Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Dana, There is another perspective on the " contaminated " soil issue in Wichita. The Superfund regulations are ineffective and a huge waste of environmental clean up money. 90% of all Superfund money is spent on legal fees! Only 10% goes to cleaning up sites. Superfund has become the " superrich " Lawyer fund. If the US has spend all of the superfund money allocated to date on just cleaning up these sites, most the problem would have been solved. Here we are almost 30 years later, and very few sites have really been cleaned up. This is because the regulations target identifying the " responsible party. " What happens is that the lawyers for the " Big Boys " who generated most of the wastes, proportion the legal costs by " responsible party " NOT by the AMOUNT in the superfund site. This means that the " little guy " gets stuck with a huge bill for only 1 waste drum. What this has done is established a similar lawyer-superfund complex not unlike the military-industrial complex. Needless to say, similar to the defense (aka offensive) industry, things are not going to change. What Wichita did to opt out of this effective system was a wise choice for the people of Wichita and Kansas. Allocating funds strictly for clean up and keeping the lawyers out of it, is much less expensive and effective. This brings us back to the question of " contamination. " The cite about hydrocarbon contamination is ironic. If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " in Labrea Tar pits in California -that's okay because it is naturally occurring. If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " that leads to an oil well- that's okay because it is naturally occurring. If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " from a man made source - that's different because..?. This perspective ignores that fact that naturally occurring bacteria decompose hydrocarbons in the soil. In fact, bioremediation is now an acceptable form of clean up. If you study hydrocarbon contaminate soil, over 20 years, there is a steady decrease in contamination level that is easily measured. I am not saying that hydrocarbon contamination should not be cleaned up, it is that it needs to be viewed in some perspective, given the huge amount of " natural " hydrocarbon contamination. What Wichita has done and so have hundreds of brownfield sites, is to recognize that natural decomposition of this contamination will occur over time. Granted, the contamination was wrong in the first place, but as long is we do not continue to " contaminate " the soil, it will self correct. This may take 50 to 100 years, but is does occur. This is well proven even in cold climates. It just takes longer. A secondary, part of the superfund-lawyer complex is the superfund-consultant 'monitoring' complex. In this case, a consulting firm studies and tests the " contaminated " soil over years in order to decide what to do about it. In one of the typical cases I have been involved in, in 1990, I told one client of a local plant for a major corporation, to remove some " contaminated soil " from an old incinerator site and replace it with clean soil for $50,000. However, the corporate offices had their consultant decide to " study " the situation. 15 years later, and $250,000 worth of consulting fees, for ground water tests, cost estimates for bioremediation, on-site incineration, concrete wall containment, etc., the corporate consultant decided the cheapest thing to do was remove the soil and replace it. I have lots of other similar stories of tons of money wasted on studies and legal fees, that " responsible party " lawyers have stuck my small clients with, while NOT CLEANING UP ANYTHING! Believing that this Wichita site would have been cleaned up by a Superfund " responsible party " lawyers is wishful thinking. It would have come under the same lawyer-superfund complex and nothing would have been done. Dealing with the contamination when it is found, is far more effective given the current system and that is what Wichita is doing. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 I usually find Bob's comments helpful, but as a former Superfund lawyer (and still doing some Superfund work), I have to strongly disagree with his assessment of Superfund and lawyers. First, although there is a lot of legal work in Superfund, not nearly 90% is spent on lawyers. There was a Rand study of this many years ago, and if memory serves me right, 40% was spent on lawyers; a lot, but not 90%. The inefficiencies of Superfund come primarily from EPA's distrust of the regulated community and beurocracy. What would and should take 2 years without EPA's oversight and rules takes 10 years under Superfund. This also causes the work to cost many times more, without improving the level of cleanup. But what else is new with way too much government? Shell Bleiweiss Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss Environmental and OSHA Law Chicago and Barrington IL Offices www.shell-bleiweiss.com Re: Wichita > Dana, > > > There is another perspective on the " contaminated " soil issue in > Wichita. The Superfund regulations are ineffective and a huge waste > of environmental clean up money. 90% of all Superfund money is spent > on legal fees! Only 10% goes to cleaning up sites. Superfund has > become the " superrich " Lawyer fund. If the US has spend all of the > superfund money allocated to date on just cleaning up these sites, most > the problem would have been solved. Here we are almost 30 years > later, and very few sites have really been cleaned up. > > This is because the regulations target identifying the " responsible > party. " What happens is that the lawyers for the " Big Boys " who > generated most of the wastes, proportion the legal costs by > " responsible party " NOT by the AMOUNT in the superfund site. This > means that the " little guy " gets stuck with a huge bill for only 1 > waste drum. > > What this has done is established a similar lawyer-superfund complex > not unlike the military-industrial complex. Needless to say, similar > to the defense (aka offensive) industry, things are not going to > change. > > What Wichita did to opt out of this effective