Re: [CPEO-BIF] How frequently should the National BrownfieldsConference take place?

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

I'm waiting to hear what others have to say before "voting" for a
particular frequency for EPA's national Brownfields conference, but I'd
like to stimulate some discussion by offering a couple of observations
about the value of the conference.

First, the annual conferences do more than promote the objectives of
U.S. EPA's Brownfields program itself. They provide a forum that
supports the missions of a broad range of EPA programs. They bring
together state and federal regulators, other federal agencies, official
and unofficial representatives of local communities, academia, and a
wide variety of private sector interests to discuss openly issues that
go far beyond property revitalization. Some of the best discussions of
topics such as vapor intrusion, smart growth, institutional controls,
etc. take place at the Brownfields meetings.

Former EPA Assistant Administrator Marianne Lamont Horinko promoted the
"one cleanup program" concept, which sought to integrate Brownfields,
Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, Underground Storage Tanks, etc. I was
never fully comfortable with that approach, because it was accompanied
by the de-funding of Superfund. I, like many other environmentalists,
feared that the most serious contamination sites in the country would be
forced into the lowest common denominator of "voluntary," "risk-based" cleanups.

Still, because the Brownfields program had the energy, attention, and
legislative support that many other EPA programs lack, its conference
brought in stakeholders working on other, related cleanup programs. The
discussion on Brownfields topics, therefore, served much more than the
narrowly defined Brownfields program. It's difficult for auditors to
credit such cooperation, or the leveraging of resources in one account
to serve broader interests, but the Brownfields conferences have
consistently achieved that objective.

Second, however, the national Brownfields conference has never fully
served the interests of the environmental justice, environmental, and
other community groups that participate. As an educational opportunity,
it's excellent, but as an opportunity to share lessons and ideas, the
conference is limited. Activists feel swallowed up in the sea of
officials and deal-makers.

CPEO has for several years convened the Environmental Justice/Community
Caucus at the Brownfields meetings. For two sessions that usually last
for two hours at the end of long, busy days, we bring together a
collection of activists. The meetings are useful, but each year
participants leave frustrated because we never have enough time to
develop a common program or strategy.

In 1997 we found the funding to bring together part of the caucus
between conferences. That's when we developed the ten "Recommendations
for Responsive Brownfields Revitalization" - a statement of principles
that remains relevant today. It's likely that the groups and individuals
that take part in the caucus would be better served by another mid-year
two-day meeting, to develop a similar report or perhaps even a common
strategy, but the cost of such a get-together would make little
difference to the continuation of the annual conferences. That is, a
mid-year caucus session would likely complement, not replace, the larger
event as a forum for promoting community interests.

Lenny Siegel



-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org
_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields