From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:44:13 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-brownfields |
Subject: | [CPEO-BIF] Enviro support for S. 2700 |
[The following letter in support of S. 2700 was initiated by the Natural Resources Defense Council.] * Natural Resources Defense Council * * Alternatives for Community and Environment * * Center for Public Environmental Oversight * * Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice * * Jesus People Against Pollution * * Partnership for Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment * * Subra Company * * Surface Transportation Policy Project * * West Harlem Environmental Action * July 21, 2000 Dear Senators Chafee and Lautenberg: The undersigned national environmental organizations and local environmental justice organizations would like to lend our support to your efforts to pass S. 2700, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2000. As you know, these groups have worked for years to promote the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfield sites, while at the same time ensuring the protection of public health and the environment. This bill represents a significant step forward and holds the potential to help break the deadlock on advancing federal brownfields clean-up issues. Though the contamination may not rise to the level of federal attention, brownfield sites in cities and rural areas across the country still threaten the health of nearby residents, of wildlife, and of the environment. Brownfields sites also undermine an area's economic health. At the same time that America is losing 365 acres of green space per hour to development, sites rich in existing infrastructure and near to labor pools remain abandoned because of contamination. Your bill would provide much needed funds for communities to revitalize and clean up contaminated property, and at the same time would create a framework for improving how these cleanups are conducted. Your bill holds great potential for cleaning up communities, protecting health, renewing local economies, combating sprawl and preserving or creating open space. First, it provides financial resources in the form of grants, revolving loans and technical assistance grants (TAGs) to municipalities, non-profit organizations and community redevelopment groups for increased public participation and site-related assessment and cleanup activities. This assistance will help provide for meaningful community input in clean-up decisions that will have a significant effect on that community's quality of life. Numerous studies of clean-ups all across the country have demonstrated that early and frequent community participation results in better and more efficient clean-ups. Second, the legislation requires that states take steps necessary for their brownfields programs to satisfy important assessment, remediation, and public involvement criteria (or that the state has entered a separate agreement with EPA) as a condition of receiving federal grants. Third, the bill provides important new funding for preservation of green space and open space in communities and makes green spaces a priority for development. And, in Title II, S. 2700 adopts sensible liability protections, which we have long supported. These clarifications should encourage brownfields activity while also preserving vital federal enforcement authority and a baseline level of protection for all Americans. Wisely, the bill is narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of more and better brownfields clean-ups. We would oppose vigorously any effort to broaden the liability clarifications provided by the bill, including application of the bar to statutes other than CERCLA, or any changes to the enforcement bar provisions, which we read to embody current EPA policy and practice for taking action under CERCLA section 106. We recognize that this legislation represents a delicate compromise and a unique consensus on brownfields, which would not have been possible without your commitment, and that of your dedicated staff, to developing a national framework for restoring our communities and the environment at the same time. While our organizations support moving this legislation forward, below we call to your attention some important issues which we strongly urge you to address. Time Frames for Developing State Brownfield Programs We strongly support additional funding for states to develop effective and enforceable brownfields cleanup programs consonant with the criteria in the bill. Unfortunately, the current language appears to allow states to continue to receive funding indefinitely for taking undefined "reasonable steps" toward implementing a program that meets the criteria. We presume that "reasonable steps" means that establishment of those programs should be required to occur within some set period of time (e.g., 3-4 years), and our support is conditioned on this understanding. In any event, EPA should be allowed to cut funding for those states not making significant efforts to reach the funded-program criteria. Enforcement Bar and Re-openers Under the proposed legislation, EPA would be prohibited from taking enforcement action or seeking cost recovery at eligible sites which are subject to a state clean-up program. As we understand the bill, this "enforcement bar" will apply only to cleanups that are designed and initiated after the effective date of this bill, and not to cleanups well underway or that those have been completed but are being maintained or monitored. We could not support a bill that would do otherwise. We also strongly suggest adding an exclusion from the enforcement bar that would allow the EPA to take action at a site if the land use changes substantially and the Administrator determines that, as a result of the new land use, the cleanup is inadequate to protect human health and the environment. Institutional Controls To its credit, the bill contains important language that would provide for a public inventory of brownfields cleanups in each state, and information on how the institutional controls in place (e.g., deed restrictions) will protect the public when a clean-up does not remove