system was a wise choice > for the people of Wichita and Kansas. > Allocating funds strictly for clean up and keeping the lawyers out of > it, is much less expensive and effective. > > This brings us back to the question of " contamination. " The cite > about hydrocarbon contamination is ironic. > > If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " in Labrea Tar pits in > California -that's okay because it is naturally occurring. > > If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " that leads to an oil well- > that's okay because it is naturally occurring. > > If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " from a man made source - that's > different because..?. This perspective ignores that fact that > naturally occurring bacteria decompose hydrocarbons in the soil. In > fact, bioremediation is now an acceptable form of clean up. If you > study hydrocarbon contaminate soil, over 20 years, there is a steady > decrease in contamination level that is easily measured. I am not > saying that hydrocarbon contamination should not be cleaned up, it is > that it needs to be viewed in some perspective, given the huge amount > of " natural " hydrocarbon contamination. > > What Wichita has done and so have hundreds of brownfield sites, is to > recognize that natural decomposition of this contamination will occur > over time. Granted, the contamination was wrong in the first place, > but as long is we do not continue to " contaminate " the soil, it will > self correct. This may take 50 to 100 years, but is does occur. This > is well proven even in cold climates. It just takes longer. > > A secondary, part of the superfund-lawyer complex is the > superfund-consultant 'monitoring' complex. In this case, a consulting > firm studies and tests the " contaminated " soil over years in order to > decide what to do about it. In one of the typical cases I have been > involved in, in 1990, I told one client of a local plant for a major > corporation, to remove some " contaminated soil " from an old incinerator > site and replace it with clean soil for $50,000. However, the > corporate offices had their consultant decide to " study " the situation. > 15 years later, and $250,000 worth of consulting fees, for ground > water tests, cost estimates for bioremediation, on-site incineration, > concrete wall containment, etc., the corporate consultant decided the > cheapest thing to do was remove the soil and replace it. > > I have lots of other similar stories of tons of money wasted on studies > and legal fees, that " responsible party " lawyers have stuck my small > clients with, while NOT CLEANING UP ANYTHING! > > Believing that this Wichita site would have been cleaned up by a > Superfund " responsible party " lawyers is wishful thinking. It would > have come under the same lawyer-superfund complex and nothing would > have been done. > > Dealing with the contamination when it is found, is far more effective > given the current system and that is what Wichita is doing. > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Bob: Oh soooo well put! You and I should share stories sometime. I recall a project where I got " excused " by a lawyer for being argumentative - a trait of mine. The site had minor amounts of heavy crude contamination. The Cal-EPA lawyers and scientists were pushing for active bioremediation of 1.3 million cu.yds. of soil, then have the site capped with 3-in of asphalt. I showed that there was three-times as much oil (heavy crude) in the asphalt, than what was going to be bioremediated in the soil. Moreover, anyone with knowledge knows that heavy crude does not quickly bioremediate. After 9 months of bioremediation, TPH concentrations reduced because of mixing and dilution, not bio-attenuation; A concept lost on the lawyers. It cost my client nearly a million dollars for the effort. Me being argumentative, but practical, also cost me involvement on the final phases of the project. The client needed site closure to build a retail complex, and the money spent on bioremediation was almost a deal-killer. The closure letter was held hostage to the remediation effort by Cal-EPA. Bownfields has been a good thing; as well has the understanding of natural attenuation. Unfortunately, not all regulatory scientists are as practical as you are. -- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP President KERNTEC Industries, Inc. Bakersfield, California www.kerntecindustries.com > Dana, > > > There is another perspective on the " contaminated " soil issue in > Wichita. The Superfund regulations are ineffective and a huge waste > of environmental clean up money. 90% of all Superfund money is spent > on legal fees! Only 10% goes to cleaning up sites. Superfund has > become the " superrich " Lawyer fund. If the US has spend all of the > superfund money allocated to date on just cleaning up these sites, most > the problem would have been solved. Here we are almost 30 years > later, and very few sites have really been cleaned up. > > This is because the regulations target identifying the " responsible > party. " What happens is that the lawyers for the " Big Boys " who > generated most of the wastes, proportion the legal costs by > " responsible party " NOT by the AMOUNT in the superfund site. This > means that the " little guy " gets stuck with a huge bill for only 1 > waste drum. > > What this has done is established a similar lawyer-superfund complex > not unlike the military-industrial complex. Needless to say, similar > to the defense (aka offensive) industry, things are not going to > change. > > What Wichita did to opt out of this effective system was a wise choice > for the people of Wichita and Kansas. > Allocating funds strictly for clean up and keeping the lawyers out of > it, is much less expensive and effective. > > This brings us back to the question of " contamination. " The cite > about hydrocarbon contamination is ironic. > > If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " in Labrea Tar pits in > California -that's okay because it is naturally occurring. > > If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " that leads to an oil well- > that's okay because it is naturally occurring. > > If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " from a man made source - that's > different because..?. This perspective ignores that fact that > naturally occurring bacteria decompose hydrocarbons in the soil. In > fact, bioremediation is now an acceptable form of clean up. If you > study hydrocarbon contaminate soil, over 20 years, there is a steady > decrease in contamination level that is easily measured. I am not > saying that hydrocarbon contamination should not be cleaned up, it is > that it needs to be viewed in some perspective, given the huge amount > of " natural " hydrocarbon contamination. > > What Wichita has done and so have hundreds of brownfield sites, is to > recognize that natural decomposition of this contamination will occur > over time. Granted, the contamination was wrong in the first place, > but as long is we do not continue to " contaminate " the soil, it will > self correct. This may take 50 to 100 years, but is does occur. This > is well proven even in cold climates. It just takes longer. > > A secondary, part of the superfund-lawyer complex is the > superfund-consultant 'monitoring' complex. In this case, a consulting > firm studies and tests the " contaminated " soil over years in order to > decide what to do about it. In one of the typical cases I have been > involved in, in 1990, I told one client of a local plant for a major > corporation, to remove some " contaminated soil " from an old incinerator > site and replace it with clean soil for $50,000. However, the > corporate offices had their consultant decide to " study " the situation. > 15 years later, and $250,000 worth of consulting fees, for ground > water tests, cost estimates for bioremediation, on-site incineration, > concrete wall containment, etc., the corporate consultant decided the > cheapest thing to do was remove the soil and replace it. > > I have lots of other similar stories of tons of money wasted on studies > and legal fees, that " responsible party " lawyers have stuck my small > clients with, while NOT CLEANING UP ANYTHING! > > Believing that this Wichita site would have been cleaned up by a > Superfund " responsible party " lawyers is wishful thinking. It would > have come under the same lawyer-superfund complex and nothing would > have been done. > > Dealing with the contamination when it is found, is far more effective > given the current system and that is what Wichita is doing. > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been > specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material > available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, > human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. > We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as > provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title > 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit > to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included > information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted > material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', > you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Dear Bob, I like your way of thinking!! And I agree money spent on lawyers is not money available for a cleanup. My political approach would be to have the federal government designate the Army Corps of Engineers as the responsible entity to get the messes cleaned up. Then make a Federal attempt to have the Justice Dept recover whatever is proper from the perpetrators. The Engineers certainly have the ability to establish the technical protocols and the ability to get things done. If the EPA is to have a roll it best be limited to giving some technical input to the Corps but that's it. You are correct that hydrocarbon contaminations should be relatively easy to clean up and without bringing in mobile factories to roast the earth as they do with Conrail cleanups. The practice of not beginning a cleanup until the finger can be pointed at a culprit is costly and time consuming. The Federal govt. should have the authority to condemn the property and remediate it. If the Justice Dept can find a responsible party that now becomes a different and separate effort to get the job paid for by the corporate world who were responsible for the contamination. If they succeed all well and good. If not the job still gets done by competent engineers. Ken Gibala =========================== Re: WichitaDana,There is another perspective on the "contaminated" soil issue in Wichita. The Superfund regulations are ineffective and a huge waste of environmental clean up money. 90% of all Superfund money is spent on legal fees! Only 10% goes to cleaning up sites. Superfund has become the "superrich" Lawyer fund. If the US has spend all of the superfund money allocated to date on just cleaning up these sites, most the problem would have been solved. Here we are almost 30 years later, and very few sites have really been cleaned up.This is because the regulations target identifying the "responsible party." What happens is that the lawyers for the "Big Boys" who generated most of the wastes, proportion the legal costs by "responsible party" NOT by the AMOUNT in the superfund site. This means that the "little guy" gets stuck with a huge bill for only 1 waste drum.What this has done is established a similar lawyer-superfund complex not unlike the military-industrial complex. Needless to say, similar to the defense (aka offensive) industry, things are not going to change.What Wichita did to opt out of this effective system was a wise choice for the people of Wichita and Kansas.Allocating funds strictly for clean up and keeping the lawyers out of it, is much less expensive and effective.This brings us back to the question of "contamination." The cite about hydrocarbon contamination is ironic.If you find "hydrocarbon contamination" in Labrea Tar pits in California -that's okay because it is naturally occurring.If you find "hydrocarbon contamination" that leads to an oil well- that's okay because it is naturally occurring.If you find "hydrocarbon contamination" from a man made source - that's different because..? This perspective ignores that fact that naturally occurring bacteria decompose hydrocarbons in the soil. In fact, bioremediation is now