From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 27 Jul 2002 01:36:54 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | Re: [CPEO-MEF] New DOD Interim Guidance on RODs |
The Defense Department's June 4, 2002 "Interim Guidance on Environmental Restoration Records of Decision [ROD]" reinforces earlier memoranda issued by Army and Air Force officials, and it represents a step in the wrong direction. Use controls, as they apply to cleanup remedies, are used as a substitute for treatment or removal, usually because it's difficult or costly to complete a permanent remedy that would allow for unrestricted use or unlimited exposure. That is, the responsible party (polluter) is getting away with an incomplete cleanup. The history of use controls, at least since Love Canal, is that they don't enforce themselves. To rely upon use controls in place of permanent remedies, there must be mechanisms for ensuring the certainty of the restrictions. That's why, for several years, many of use have argued that use controls should not be considered supplemental activities, but are intrinsic elements of remedies. They should be evaluated, funded, and enforced like any other remedial activity. That means, the instruments for maintaining the use controls, as long as they are needed, should either be included or referenced in remedial decision documents. I fail to understand why the Defense Department, which professes a willingness to partner with regulatory agencies in the characterization of sites and the selection and documentation of physical remedies, is unwilling to apply that partnership to the maintenance of use controls. Voluntary measures lack the certainty that's necessary to protect public health and the environment. Such voluntary measures, at sites where CERCLA is invoked because there is serious risk to be managed, is like voluntary traffic laws. Defense Components, like most drivers, need a "traffic cop" to protect the public. This isn't merely a theoretical problem. That's the way cleanup, and particularly use controls, has worked over the years. The Defense Department, EPA, and many states will be arguing this issue for months to come. I invite others to say what they think is right, or to suggest ways out of this growing impasse. Lenny -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/961-8918 <lsiegel@cpeo.org> http://www.cpeo.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
References
| |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] New DOD Interim Guidance on RODs Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] New DOD Interim Guidance on RODs Next by Thread: Re: [CPEO-MEF] New DOD Interim Guidance on RODs |