RE: Definitions - VCPs and Brownfields

["Tim Shaw" <TimS@pscalaska.com>]

In Alaska the VCP is very similar to what was described in California. It is
for low priority sites that the State Regulatory agencies feel take up their
time when they need to be following up on sites of higher priority. This has
been around since 1996.

You have to apply for the VCP program and your site must meet specific
requirements.  Once approved, you follow the set cleanup standards and
report to the VCP Regulatory agent.  Really simple, well outlined, easy to
follow.

So, VCPs are not just for Brownfields anymore!  Have a great day!

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cpeo-brownfields@igc.org
[mailto:owner-cpeo-brownfields@igc.org]On Behalf Of peter strauss
Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 4:04 PM
To: cpeo-brownfields@igc.org
Subject: Definitions - VCPs and Brownfields


I have had the following dialogue with Kristen Yount and thought that it
would be worthwhile to bring it to the attention of the group. Can
anyone shed additional light on this subject.

Peter Strauss

"As a follow-up to Peter Meyer's response,  not all voluntary cleanup
programs (VCPs) apply to "Brownfield" sites.  I have seen many
non-brownfield type sites in California where a VCP was entered into.

Peter Strauss"

"Peter -- I read your cpeo message and I'm puzzled. How could a
non-brownfield site enter into a VCP when VCPs are designed only for
brownfields? What is your definition of a brownfield?"

 "Kristen,

 In California, sites not on the NPL have been allowed to enter into
 voluntary cleanup programs with the state.  Essestially, these VCPs are
 a lower form of regulatory oversight.  I have been personally involved
 with two in the Bay Area, but I am informed that this is a standard
 regulatory practice.  One site should have been a brownfield site, the
 other is adjacent to an NPL site.

 Brownfield can have many meanings: but it is my understanding that it
 has become a "term of art".  That is, it refers to urban, non-NPL sites
 that could qualify under EPA's general brownfields program.

 Peter Strauss"

"Ah ha. I thought our problem stemmed from definition. I use the EPA's =
"A brownfield is a site, or portion thereof, that has actual or
perceived contamination and an active potential for redevelopment or
reuse." In discussions, EPA reps often clarify that the term brownfields
excludes NPL sites and also excludes petroleum product problems. (Also -
I believe that most VCPs explicitly exclude NPLs.)

Difference in definition is a source of many misunderstandings (e.g.,
cities will conduct inventories of brownfields but some will define them
as ABANDONED sites while others use definitions closer to EPA's). I
think the biggest problem with EPA's concept of a brownfield stems from
their organizational structure. That is, RCRA projects (that include
LUSTs) are handled by one office while CERCLA projects (brownfields) are
handled by another. The result is that LUST problems can't be dealt with
under assistance provided by the CERCLA folks (e.g., the brownfield
cleanup revolving loan fund can't be used to clean LUSTs). An inventory
of definitions and discussion about definitional problems would be
useful. Unfortunately, I don't have the time (and my guess is, others
don't either).

Good luck on your work! Kristen"