an acceptable form of clean up. If you study hydrocarbon contaminate soil, over 20 years, there is a steady decrease in contamination level that is easily measured I am not saying that hydrocarbon contamination should not be cleaned up, it is that it needs to be viewed in some perspective, given the huge amount of "natural" hydrocarbon contamination.What Wichita has done and so have hundreds of brownfield sites, is to recognize that natural decomposition of this contamination will occur over time. Granted, the contamination was wrong in the first place, but as long is we do not continue to "contaminate" the soil, it will self correct. This may take 50 to 100 years, but is does occur. This is well proven even in cold climates. It just takes longerA secondary, part of the superfund-lawyer complex is the superfund-consultant 'monitoring' complex. In this case, a consulting firm studies and tests the "contaminated" soil over years in order to decide what to do about it. In one of the typical cases I have been involved in, in 1990, I told one client of a local plant for a major corporation, to remove some "contaminated soil" from an old incinerator site and replace it with clean soil for $50,000. However, the corporate offices had their consultant decide to "study" the situation. 15 years later, and $250,000 worth of consulting fees, for ground water tests, cost estimates for bioremediation, on-site incineration, concrete wall containment, etc., the corporate consultant decided the cheapest thing to do was remove the soil and replace it.I have lots of other similar stories of tons of money wasted on studies and legal fees, that "responsible party" lawyers have stuck my small clients with, while NOT CLEANING UP ANYTHING!Believing that this Wichita site would have been cleaned up by a Superfund "responsible party" lawyers is wishful thinking. It would have come under the same lawyer-superfund complex and nothing would have been done.Dealing with the contamination when it is found, is far more effective given the current system and that is what Wichita is doing.Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Shell, I certainly did not intend to offend you in my posting. Yes, my 90% figure may have been a little too high. However, here is my initial reference: " A Rand study estimates that as much as 88 percent of Superfund expenditures are consumed by lawyers' fees, consultants' fees, and other non-cleanup costs. " http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4070/is_n87/ai_14445557 However, others say it was only 60%. " Kerry , the head of the Superfund team for the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said Only about 40 percent of Superfund money is spent on actual clean up " http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Coverage/2003/April/EPA-Superfund-Program- Eroding.cfm " In fact, 30 to 60 percent of the Superfund goes for lawyers' fees and other transaction costs - which may explain why lawyers have fought tooth and nail against fair and reasonable changes to the fund's liability scheme. " http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba200.html A study by National Strategies, Inc., found that in 1995 the current liability system cost roughly $1 billion to raise $1.4 billion in funds for cleanups; in other words, " this means that 72 cents is spent in quantifiable public and private sector transaction costs to raise one dollar from PRPs. " In recent years, the return may have actually worsened, because both the amount that PRPs agree to pay for future cleanups and the amount that PRPs paid to the EPA as reimbursement for cleanup expenses fell dramatically. As you know, the Superfund tax on industry was not renewed by the Republican controlled congress and Superfund clean-ups have slowed to a crawl. " Congress raised most of the money by imposing a tax on chemical, oil and other industries. But since 1995, Congress has refused to re-impose the tax on those corporations. Without the $1 billion yearly proceeds, the pot of cleanup money that contained $3.79 billion six years ago will have sunk to $28 million by October. " http://www.thedailycamera.com/news/worldnation/04lfund.html My experience was that the EPA was not the reason for the costs. It was the act itself and the legal system. Here is a reference. " One of the chief reasons for Superfund's exploding costs is the litigious free-for-all engendered by the act. Superfund calls for retroactive liability, meaning that corporate practices that might have been safe, legal, fully permitted, or even required under the law years ago can now be punished retroactively. " Potentially Responsible Parties " (PRPs), according to the law, are those who (1) own or operate a site; (2) owned or operated a site at the time of the disposal of wastes; (3) arranged for disposal, treatment, or transportation of waste; or (4) accepted waste for transport. The courts have interpreted Superfund as calling for joint and several liability, meaning that any party that ever touched that waste--no matter how tertiary the involvement or how minor the amount--can be held liable for the full cost of remediation. Finally, CERCLA shifts the burden of proof from the government to the accused and does not require the government to meet any significant standards for admissible evidence. For example, the vague recollections of a garbage hauler about customers 40 years in the past has repeatedly been accepted as dispositive by the EPA and the courts. Not surprisingly, lawyers, consultants, private investigators, and administrative overhead consume vast quantities of Superfund dollars. Such " transaction costs " eat up 35 percent of corporate Superfund expenditures, 88 percent of insurance company Superfund expenditures, and 50 percent of public Superfund expenditures. Before 1980 only 2,000 attorneys specialized in environmental litigation nationwide. After 15 years of Superfund that number has increased tenfold. Although not all of those additional 18,000 attorneys were created by Superfund, best guesses from practitioners indicate that about 75 percent were. " http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rn622.html Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Well Bob, I do agree as most would that Superfund SHOULD go to cleanup and not attorney's fees. But this is NOT the case in Wichita. As you stated: " The Superfund regulations are ineffective and a huge waste of environmental clean up money. " \ Well this is HUGE waste of cleanup money and it is the dolts at the CIty of Wichita and the dolts at KDHE that have spent Kansans money as they always do, spend it for wWichita and the rest of Kansas can just hang it. You don;t know what you are talking about with this particular case. 1. Wichita was granted a this by agreement on conditions, conditions which they did not fulfill. So this is not about whether Superfund works, it is the agreement that Wichita weaseled out of. 2. WHERE is the money that the City of Wichita collected from all the RP's for the identified areas of conatmination from Petroleum (gas stations, UST's rendering your quip about Labrea ludicrous) sites, and COMBINING the LUST FUNDS for Wichita from the State, GO? Where is that cash? I myself would rather see a private attorney get it and be taxed, rather than wasted in some crooked city beaurocracy, whom does not pay taxes. 3. These areas of comtamination were ALREADY IDENTIFIED, and again have ALREADY been to court for RP's portion of assessment. Wichita collected. Why does the State of Kansas have to pay a second time to reassess and pay additional Brownfields funds for work that has already been done? Why do other cities have to do without the money because Wichita (and the KDHE) had/(has) a Crooked Environmental Department? Your statement: " What Wichita did to opt out of this effective system was a wise choice for the people of Wichita and Kansas. " Not if they did not do what they were supposed to do. Now we are going to pay much more money than if they would have just followed superfund in the first place. Lawyers would have only had to be paid once, now they will b epaid twice. " The inefficiencies " here come from the City and the KDHE, NOT EPA! 4. The KDHE is trying this again with the Sunflower Army Ammnuniton Plant. They kept it off the NPL listing by misapplying (corruption) RCRA CA on the site instead of the CERCLA requirement for federal facilities. 5. I have done bioremediation, and " natural attenuation " . This works is some settings, however this is most used by cities and universiteis to justify not spending any more money on cleanup, even if requirements deem that necessary. Your particular dislke for the " Military Industrial Complex " got me laughing. I can guarntee one thing and that is Military Installations are cleaned up and assessed MUCH better than the half harted jobe these Cities, State, and Universiteis do on their own properties. That is a fact, because the Military NEVER gets a variance. Unless some connected developer wants the land as in the SFAAP and other BRAC properties. This is a big deal when you look at the scope of it. " What Wichita has done and so have hundreds of brownfield sites, is to recognize that natural decomposition of this contamination will occur over time. Granted, the contamination was wrong in the first place,but as long is we do not continue to " contaminate " the soil, it willself correct. This may take 50 to 100 years, but is does occur. " That is Your OPINION, and many environmental professionals will disagree with that very strenously, because it does not address " liability " in that 50-100 years. " Believing that this Wichita site would have been cleaned up by a Superfund " responsible party " lawyers is wishful thinking. It would have come under the same lawyer-superfund complex and nothing would have been done. Dealing with the contamination when it is found, is far more effective given the current system and that is what Wichita is doing. " Well that is just fine, IF the rest of the state of Kansas just continues to pay for it. That is what you don;'t get BOB, Wichita blew their money, and now they are robbing it from cities that have a hell of a lot less money than Wichita SHOULD have had to have ALREADY CLEANED it up. Remember one thing, this was stated in 1991!!!! That is OVER 15 years, and as an NPL it would have HAD to be cleaned up because of the NPL listing. You do not understand SUPERFUND law very well, and it is equally obvious you have not read the CAD written in 1991. Your statements are as usually are the usual uber Socialist and politically driven drivel and have NOTHING to do with economics and or application of regulatory or scientific theory on a particular environmental problem. That is why we have laws, to make sure there is equality. This prevents someone from feeling the law doesn't apply to them because they have only " good intentions'> I don't want good intentions, I want a cleaned up site, and RP's to pay, and not have the money misappropriated or stolen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 " The Federal govt. should have the authority to condemn the property and remediate it. " THAT is essentially SUPERFUND. IN your later remark that the DOJ takes action, is also in the SUPERFUND regulation. Has anyone here read the CERCLA and SARA tome? " The Engineers certainly have the ability to establish the technical protocols and the ability to get things done. " There are some that believe that engineers and their " mass balance equations " and " assumptions " in the environmental remediation process is the main problem for drastically undrestimating or overestimating the problem. The issue is and always has been with major cleanups: Do you want to spend the money on assessment or cleanup? RI/FS or remediation? As far as Bob and his take on " natural attenuation " on this site it is not feasible. They are cutting utility and sewer trenches, ie the site is NOT remaining static, the migration points have all changed as well as the perm factor of the in situ soils and the newly installed and compacted soils in the trenches. I also noticed that you did not mention the lead contaminated soils. Besides it appears as if NO ONE HAS READ THE CDA for the Gilbert & Mosley Site. It states very clearly, that from that point forward, 1991, it was up to Wichita to carry out the agreement using the funding mechanisms agreed at the time (including LUST funds