Re: [CPEO-BIF] Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, New York listing

[Lenny Siegel <lennysiegel@gmail.com>]

From: Schnapf, Lawrence <Lawrence.Schnapf@srz.com>


The first model of using Superfund authority (either by forcing
responsible parties to cleanup or having government fund the cleanup)
has become broken because of the numerous bankruptcies that allow
responsible parties to walk away cleanup obligations or because the tax
for replenishing the Superfund was allowed to lapse.

Also, states have been reluctant to support listing of sites because of
fears of stigmatization (and perhaps second-quessing of their
oversight).

But the Superfund program is no panacea either. Just look at the number
of sites where institutional controls were not properly implemented or
maintained, or the number of sites being re-opened recently during the
five-year reviews.

I think the brownfield programs were partially being used as part of the
"market knows best" philosophy of the past two decades and also to
relieve budget/resources issues at state levels. If funding can be
restored to Superfund, then I agree with Lenny that brownfield programs
should not be used to remediate true NPL-caliber sites.

However, in this era of constrained state budgets and smaller
government, we do have to take a hard look at what level of work state
or federal governments can effectively operate.

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org
[mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 9:49 AM
To: Brownfields Internet Forum
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, New York listing

I believe the Times article about the proposed Superfund listing of the
Gowanus Canal raises a key issue about the future of environmental
cleanup, and I would urge members of this list to respond to my
comments.

In my "Brownfields 101" presentations, I describe the two basic models
of cleanup: Superfund, in which remediation is funded by responsible
parties or the government, and Brownfields, in which cleanup is funded
from the income generated by the future use. Both have their place.

I - and most of the community activists with which I work - have been
discouraged by the trend, over the last decade, to address
Superfund-caliber sites as Brownfields. When sites that pose the
greatest threat to public health and the environment are treated as
Brownfields, there is a tendency to leave contamination in place. While
usually this provides short-term protection, it may lead to unacceptable

risks in the long run.

I assume, based upon the findings of both the New York Department of
Conservation and U.S. EPA Region 2, that the Gowanus Canal is indeed a
Superfund-caliber site. The city of New York and the developers it is
working with claim that placing the site on the Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL) will make it difficult to develop property because

of the stigma associated with Superfund.

I believe the opposite. The stigma exists because of the contamination.
Unless knowledge of that site is hidden improperly, the act of listing
and the associated additional environmental responses may actually
reduce the stigma of building on and occupying the property. Sweeping
environmental problems under the rug, foundation, or building is likely
to create future exposure risks and/or litigation from inadequately
protected site occupants.

No doubt adding a site to the NPL creates a hiccough in the process, as
new rules and regulators are brought to bear on the site. But if indeed
a site, because of the level of contamination, likelihood of pathways,
and presence of receptors qualifies for Superfund listing, then the
public deserves the protection that Superfund oversight provides.

Lenny

--


Lenny Siegel
Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
a project of the Pacific Studies Center
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@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org


*****************************************************************************
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice: Any U.S. federal tax advice included 
in this
communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be 
used, for the
purpose of avoiding U.S. federal tax penalties.
***************************************************************************** 




NOTICE

This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. 
It may
contain confidential information that is privileged or that constitutes 
attorney
work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any 
attachment(s) is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
immediately
notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any
attachment(s) from your system.  Thank you.
==============================================================================




--


Lenny Siegel
Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
a project of the Pacific Studies Center
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@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org