Re: [CPEO-MEF] Army blocks Aberdeen treatment plan

[petestrauss1@home.com]

Lenny,

On first reading of this post, I found myself thinking that this would
be unimaginable in California.  However, the same rules as applied in
California should apply to all potential drinking waters: that is the
remedy should restore aquifers to MCLs.  What I don't understand about
the situation at Aberdeen, however, is whether the Army has an
aggressive remedy in place to restore the groundwater, but decided to
delay well-head treatment until there is an actual threat to a
particular well?  Could someone from APGSCC clarify?  Also, if well-head
treatment is delayed until there is an actual threat, how does the Army
define "actual threat"?  This would be a crucial point of negotiation. 
For example, the MCL for TCE is 5 ppb.  Many sites have a more
restrictive standard, based on a calculation of one in one million
cancer risk.  I would think that any detection greater than 0.5 ppb
would warrant shutting down a well and installing well-head treatment.

Peter Strauss


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at 

http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html.

If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to: 

cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics