From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 12 Dec 2003 19:32:41 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] FUDS liability? |
From: Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger <cswab@merr.com> BACKGROUND INFORMATION: CSWAB recently requested that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) review the data from the formerly used defense sites (FUDS) located along the east/southeast side of the Badger Army Ammunition Plant. The report titled "Badger Army Ammunition Plant (Formerly Used Defense Site), Sauk County, Wisconsin; Contamination Investigation, Final Report” was prepared by the U .S. Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York, September 1994. The report summarized the results of soil, groundwater and surface water sampling that was completed on these four FUDS. At the time the report was published, the WDNR, U.S. EPA, and Wisconsin Division of Health all issued letters sharply criticizing the report because the study failed to meet all standard protocol for quality control/quality assurance. Since then, CSWAB has asked for additional data collection that would meet QA/QC. The Army’s recent request to close these sites prompted CSWAB to again raise the issue of the validity of conclusions based on questionable data. The WDNR agreed only to review existing data and in a November 17 letter to CSWAB concluded that “there is no reason for these sites to undergo further investigation. The data indicate background levels of metals in soil and groundwater. No significant volatile organic compounds were found. The concentration levels aren't high enough to warrant additional investigations at these sites. I see no reason to send the current property owner a responsible party letter requiring them to complete an investigation.” In this case, the State of Wisconsin has concluded that the CURRENT OWNERS (not the military) are responsible for any further investigation and presumably remediation of contamination found during the original FUDS investigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers because “after all, they've owned it for more than 50 years” (per telephone conversation with WDNR staff, November 2003). QUESTIONS: What are other communities’ experiences in this regard? Does anyone have an example of an owner of a FUDS property that has been cited by regulators as a responsible party subsequent to a FUDS investigation by the military? If so, has such a scenario ever gone to court? -- Laura Olah, Executive Director Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger E12629 Weigands Bay S Merrimac, WI 53561 phone: (608)643-3124 fax: (608)643-0005 email: info@cswab.org website: www.cswab.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CPEO: A DECADE OF SUCCESS. Your generous support will ensure that our important work on military and environmental issues will continue. Please consider one of our donation options. Thank you. http://www.groundspring.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2086-0|721-0 | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Strock argues industry position on perchlorate Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Corps of Engineers to outline plan to rid Butner area of UXO | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Strock argues industry position on perchlorate Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Corps of Engineers to outline plan to rid Butner area of UXO |