought by my father-in-law thirty years ago is
now worth $240,000 so this future value must be accounted for. If the
restricted land is within a residential community, loss of value to
adjacent properties should be accounted for due to proximity to a
contaminated property. Loss of productive industrial use and property
tax losses should also be quantified. Absolute containment of toxins is
also questionable. RDX, TNT, HMX, Tetryl, and all the breakdown
compounds
can and do migrate offsite. What amazed me as regards the cost/benefit
analysis in the Feasibility Study for Fort Sheridan is the lack of
economic imputation for the increased human and environmental hazards of
the
capping option. Great effort was taken to assess the cash costs of
various
remediations but no specific dollar figure was assigned the loss of life
implied by Hazard Index and Cancer Risk values. It really turns into a
subjective analysis without it.

[Again, a point well taken. That is why cost must be considered but
cannot
be the sole factor in selecting a remediation option (or to move to
institutional controls). If the property is worth more than the
remediation
cost, the decision becomes simpler. Considering the potential tax base
is a
must and should certainly add to property value. Perhaps having those
who
will gain such property for profit could contribute to paying cleanup
costs
rather than obtaining a windfall. Remember as you do your loss of
life/cancer risk assessments to consider the occupational risk presented
to
the workers involved in cleanup. There are hazards that only present
risk if
you come into contact with them. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) is one such
hazard. Containment may not be a solution by itself but, with some
cleanup
and institutional controls, it may be. There is almost always a point
where
large sums of money only marginally improve loss of life/cancer risk
factors. I only argue for a holistic approach where solutions, cost,
risk
are balanced in the public interest.]

Finally, why is the Army's judgement between remediation options given
more weight than the stakeholders? Why is the polluter and financially
responsible party the lead agency in analysis of options while those who
will live with the contamination are only given an advisory role? Is
this an area of dialogue which the Department of Defense will engage in?

[I believe that the polluter should be responsible to prepare a strawman
solution weighing options and considering the widest range of solutions.
Someone must put pen to paper for the first time. But the dialogue
should
be open in this phase as well as during the remedy selection phase. But
the
answer needs to be based on objective not subjective measurements.
Both
sides need to remain open to all solutions, get past yesterdays mistakes
and
move on together. If we can agree on the methodology
(occupational/residual
risk, land use, land value and tax base, cost, etc.) for determining the
remedy then the answer should be one that reasonable people can agree
with
and carry out.]

[I joined the military to protect our nation and citizens against all
enemies, domestic and foreign. I have lived in these communities of
which
we speak. In no way would want to put a citizen at a unwarranted risk
for
this would violate the oath that I took years ago. I know of no one in
the
Service who feels differently than I do. An informed and articulate
community is vitally important to work together with us in solving
difficult
problems. I enjoy the discussion and hope that CPEO continues this
forum to
further both mutual understanding and respect. We (DOD) is always
willing
to engage in constructive dialogue.]

Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/968-1126
lsiegel@cpeo.org