to clean up the UST and petroleum contamination), and if they did not comply to the agreement or if it fell into abanse, the site goes DIRECTLY to the NPL Listing and SUPERFUND listing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Shell: I believe the study you are citing did show direct costs to attorneys of close to 40%. I remember it. However, the indirect costs of attorneys directing poor decisions probably amounts to another 10-25% (my experience and understanding as well as client's payments). And I don't think the study included in-house counsel " costs " in the assessment - this could easily take another 10-20%. But putting thatr aside, let us consider a third piece for Wichita - that CERCLA excludes naturally occuring materials and building products (the building material area is a little gray). There is of course argument over whether asbestos upon disposal should be construed (legal construct) as waste and that these two exemptions do not apply; it certainly does not apply in it's in-state manner in a building. There was a legal annex for the original (1993) ASTM Phase ESA I that hit on this aspect more clearly. I have interpreted it to potentially be covered under CERCLA (technically of course I can't interpret the law, but then again I feel that more attorneys can't interpret the technical aspects so I guess that's fair). On a similar note, I commented to the ASTM group working on mold investigation that CERCLA does not appear to apply to mold (A naturally occuring material) and thus should not be part of the standard Phase I ESA but as an accessory item. Food for fodder. Tony ........................................................................... " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE pH2, LLC PO Box 34140 Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell 90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„ This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement. Re: Wichita I usually find Bob's comments helpful, but as a former Superfund lawyer (and still doing some Superfund work), I have to strongly disagree with his assessment of Superfund and lawyers. First, although there is a lot of legal work in Superfund, not nearly 90% is spent on lawyers. There was a Rand study of this many years ago, and if memory serves me right, 40% was spent on lawyers; a lot, but not 90%. The inefficiencies of Superfund come primarily from EPA's distrust of the regulated community and beurocracy. What would and should take 2 years without EPA's oversight and rules takes 10 years under Superfund. This also causes the work to cost many times more, without improving the level of cleanup. But what else is new with way too much government? Shell Bleiweiss Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss Environmental and OSHA Law Chicago and Barrington IL Offices www.shell-bleiweiss.com Re: Wichita > Dana, > > > There is another perspective on the " contaminated " soil issue in > Wichita. The Superfund regulations are ineffective and a huge waste > of environmental clean up money. 90% of all Superfund money is spent > on legal fees! Only 10% goes to cleaning up sites. Superfund has > become the " superrich " Lawyer fund. If the US has spend all of the > superfund money allocated to date on just cleaning up these sites, most > the problem would have been solved. Here we are almost 30 years > later, and very few sites have really been cleaned up. > > This is because the regulations target identifying the " responsible > party. " What happens is that the lawyers for the " Big Boys " who > generated most of the wastes, proportion the legal costs by > " responsible party " NOT by the AMOUNT in the superfund site. This > means that the " little guy " gets stuck with a huge bill for only 1 > waste drum. > > What this has done is established a similar lawyer-superfund complex > not unlike the military-industrial complex. Needless to say, similar > to the defense (aka offensive) industry, things are not going to > change. > > What Wichita did to opt out of this effective system was a wise choice > for the people of Wichita and Kansas. Allocating funds strictly for > clean up and keeping the lawyers out of it, is much less expensive and > effective. > > This brings us back to the question of " contamination. " The cite > about hydrocarbon contamination is ironic. > > If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " in Labrea Tar pits in > California -that's okay because it is naturally occurring. > > If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " that leads to an oil well- > that's okay because it is naturally occurring. > > If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " from a man made source - > that's different because..?. This perspective ignores that fact that > naturally occurring bacteria decompose hydrocarbons in the soil. In > fact, bioremediation is now an acceptable form of clean up. If you > study hydrocarbon contaminate soil, over 20 years, there is a steady > decrease in contamination level that is easily measured. I am not > saying that hydrocarbon contamination should not be cleaned up, it is > that it needs to be viewed in some perspective, given the huge amount > of " natural " hydrocarbon contamination. > > What Wichita has done and so have hundreds of brownfield sites, is to > recognize that natural decomposition of this contamination will occur > over time. Granted, the contamination was wrong in the first place, > but as long is we do not continue to " contaminate " the soil, it will > self correct. This may take 50 to 100 years, but is does occur. This > is well proven even in cold climates. It just takes longer. > > A secondary, part of the superfund-lawyer complex is the > superfund-consultant 'monitoring' complex. In this case, a consulting > firm studies and tests the " contaminated " soil over years in order to > decide what to do about it. In one of the typical cases I have been > involved in, in 1990, I told one client of a local plant for a major > corporation, to remove some " contaminated soil " from an old > incinerator site and replace it with clean soil for $50,000. However, > the corporate offices had their consultant decide to " study " the situation. > 15 years later, and $250,000 worth of consulting fees, for ground > water tests, cost estimates for bioremediation, on-site incineration, > concrete wall containment, etc., the corporate consultant decided the > cheapest thing to do was remove the soil and replace it. > > I have lots of other similar stories of tons of money wasted on > studies and legal fees, that " responsible party " lawyers have stuck my > small clients with, while NOT CLEANING UP ANYTHING! > > Believing that this Wichita site would have been cleaned up by a > Superfund " responsible party " lawyers is wishful thinking. It would > have come under the same lawyer-superfund complex and nothing would > have been done. > > Dealing with the contamination when it is found, is far more effective > given the current system and that is what Wichita is doing. > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not > always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Tony: I am not aware of any issue about discarded asbestos being subject to CERCLA. I know of Superfund cleanups where asbestos is the primary COC (contaminant of concern). Shell Bleiweiss Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss Environmental and OSHA Law Chicago and Barrington IL Offices www.shell-bleiweiss.com Re: Wichita > Dana, > > > There is another perspective on the " contaminated " soil issue in > Wichita. The Superfund regulations are ineffective and a huge waste > of environmental clean up money. 90% of all Superfund money is spent > on legal fees! Only 10% goes to cleaning up sites. Superfund has > become the " superrich " Lawyer fund. If the US has spend all of the > superfund money allocated to date on just cleaning up these sites, most > the problem would have been solved. Here we are almost 30 years > later, and very few sites have really been cleaned up. > > This is because the regulations target identifying the " responsible > party. " What happens is that the lawyers for the " Big Boys " who > generated most of the wastes, proportion the legal costs by > " responsible party " NOT by the AMOUNT in the superfund site. This > means that the " little guy " gets stuck with a huge bill for only 1 > waste drum. > > What this has done is established a similar lawyer-superfund complex > not unlike the military-industrial complex. Needless to say, similar > to the defense (aka offensive) industry, things are not going to > change. > > What Wichita did to opt out of this effective system was a wise choice > for the people of Wichita and Kansas. Allocating funds strictly for > clean up and keeping the lawyers out of it, is much less expensive and > effective. > > This brings us back to the question of " contamination. " The cite > about hydrocarbon contamination is ironic. > > If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " in Labrea Tar pits in > California -that's okay because it is naturally occurring. > > If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " that leads to an oil well- > that's okay because it is naturally occurring. > > If you find " hydrocarbon contamination " from a man made source - > that's different because..?. This perspective ignores that fact that > naturally occurring bacteria decompose hydrocarbons in the soil. In > fact, bioremediation is now an acceptable form of clean up. If you > study hydrocarbon contaminate soil, over 20 years, there is a steady > decrease in contamination level that is easily measured. I am not > saying that hydrocarbon contamination should not be cleaned up, it is > that it needs to be viewed in some perspective, given the huge amount > of " natural " hydrocarbon contamination. > > What Wichita has done and so have hundreds of brownfield sites, is to > recognize that natural decomposition of this contamination will occur > over time. Granted, the contamination was wrong in the first place, > but as long is we do not continue to " contaminate " the soil, it will > self correct. This may take 50 to 100 years, but is does occur. This > is well proven even in cold climates. It just takes longer. > > A secondary, part of the superfund-lawyer complex is the > superfund-consultant 'monitoring' complex. In this case, a consulting > firm studies and tests the " contaminated " soil over years in order to > decide what to do about it. In one of the typical cases I have been > involved in, in 1990, I told one client of a local plant for a major > corporation, to remove some " contaminated soil " from an old > incinerator site and replace it with clean soil for $50,000. However, > the corporate offices had their consultant decide to " study " the situation. > 15 years later, and $250,000 worth of consulting fees, for ground > water tests, cost estimates for bioremediation, on-site incineration, > concrete wall containment, etc., the corporate consultant decided the > cheapest thing to do was remove the soil and replace it. > > I have lots of other similar stories of tons of money wasted on > studies and legal fees, that " responsible party " lawyers have stuck my > small clients with, while NOT CLEANING UP ANYTHING! > > Believing that this Wichita site would have been cleaned up by a > Superfund " responsible party " lawyers is wishful thinking. It would > have come under the same lawyer-superfund complex and nothing would > have been done. > > Dealing with the contamination when it is found, is far more effective > given the current system and that is what Wichita is doing. > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not > always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Dear Dana, Let me rephrase... but let us agree that Bob's point was the monies spent on legal and bureaucratic efforts are monies lost to the cleanup effort. I believe if a dangerous contamination if identified the site should be able to be condemned and the federal experts should be given the job to clean up the mess at tax payers expense with the DOJ following up to obtain through the courts to recover the damages. Today's system seems totally backwards... with lawsuits first and them the cleanup.. If the cleanup is that necessary then when the situation is discovered it should be assigned a responsible agency to march to the site and clean it up... The clean