Dear All,
Thanks for your latest contributions... but can we try and stay focused here. As I have mentioned twice before the issue here is NOT the effectiveness of the proposed risk management scheme, but rather how one should ensure that these schemes remain effective into the future.
How do we ensure that vents remain open, cover systems are not disturbed, membranes are not punctured etc etc. into the future? Is there any point in installing a 300mm concrete slab if the next occupier promptly digs it up to grow veggies or relying on a vent space beneath a structure if the next occupier blocks it off and uses it for storage, or encapsulate asbestos waste under a car park which the next occupier turns into a planting bed?. And what about the natural degradation of remediation systems by unchecked plant growth, surface erosion or natural changes in groundwater flows or chemistry into the future?
Is it morally (or legally) justifiable to abandon future occupiers to their ignorance (or is that stupidity?). Is that why we (public health professionals) do the job we do? Are we not just saving up work for the next generation of CLOs? just as those in the 1970s appear to have done (at one of my sites at least?).
You might consider such alternative approaches as the US Superfund (apologies but I am no expert) requiring clean up suitable for "all uses”? or whether regulation of remediation schemes could be achieved through a licensing system (such as caravan site) or a waste permit, or even something as basic as the Australian system of mandatory disclosure and memorials on title (Restrictive Covenants?) with criminal sanctions for failure to disclose? Surely as a profession should be aiming a little higher than simply relying on an expectation that an individual will do the right thing. That’s not much of a basis for a sustainable remediation strategy!
As ever your comments (on topic) are enjoyed and appreciated.
David E Jackson
|