From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:17:01 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-brownfields |
Subject: | [CPEO-BIF] When. where, and how? - continuing the debate |
To me the debate between compliance-based cleanup programs and voluntary
programs is a question of WHEN and WHERE voluntary responses are
appropriate, as well as what level of oversight and disclosure should
apply to voluntary cleanups (HOW). The requirements applied to voluntary
cleanup vary enormously among the states, and within some states, such
as California, among programs.
I support a tiered system of oversight, in which the level of government involvement is keyed to the complexity and severity of the site, as well as the exposure pathways and the receptors (such as schoolkids). Over the last decade or so, many sites across the country that merit more oversight have been addressed under voluntary programs, largely because environmental agencies have lacked the will or the resources to use their regulatory authority properly. I have seen problems at sites where: 1) Developers have escaped oversight by dividing up property. 2) Housing and schools are building on capped contamination.3) Groundwater contamination is migrating off the development site, but the response has been focused only on that property. 4) Groundwater contamination is migrating onto the development site, but there is no cleanup upgradient. 5) Contaminated sediment is considered "off-property."I don't argue that every such site should be addressed under a Superfund or RCRA-type program. RATHER, THE DECISION ABOUT WHICH TIER OF OVERSIGHT IS REQUIRED SHOULD BE MADE BY THE REGULATORY AGENCY WITH FULL PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY. I remember when some of us on the All Appropriate Inquiries Negotiated Rulemaking Committee suggested that some form of public notice be required for environmental site assessments. Industry participants shuddered. One even warned that it would make it difficult for a manufacturer to close a plant without tipping off its employees. (Not a good argument, from my perspective!) But I don't think the neighbors and eventual occupants of redeveloping contaminated property should be kept in the dark. In my experience, their involvement in the oversight of a cleanup and redevelopment is the best guarantee that things will be done right. Community involvement may lead to better protection of public health, but it also may overcome bureaucratic conditions that government agencies want to impose. Initially, additional disclosure may discourage or slow some projects, but as transparency becomes routine I believe the public will recognize which sites are problematic and which are being addressed properly. For a few years now I have been trumpeting the success of the Voluntary Cleanup Advisory Board at the Gates Rubber Site in Denver. This site was addressed under Colorado's voluntary cleanup program, but with public oversight (as well as the developer's agreement to provide other public benefits) the community ended up promoting the project. A developer does not have to be a "bad apple" for a project to benefit from public scrutiny of its environmental strategy. 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 |
Follow-Ups
|
Prev by Date: [CPEO-BIF] [Fwd: RE: Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, New York listing] Next by Date: Re: [CPEO-BIF] [Fwd: RE: Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, New York listing] | |
Prev by Thread: Re: [CPEO-BIF] [Fwd: RE: Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, New York listing] Next by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] When. where, and how? - continuing the debate |