[CPEO-BIF] The value of the annual National Brownfields Conference

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Many of the responses, thus far, to the question about the frequency of 
the national Brownfields Conference - including my own initial comments 
- have included specific criticisms of the event: Certain constituencies 
should be better represented. Part of the program is unnecessary. And so 
on. However, it is possible to resolve most of these shortcomings 
independent of the frequency.

I know that decision-makers at EPA, as well as many of the other 
sponsoring organizations, are reading all these comments, and hopefully 
they will take them to heart in planning Brownfields 2005 and subsequent 
conferences.

Secondly, there are numerous Brownfields conferences and workshops that 
serve narrower constituencies or geographic areas. In fact, the EPA 
Inspector General's report suggested that EPA better assess the value of 
such events. I have no objection to such an evaluation, as long as it 
doesn't eat up the resources for such meetings. For the communities I 
work with, there is hunger for more, not fewer opportunities to gather 
and learn. I must note, however, that community organizations have a 
difficult time separating Brownfields - environmental challenges related 
to property reuse - from similar issues where no redevelopment is 
envisioned at this time.

But the unique value of EPA's national Brownfields Conference is that it 
is universal. It is designed to serve the full range of stakeholders 
with an interest in brownfields and associated issues, and it attracts 
these people from throughout the United States.

As readers of this list know, I participated in the negotiated 
rulemaking for the All Appropriate Inquiries rule. Members of the 
Committee that negotiated the rule compared our efforts to the parable 
of the "Six Blind Men and the Elephant." That is, each stakeholder group 
thought the Brownfields elephant had a different purpose or function, 
based upon the direction from which we approached it. By meeting 
together we were able to devise a rule that largely - for the limited 
objectives which we were assigned - satisfied each of our perspectives.

I see the national conference as similar. By bringing together 
government officials, consultants, developers, responsible parties, 
community activists, etc. - as well as attorneys for all the above - the 
conference consistently provides opportunities for people to hear the 
concerns of other stakeholders, and sometimes even to establish common 
ground.

I also think the geographic scope is valuable. By moving around the 
country, the conference makes it convenient for people from throughout 
the contiguous 48 states to attend at least once every few years. But by 
attracting a national base of participants, it gives them the 
opportunity to meet and share and compare experiences and ideas with 
attendees from other areas.

As an organizer, advocate, and trainer, I am always looking for ways to 
bring people together in this way, for any issue focus that I'm working 
on. Neither the visits I make to communities nor the Internet provide 
the same opportunities for communication. From the interactions I've 
seen among other constituencies at the national conference, I believe 
they benefit in a similar way.

Of course, convening the national conference every other year would 
still provide the value of bringing together multiple stakeholder groups 
from throughout the country. But for some purposes, it would be half the 
value. That's because Brownfields and the associated topics covered at 
the national Brownfields Conference, are continuously changing. States 
pass new laws. New technologies are developed. Major federal programs 
emerge.

For example, each year the conference includes two or three sessions 
devoted to federal facilities. This year, in response to the Pentagon's 
base realignment and closure (BRAC) process conference organizers have 
risen to the occasion to offer a "BRAC Track." If there were no 
conference this year, there would be no such opportunity for detailed 
coverage.

Another topic that interests me is vapor intrusion, the migration of 
subsurface contaminants to the surface - particularly into homes and 
other structures. I've participated in vapor intrusion sessions at the 
last two conferences, and I've attended numerous technical symposia, 
hearings, and community meetings on the subject as well. Vapor intrusion 
is a moving target, with constantly evolving regulatory guidance and 
immature, but rapidly developing science. It needs to be discussed, as a 
national issue, more often than every other year.

Even institutional controls are evolving. After a few years, the panels 
on land use controls seemed to become repetitive. However, now, as more 
states enact new legislation and learn from its implementation, 
institutional controls again beg annual discussion.

In summary, there is definitely room for improvement at the national 
conferences. And regional meetings have an important role as well. But 
no other event draws together the critical mass of varied, national 
stakeholders, and I think it worth the effort to continue doing so in a 
timely fashion.



Please continue to offer comments or recommendations. This discussion is 
valuable, and it is being heard.

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
http://www.cpeo.org

_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields