Environmental News tions in which natural attenuation is accepted as a remedy not because there is documentation that contaminants are actually attenuating but because there is no obvious evidence that it is not occurring," said Rittmann. In addition, natural attenuation is often approved for the remediation of an increasing number of contaminants even when the use of natural attenuation for those contaminants is an active research topic, according to the
report. Regulators have approved natural attenuation for the treatment of the explosive trinitrotoluene and the carcinogen vinyl chloride, once thought to be extremely recalcitrant to natural degradation, the NRC panel reported. The Department of Energy has also proposed using natural attenuation to clean up groundwater tainted by uranium and other contaminants. Now is the right time for EPA to take the lead in crafting national
consensus protocols, says committee member Richard Luthy, an environmental engineer at Stanford University, in Palo Alto, CA, who compared the natural attenuation situation to that of analytical methods. "There needs to be a standard, consensus approach so that people ciEfree on a. common starting place. EPA does this for analytical methods and the agency has an important role to play in doing this for natural attenuation " REBECCA RENNER
England tries to make polluters pay A new regulatory regime to clean up England's legacy of contaminated land went into effect April 1. The program is designed to achieve a local, collaborative remediation plan, ideally paid for by the polluter. Under previous planning laws, land developers who voluntarily remediated contaminated land had to meet "pristine" cleanup standards, explained Department of the Environment spokesperson Jean Train. Under the new program, remediation is required only to a standard that is "suitable for use," a step down from remediating to pristine conditions, required under the voluntary cleanup scheme. But now regional governing bodies and the environment agency can force remediation of land that is not being actively redeveloped "if it is causing a problem," said Train. The law defines land as contaminated if there is a significant risk, or likely to be a risk, to humans, controlled waters, or the wider environment. Within the next 15 months, local authorities must develop a strategy for inspecting their areas to identify contaminated land; then they must find the polluters). Once identified, polluters have three months to agree to a remediation plan. If the local authorities cannot locate the polluter, the cleanup liability falls on the land owner, and if there is no owner, the local authority will have to foot the bill. Failure to
The U.K/s program could result in the same kind of legal tangles troubling Superfund, say some company lawyers.
cooperate is now a criminal offense, and the polluter/ owner will incur fines or remediation costs, but there will be some technical exclusions. In 1998, in anticipation of the new cleanup program, local authorities were allocated approximately $146 million (U.S.) over three years to implement the regime. The authorities can now also bid for $32 million in cleanup grants if they own polluted land themselves. In 1998/99, $320 million was voluntarily spent by developers on remediation of contaminated land
2 0 4 A • MAY 1, 2000/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
for new buildings and other developments. But because the local authorities are just beginning to identify contaminated land, no one can estimate the acreage that might be ripe for remediation. Sarah Barnard, of the U.K. Chemical Industries Association, is concerned that the law will not produce results, as local authorities will find it very difficult to identify and chase polluters. "There is a degree of uncertainty over what is expected from everybody," she said. David Gilliland, an environmental lawyer with the law firm Eversheds in Newcastle that mostly represents companies, fears the same kind of legal tangles as those that have engulfed the U.S. Superfund program. "The regulations are so complicated that people will be able to appeal. So much is left to the judgment of individuals and ultimately the courts," Gilliland said. The legislation is a step in the right direction, says Mike Childs of Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, although he points out that this definition of contaminated land will ignore much polluted land. He would also prefer to see the highest remediation standards for all sites irrespective of use. As he expects local authorities to struggle in finding resources for their work, he predicts that in 3-4 years, a tax on existing polluters may provide extra money for remediation. —MARIA BURKE