all wastes at brownfields sites. The text lacks a critical component, however, for effective legislation in this area: the bill should ensure that public information on institutional controls indicates how and by whom these controls will be enforced and maintained in the future. Eligible Entities Non profit and community development organizations (CDOs) are not currently listed among the entities eligible to receive funds under the pilot site assessment program. We strongly urge you to expand eligibility beyond governmental entities and at the very least allow CDOs and non profits to apply for funds if no other eligible entity in the area applies. We also urge you to include gas stations in the pilot site assessment program. Gas stations may well be the biggest category of sites affecting communities. Since the site assessment funds do not come from the CERCLA trust fund, the CERCLA petroleum exclusion is irrelevant. And including these sites in the pilot assessment program would not involve opening up other statutes, while it would help communities gain a better picture of the full range of contamination problems they face. Cost Recovery We are concerned that the bill would bar the EPA from using its current authority in CERCLA section 107(a) to recover costs at brownfields sites even if a state does not have at least a minimally adequate state cleanup program. Federal taxpayers should not have to bear the cost for an inadequate brownfields cleanup when a state is not demonstrating a commitment to a strong and effective state cleanup program, and responsible parties exist who could and should pay for the federal response action. Although we recognize that the funding in this bill will be a strong incentive for states to ensure that their state cleanup programs satisfy your bill's minimum criteria, we would suggest requiring that a state meet the grant criteria listed in the legislation before the enforcement bar would apply to those states. Community Advisory Groups We suggest that the legislation allow for the creation of community advisory groups in state brownfields programs where sites may warrant additional public involvement. These community advisory groups would facilitate greater public participation in the decision-making process, particularly at sites where there may be significant community health concerns. Additionally, the legislation should define the evaluation criteria of the TAG program in more detail and ensure consistency by incorporating characteristics of CERCLA's TAG program (e.g., time frame for filing applications). Maintaining a consistent framework for all federal TAG programs would lead to increased predictability and success for interested communities to apply and receive federal financial assistance. Community Outreach Plans While the bill would help communities to become more involved in decisions regarding brownfield sites, it could be stronger in seeking community participation. We urge you to give states more guidance and encouragement to develop programs which seek active community involvement. For example, California's voluntary clean-up program requires the development of a community profile for sites going through a full clean-up. If the community profile reveals sufficient interest, the program directs development of a community relations plan as part of the overall planning at a brownfield site or group of sites. Elements of such a plan include: identifying community leaders, others who may be concerned, and level of interest in the site; deciding how community members will be notified of planning and other events; determining how documents and information will be made available; and establishing how comments will be sought. This avoids prescribing one approach for all circumstances, but encourages early consideration of and planning for community outreach. Long-term Notice through State Lists, and Easy Access to the Information The bill's language regarding the state lists is not completely clear on whether those sites with remaining contamination and institutional controls will remain on the lists until such time as the site is cleaned up to a level allowing unrestricted use. The bill appears to envision this sort of treatment, which makes sense if part of the purpose is to provide a way of providing notice of the need for caution to current and future users of the relevant property and surrounding areas. In addition to clarifying this language, we also suggest making this information available electronically to gain the full benefit of making this information easily available to the public. We hope that our comments on S. 2700 are helpful. We look forward to working with you as this legislation advances. Sincerely, Jacqueline Hamilton Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC Don Chen Smart Growth Program Director, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DC Charlotte Keys President, Jesus People Against Pollution, Columbia, MS Penn Loh Alternatives for Community and Environment, Roxbury, MA Vernice Miller Travis Executive Director, Partnership for Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment, Baltimore, MD Peggy Shepard Executive Director, West Harlem Environmental Action (WHEAct), New York, NY Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight, San Francisco, CA Wilma Subra President, Subra Company, New Iberia, LA Donele Wilkins Executive Director, Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice, Detroit, MI -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/968-1126 lsiegel@cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To read CPEO's archived Brownfields messages visit http://www.cpeo.org/lists/brownfields If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to cpeo-brownfields-subscribe@igc.topica.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-BIF] Enviro letter for S. 2700 - short version Next by Date: [CPEO-BIF] Fwd: Fw: Workplace Health and Safety Plan for City of Wilmington | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] Enviro letter for S. 2700 - short version Next by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] Fwd: Fw: Workplace Health and Safety Plan for City of Wilmington |