Quote:
Originally posted by Davros:
Back off topic for a minute and onto the abandoned hazardous waste sites thing. I think there is a distinction between what the 2 of you are debating. In Australia (and I believe in Europe) a hazardous waste site would be one that is set up for the storage of hazardous wastes, or one on which hazardous wastes have been illegally stockpiled and dumped. This is distinct from a contaminated industrial site, which is the ex location of a factory or business that has departed the scene and is required by law to meet certain remediation standards on departure.
You may be talking apples and oranges on this one guys.
|
We may have a semantics problem, but we do actually disagree on this one. The US is not as environmentally impacted as Europe -- it's that simple. It has not been inhabited as long, the air and water are cleaner, etc. Just a fact. Europe has had a lot of different polluting phases of history to experience. Did you know one of the biggest red flag enviro problems is "UXO" or "unexploded ordinance." I think this would be an issue in Europe. The former soviet block countries just dumped crap everywhere -- that's what a czech regulator tells me.
But, yes, Davros you are right that there are different sites. There are sites containing historical contamination (CERCLA addresses these), sites where hazardous substances are stored for use (RCRA imposes rules on these), and sites where hazardous substances are disposed of (RCRA permits these sites and imposes a cradle-to-grave manifest system on every unit of waste to track proper disposal). A particular piece of property may be one or two or all three types of sites.
I've seen the compliance practice in the US (which I actually am a professional in and have been since 2000) and I've inquired as to the compliance practice in other countries, and on most fronts it's a bit stricter here. I'm not euro-bashing, I'm just pointing it out.
[ 02-21-2004, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]