[Robert A Cook PE]

TRUE:

THE VAUNTED "CLEANUP FUNDS" HAVE BEEN SPENT: 95% ON LAWYERS.

But only 5% on engineering, waste removal, and de-tox applications.

by the way, they are spending MOST of that money on re-cleaning dirt (some of which IS contaminated - there ARE enviro problems that must be resolved! - which go so far past reality that you you could have a kid (literally) EAT the dirt of the site for years and not have any toxic effect.

The result GENREATES FAR MORE VOLUME OF WATE than was orignally planned that even MORE money is spent dumping (and cleaning) the "new" waste.

Which is ALSO a waste of money.

They should clean up the sites to a "rational" level that doesn't present run-off and local harm, and should restrict the "any part" lawsuit responsibility so the waste can be processed.

The rest is overkill, enriching the EPA, and its lawyers, and the enviro's - and their lawyers. Neither group wants to see the lawsuites end.

[FormerLurker]

The rest is overkill, enriching the EPA, and its lawyers, and the enviro's - and their lawyers. Neither group wants to see the lawsuites end.

As with everything else related to goverment bureaucracy, that is more than likely true. If we could cut out the graft and focus on the cleanup, everybody would be better off.