We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Significant limitations with currently available remedial
technologies persist that make achievement of MCLs throughout the
aquifer unlikely at most complex groundwater sites in a time frame
of 50-100 years. Furthermore, future improvements in these
technologies are likely to be incremental, such that long-term
monitoring and stewardship at sites with groundwater contamination
should be expected.
This is, to put it bluntly, not a surprise. How many
practitioners have worked on sites where the remedy is expected to
take more than 100 years? Sadly, I know I have.
According to the Daily Environment Report, Michael Kavanaugh,
chair of the committee that wrote the report, believes that
"this finding needs to inform decision making at these complex
sites." We'll see about that. I'm skeptical that
EPA or Congress will be listening.
Arguably, the most important recommendation made in the report
is that
If the effectiveness of site remediation reaches a point of
diminishing returns prior to reaching cleanup goals and
optimization has been exhausted, the transition to monitored
natural attenuation or some other active or passive management
should be considered using a formal evaluation. This transition
assessment would determine whether a new remedy is warranted at the
site or whether long-term management is appropriate.
PRPs have been making this argument for years, and it has
largely fallen on deaf ears at EPA. Given that the report
notes that the cost to complete cleanup at these sites exceeds $100
billion, isn't it time we started asking ourselves whether this
is money well-spent?
(FYI, the link above is to a free pre-publication copy. You
can purchase the final report here.)
To view Foley Hoag's Law and the Environment Blog
please click
here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a proposed rule entitled Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.
Last week, the European Parliament rejected a proposal to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances in order to fix a supply-demand imbalance in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
It may be time for our federal courts to rethink their reluctance to accept major environmental claims that the courts of other countries are simply not yet able to handle.
After being taken to task by states and its own Inspector General for lack of final guidance on Vapor Intrusion, EPA has just released draft guidance documents for hazardous substances and petroleum products for comment.
California's cap-and-trade program mandates that certain covered entities acquire allowances for each metric ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) they emit during specified compliance periods.
Last Friday, EPA announced release of its draft proposal to revise the effluent guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating industry, last revised in 1982.
On April 19, 2013, EPA released the proposed "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" (Steam Electric ELG). The proposed Steam Electric ELG would revise the existing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines [40 CFR 423] for most steam electric power plants and their discharges to U.S. waters or POTWs.
In a decision that should not have come as a surprise to anyone, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, in "Conservation Northwest v. Sherman", that the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies implementing the Northwest Forest Plan could not amend the NFP.
