| From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
| Date: | 20 Dec 2006 18:14:06 -0000 |
| Reply: | cpeo-military |
| Subject: | RE: [CPEO-MEF] Ashumet Valley Plume, Otis Air Base (MA)] |
|
From: Peter Schlesinger <pschles3@comcast.net> I'd certainly like to hear from others on this list about the issue of natural attenuation; I've been bringing it up now and then at our Team meetings at MMR, much to the dismay of EPA officials and other citizens who sit at the table with us. I've been gradually coming around to the opinion that natural attenuation (dilution over time to levels below drinking water MCLs) makes a lot of economic and ecological sense, if the pollution isn't going to impact ecological/anthropogenic resources. Cranberry growing creates its own set of downstream issues from fertilizers, etc, so I'm not particularly interested in spending $20m to fix up the aquifer for cranberry agriculture, especially if it also means destroying habitat for other species in the process. I understand that the point of these harsh environmental laws is to cause corporations and military alike to think twice about any of their impacts to environment through use. I do believe in the laws that would have these organizations pay heavily for environmental damage; however, at some point we all have to do our part to reduce federal spending. Done the EPA way under present regs\status quo administrative orders, the military will likely be forced to part with several trillion dollars to clean up lands that it has impacted across our country and others. Well, we cannot levy our kids' futures this way. I'm not saying that I think it is or was alright for them to pollute. I've put a lot of personal time into getting them to investigate so the public can understand the extent of our groundwater problems, and I think that investigations should go on elsewhere. I am saying that there has to be a limit to what the public should be asking itself to pay for with regard to base cleanup. I think that in areas where ecological/human receptors are not impacted, that natural attenuation should be get more than a quick pass. I also think that when we attribute a value to it in terms of project cost, we ought to include the dollars saved by not damaging the ecological environment through other cleanup choices. Peter Schlesinger Citizen member, MMR Impact Area Groundwater Program Review Team (IART) -----Original Message----- From: military-bounces@list.cpeo.org [mailto:military-bounces@list.cpeo.org]On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:09 PM To: Military Environmental Forum Subject: [CPEO-MEF] Ashumet Valley Plume, Otis Air Base (MA) EPA, Air Force dispute cleanup By AMANDA LEHMERT Cape Cod Times December 20, 2006 FALMOUTH - To treat or not to treat. That is the question. Air Force officials have proposed allowing a portion of the so-called Ashumet Valley groundwater contamination plume to continue to dissipate until it dilutes below levels that are considered harmful to humans. The move would save taxpayers about $17 million and still protect the community, Air Force officials argue. But U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials say environmental laws favor an active cleanup - such as a treatment system that would capture the toe of the plume and clean an additional 239 pounds of contamination. ... For the entire article, see http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/epaforce20.htm --
_______________________________________________ Military mailing list Military@list.cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military --
_______________________________________________ Military mailing list Military@list.cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military |
Follow-Ups
|
|
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] "Green" bullets editorial Next by Date: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Ashumet Valley Plume, Otis Air Base (MA)] | |
|
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] "Green" bullets editorial Next by Thread: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Ashumet Valley Plume, Otis Air Base (MA)] | |