Fwd: Re: The Debate Continues

[Center for Public Environmental Oversight <cpeo@cpeo.org>]

(The indented comments are Lenny's)

> 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.

That the EPA and state environmental agencies must sue the DOD shows a
fundamental flaw in the system. Money budgeted for the environment by
the
American taxpayer is diverted into legal costs for both the plaintiff
and
defendant. A different system is needed and I will propose one which
would
resolve much of this at the end of this post.

> 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.

This is why I decided not to join the Fort Sheridan RAB. The RAB
focuses
attention into the system. The nature of this group prohibits a member
from
becoming political outside the group. I decided that my efforts should
focus on political pressure from outside which might empower the RAB to
stand firm against capping. Because I could not generate sufficient
interest from the community in general I feel the Fort Sheridan RAB
capitulated their original position of non-concurrence for capping into
one
of making as good a deal as they could. Again, my proposal would
empower
the RAB without unduly taxing the public for environmental cleanups.

> 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.

Supporting appropriate taxes falsely implies the notion that budget
issues
are brought up for national referendums. While I agree that national
standards are needed to blunt local desires for 100% cleanups, the EPA
or
Congress, and not the DOD, should determine the percentage of DOD
budget to
be diverted to environmental remediation. DOD is an organization
dedicated
to the defense of the country from enemies and as such can never feel
completely funded for their core mission. I can never imagine the DOD
budgeting one penny more than they are forced to for non-military
expenditure. Again, this is a public policy and not scientific or
military
issue.

> 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.

Electing officials based on their stance on the environment is utopian
thinking. So many other issues such as abortion, guns, schools, and
character are primary to the public. Just because the public chooses to

remain ignorant on the environmental issues facing the nation does not
mean
we should not be proactive in heading off disasters. By the time the
public
cares, it is always too late.

NGO's and stakeholders such as RABS, environmental groups, and myself
have
advisory positions or less. My proposal is to empower the stakeholder
to
decision making status, through the RAB, which is proper and long
overdue.

> 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.

I do not concur that the purchase of non-contaminated property is a
windfall, it is a right. I do take note of the occupational risk to
cleanup
workers but as private contracters they enter into this line of work
voluntarily the same as a coal mine or chemical plant worker. In no way
am
I suggesting that their risk not be minimized. If the risks are too
high
for a worker to enter a cleanup site on foot then machinery should be
developed. The costs of adequate protection would be added to the
remediation cost which would then be analyzed. There are high risks in
many
occupations including joining the Army.

I also do not concur that UXO is a hazard singularly through contact.
Large
quantities pose a chemical risk for RDX, TNT, Tetryl, and breakdown
compounds which are listed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease
Registry(ATSDR) as hazardous substances. RDX is determined to be a
possible
human carcinogen by the EPA.

I agree that there is a point of diminishing marginal returns for higher

cost cleanups. Determining the threshhold is public policy as much as
scientific/economic. I propose to make the public part of the decision
making process, not just advisors.

> 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.

My proposal is in the form of two options. If the DOD is to make a
strawman
solution(thereby framing the debate) then I propose that the decision
process not include the DOD. The EPA, state EPA, and RAB would each be
given an equal vote in the final determination. The second option would

have the DOD fund the EPA to conduct the RI/RA-FS. The DOD, state EPA,
and
RAB would then be given an equal vote in the final determination. In
either
proposal the RAB may be constituted differently than it is now. The
co-chair would not be a DOD representative. Maybe RAB members would be
voted on by local communities or chosen by local committee. I would
like to
open this concept up to discussion. The upcoming meetings in Chicago
may be
a great opportunity to discuss the formation of the voting RAB.

You are very reasonable in your views of how things should be regarding
forgiveness and cooperation. I hope you are in a high position in the
DOD
to promote what is being discussed here to other decision makers.

> 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.

Noted and with my gratitude. The military has helped make this a
country
where I can criticize my own government, one of the most fundamental of
freedoms.

Steven Pollack

--
Jeff Green
CPEO, SFSU Urban Institute
425 Market Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco,CA 94105
 voice 415-904-7751
 fax 415-904-7765
 email cpeo@cpeo.org