Bruce,
I agree that time is a critical consideration in cleanup, not just to
suit developers, but to protect communities. I therefore support reforms
that streamline oversight, such as look-up tables for routine soil
contamination.
But I won't accept inadequate cleanup as the price of speed. And I won't
accept secrecy as the price of development.
Lenny (with a Y)
Bruce-Sean Reshen wrote:
Lennie is only partially correct in stating that the debate is between
compliance-based cleanup programs and voluntary cleanup programs and
he is only partially correct when he says that its a question of of WHEN
and WHERE voluntary programs are appropriate.
For some reason no one wants to mention the six hundred pound gorilla in
the room whose name in TIME. The level of cleanup and the level of
oversight can be the same among compliance-based and voluntary
programs. The difference is that in highly structured programs such as
Superfund, the legally mandated processes such as the RI/FS process
consume huge amounts of time and cannot be attenuated. To spend years
analyzing all possible alternative cleanup strategies when everyone
knows which one is most applicable, is both a legal mandate and evidence
of logical insanity. This process destroys all incentive for a
developer whose interest is redevelopment of the property. If we are
the gain the attractive features of such compliance-based programs, we
must inject a note of sanity and revise them to allow for fast-tracting
the process. Alas, this would require a legislative approval which
often throws out the baby with the bathwater.
The attractiveness of voluntary state cleanup programs in not only that
they tend to minimize oversight (which is not a good thing), but that
they consume less time and therefore are more amenable to market driven
redevelopment efforts by developers.
Until we effectively address the issue of flexibly telescoping the time
involved in structured cleanup programs, they will never be an attrative
option for market driven redevelopment.
Those who believe this debate is about the degree of stigma attached to
compliance-based programs vs. voluntary programs have missed the mark.
Both types of programs involve public awareness and consequential stigma
of sorts. But smart folks will judge the quality of the cleanup and the
quality of the administrative oversight, no matter what the program.
The real question among both types of programs is the degree of
flexibility and the time involved in the process.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org
<mailto:lsiegel@cpeo.org>> wrote:
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 <mailto:lsiegel@cpeo.org>>
http://www.cpeo.org <http://www.cpeo.org/>
_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org <mailto:Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org>
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
--
Bruce
Bruce-Sean Reshen
The MGP Group
733 Summer Street - Suite 405
Stamford, CT 06901
(p) 203-327-2888, X 18
(f) 203-327-2999
(c) 017-757-5925
breshen@mgppartners.com <mailto:breshen@mgppartners.com>
www.mgppartners.com <http://www.mgppartners.com>
www.theguardiantrust.org <http://www.theguardiantrust.org>
This communication may contain information that is legally privileged,
confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended
recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this
message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or
return email and, delete the message from their computer.
--
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
|