Re: [CPEO-BIF] In the wake of Katrina

[lsiegel@cpeo.org]

In response to Bill Walsh's comments:

I make a distinction between emergency response, including the
re-establishment of essential infrastructure, and neighborhood cleanup,
planning, and redevelopment. They are on different schedules.  

There are established, but not frequently used ways to integrate
community-based contractors and local workers into activities led by
national engineering and construction firms.  

I actually think that base closures, which tend to be larger than the
average brownfield, may provide some models for moving forward on the
Gulf Coast.

Lenny



lsiegel@cpeo.org wrote:
> 
> Submitted by William Walsh <WALSHW@pepperlaw.com>
> 
> I agree that money should be used to "support community participation in
> cleanup decisions and the design of the future ... [community]
> landscape" and "to train displaced residents to conduct restoration work
> safely."
> 
> I think that it bad strategy to link Katrina and Iraq (even if
> Haliburton has already gotten some large contracts). Also, the
> situations are different. Right now, we still have a disaster unfolding.
> The bacteria and other biological levels in New Orleans are off the
> charts. It is not out of the realm of possibility for some virulent
> disease to spread throughout the region. Unfortunately, by definition,
> neither the local residents nor most minority contractors have thousands
> of mobile homes, meals ready to eat and cots stockpiled. Some of these
> large companies do.
> 
> I would hate to see some biological disaster develop because of
> indecision on an emergency cleanup.
> 
> I think the focus for community involvement should not be to second
> guess what contractor is hired for the emergency work, but to focus on
> long-term cleanup, long-term rebuilding, and how to do both better and
> with the appropriate involvement of the respective communities.
> 
> Obviously, there will be environmental clean up necessary and the
> current sampling of six locations along the water front is not
> representative. It is, however, a good sign that out of the hundreds of
> chemicals sampled at the six sites, only lead at one location exceeded
> the health-based benchmark. I suspect that most underground storage
> tanks have cut off valve to prevent infiltration and the basic laws of
> physics tell me that have 20 feet of flood waters sitting on top of a
> landfill will drive water down, not necessary into the flood waters. So
> I am neither optimistic nor overly pessimistic about the level of
> chemical contamination.
> 
> William J. Walsh
> Pepper Hamilton LLP
> 
> --
> 
> 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

-- 


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