up should be a no nonsense clean up effort. The authority to declare an emergency should be well defined and assigned to a competent agency. I just happen to know of no other competent agency than the Corps of Engineers. As far as LUST and other hydrocarbon contaminations the Corps should be well experienced by now to the methods of creating special ground structures where contaminated soil can be simply piled into a mound and covered and allowed to compost with the addition of "tons" of ozone being piped into the pile. Soil contaminated by oil, gasoline and many toxic chemicals will readily degrade when confined in a covered "pile" and allowed to compost. Bob s alluded to the technology when he described nature's microbes being a way to let soil revert to a natural state. Injecting ozone into soil is a proven method to break down with microbes both hydrocarbon and pesticide contaminations Unfortunately there are factions involved who choose to make an unnecessary big deal out of any problem. Let's concentrate on the solution and not the blame. Let's just get the job done is all I'm saying. Let the fiscal problem of getting the job paid for fall on the Justice Dept and the Congress after the cleanup gets underway. The mention of the confusion in Wichita which delayed cleanup and wasted much money is the example of why municipal and state agencies are not prepared for such a mission and why it will take a bulldog agency like the Corps to get such a job done. I don't mean to demean or overlook the EPA for such responsibilities but their strengths are not in taking on great public works. Look at Katrina. Everyone was going around in circles until the Engineers and the Coast Guard took command. You state: "There are some that believe that engineers and their "mass balance equations" and "assumptions" in the environmental remediation process is the main problem for drastically underestimating or overestimating the problem." Maybe so but is there a more competent agency? I'll agree that any engineering study will from time to time either underestimate or overestimate a problem. However my experience has been those extreme estimates are providing necessary safety factors. Respectfully, Gibala Re: Wichita"The Federal govt. should have the authority to condemn the property and remediate it."THAT is essentially SUPERFUND. IN your later remark that the DOJ takes action, is also in the SUPERFUND regulation. Has anyone here read the CERCLA and SARA tome?"The Engineers certainly have the ability to establish the technical protocols and the ability to get things done."There are some that believe that engineers and their "mass balance equations" and "assumptions" in the environmental remediation process is the main problem for drastically undrestimating or overestimating the problem.The issue is and always has been with major cleanups: Do you want to spend the money on assessment or cleanup? RI/FS or remediation? As far as Bob and his take on "natural attenuation" on this site it is not feasible. They are cutting utility and sewer trenches, ie the site is NOT remaining static, the migration points have all changed as well as the perm factor of the in situ soils and the newly installed and compacted soils in the trenches. I also noticed that you did not mention the lead contaminated soils.Besides it appears as if NO ONE HAS READ THE CDA for the Gilbert & Mosley Site. It states very clearly, that from that point forward, 1991, it was up to Wichita to carry out the agreement using the funding mechanisms agreed at the time (including LUST funds to clean up the UST and petroleum contamination), and if they did not comply to the agreement or if it fell into abanse, the site goes DIRECTLY to the NPL Listing and SUPERFUND listing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 "Let's concentrate on the solution and not the blame. Let's just get the job done is all I'm saying." Gibala I agree Ken. But there is more than this particular environmental problem in Kansas that needs to be addressed and urgently for the exact same reasons. It appears that KDHE and the City of Wichita expect the rest of the Citizens of Kansas to set by and watch the KDHE and Wichita pour money down a black hole because of poor execution, planning, and oversight. Don't you guy's get it? Wichita got EVERYTHING you are all argueing for....and then screwed the pooch. Plain and simple. Regardless of what "awards" (they do tend to rest on their, Ahem laurels around that southern Kansas town), EPA gave them every latitude in the book, and they still want more money and deny the rest of the state cleanup funds. And after 15 years still have not addressed the site fully and have a LONG way to go cleaning it up. BTW, most of the contamination is being left in place. This soil ladies and gentlmen is from the UTILITY TRENCHES. They are doing partical attenuation, but there is a lot of material and a lot of digging yet to be done. One award and weare Supposed to be in total awe? Yes it is about the economics and sometines all belts have to tighten. ONe additional point, I have build reactors, cleaned out tanks, worked ordinance sites. Once on this very site, infact I happened to blow up quite incredibly when one on here talked doen to me as you just did Ken. This time I bit my lip and it is now bleeding. Please review your post and try not to talk down to other people, try to understand some have seen and done as much if not more than you may have. I posted a story about corruption and an ongoing investigation by federal authorities. What I received was a discourse in "what is wrong with superfund". (BTW BOB do you always quote 10 year old articles to prove your point?) The topic is: "What is wrong at the Gilbert and Mosley Site, and the City of Wichita and KDHE?" THis site was supposed to be bad enough to be on the NPL in 1991 when ther was only 300 some sites in the NATION! That is how bad this site is, and it is being covered up. But with every spade of dirt, each worker in that soil is safety compromised. I cannot believe in all the comments on this particular topic, NONE were concerned with the workers that are working on those sites....unprotected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.