RE: Cleanup Complete at Cedar Services Site -Reply

["Gillon, Peter" <GillonP@gtlaw.com>]

Thank you for your comments.  My only point is that EPA does itself a
disservice by diluting the concepts of "brownfields" and "redevelopment"
when it attaches those terms to a garden variety removal action.  When the
site has an end user or redevelopment plan, then the labels can be attached.
Having said that, EPA is to be applauded for integrating redevelopment goals
into the remediation plans for these kinds of sites.  This is an initiative
that has gained wide credence throughout the Agency through the leadership
of Tim Fields and others in HQ and the Regions.

-----Original Message-----
From: KEARY CRAGAN [mailto:CRAGAN.KEARY@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 11:43 AM
To: cpeo-brownfields@igc.org
Subject: RE: Cleanup Complete at Cedar Services Site -Reply 



Mr. Gillon,

If you read the subject heading and the article
itself, you will understand that the only success
that EPA claims is site "clean-up", not
redevelopment.  Additionally, EPA has
expressed it willingness to cooperate with
prospective purchasers to facilitate
redevelopment.  

Would you prefer that the site remained
contaminated or that EPA refuse to negotiate
with prospective purchasers?  Am I confused
or are you actually complaining that EPA is
doing its job??  

>>> "Gillon, Peter" <GillonP@gtlaw.com>
09/10/99 11:47am >>>

This is an interesting announcement in that EPA
is claiming they have
accomplished a redevelopment of a brownfield
when all that has occurred is
that EPA completed a routine soil removal
action for $750,000.  If the
announcement is correct, there was no
redevelopment and certainly no end
user.  EPA has merely left behind a vacant lot
with a lot less soil.   

-----Original Message-----
From: cpeo@cpeo.org
[mailto:cpeo@cpeo.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 5:59 PM
To: cpeo-brownfields@igc.org
Subject: EPA: Cleanup Complete at Cedar
Services Site