Re: Fwd: Re: The Debate Continues

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Career/Pro wrote:
>
> (The indented comments are Lenny's)
CORRECTION! THE MOST RECENT COMMENTS ARE STEVEN POLLACK'S. SORRY FOR THE
CONFUSION.
LS
>
> > 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

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