Re: Hanford Site Cleanup Standards

[William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>]

This thread is probably long overdue for termination, but since you directed a

question to me, I'll try to answer.



There's an adage, which I can't quite remember, but will attempt to paraphrase.  It

says that in dealing with the world's imperfections you should:  (1) change what you

can change, (2) learn to live with what you can't change, and (3) be wise enough to

know the difference.



You can rant all you want about "bottom feeding lawyers" (a redundancy) and the

retrospective imposition of standards, but I think I'm wise enough to classify that as

something that won't be changed, and that we have to live with.



The concept, which is written into CERCLA, is called "strict liability."  It means

that if you generate or handle hazardous waste (and certain other hazardous

substances), you are responsible for any injuries or environmental damage, even if you

followed all of the rules.  The determination of "injury" or "environmental damage"

will be made sometime in the future, using standards that are in place at that time.

Fair?  I don't think about that, since it's irrelevant.  I don't see this changing.

Any attempts to change this in Congress, even when there have been conservative

majorities, have met with fierce resistance.  This is one of the "third rails" of

politics.



Thus, when undertaking any activity which could use hazardous substances or generate

hazardous waste (even though the material may not presently be classified as

hazardous), you have to keep this strict liability in mind.  There are no guarantees,

it definitely helps eliminate or limit liability if you:  (1) make a good faith effort

to assure that workers and the public are protected against any potential hazard -

mere compliance isn't "good enough."  (2) aggressively address any spills, leaks,

releases, etc., even if you they don't exceed current limits, (3) communicate with the

public, and (4) buy lots of insurance, if you can.



Here's to a risk free world, and other fantasies.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com



Steven Dapra wrote:



> Sept. 2

>

> ...

>

>         Bill also wrote:

>

>         "Lesson learned:  When undertaking a potentially hazardous activity, it's

> not 'good enough' to comply with the current regulations."

>

>         What do you suggest, Bill?  That commerce and industry comply with

> regulations that haven't been written?  That aren't even a gleam in the eye

> of a bottom-feeding lawyer?  How many companies are you willing to see

> forced into bankruptcy because they couldn't predict what some

> lawsuit-loving treehugger, regulator, or legislature might do in the

> unforseeable future?

>

> Steven Dapra

> sjd@swcp.com

>

> ************************************************************************

>