Re: [CPEO-BIF] Voluntary Cleanup vs. CERCLA

[Paul Nathanail <Paul@lqm.co.uk>]

In the uk most remediation is 'voluntary' as part of the redevelopment process. Developers who will make profit from a project are responsible for ensuring the land is fit for use.
Very few sites are remediated under the uk equivalent to cercla.
If a site is likely to be redevelkoped then it is not put on the uk equivalent to the npl - but if developers drag their feet then the regulators have that option.

Kind regards


Paul Nathanail
University of Nottingham, UK

PS brownfields 2009 was great!
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Strauss <petestrauss1@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:36:12 
To: lsiegel@cpeo.org<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
Cc: Brownfields Internet Forum<brownfields@lists.cpeo.org>
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Voluntary Cleanup vs. CERCLA

The discussion at the conference  was very interesting (an  
entertaining), but not totally on point.  The issue of voluntary  
cleanup vs, superfund type cleanup, as was the original issue at  
Gowanus,  was only touched upon briefly. But it  was in this  
discussion that developers along the canal stated that they would back  
out of development projects if Gowanus was named a Superfund site.

The debate shifted to disclosure requirements, and to some extent,  
whether property transactions should be protected at the cost of  
public health protection.  These are important issues, to say the  
least.  In my opinion the proponents of more stringent disclosure  
requirements (Larry and Lenny) were essentially turning the  concept  
of due diligence on its head: that is, instead of due diligence on the  
buyers side, proponents would have stiffer requirements for due care  
and disclosure on the part of owners and responsible parties.  In my  
opinion, proponents are seeking a substantial  cultural/value change.   
I am not opposed to it. On the other hand, the proponent of the  
protection of the market-driven system (Barry) made some important  
points that can't be overlooked.  That is, if money dries up for  
transactions at Brownfield sites, they will sit idle, as they did once  
before.

So the real problem  is how can we develop a policy that has two goals  
in mind: 1) to not unduly burden property owners (economically and  
legally), and 2)  protecting public health to the fullest extent  
practical.  The way that I see it now, neither goal is being fully  
met.   (I recognize that I have simplified  a complex legal, economic,  
and environmental issue, and I apologize to the panelists if I've  
misrepresented their positions.)  I am hoping that this dialogue  
continues.

Peter Strauss
On Nov 18, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Lenny Siegel wrote:

> Yesterday, at the Brownfields conference in New Orleans, we had a  
> lively panel discussion that addressed, among other things, state  
> requirements for public disclosure and involvement under voluntary  
> cleanup programs? When (if ever) do members of the public -  
> particularly site neighbors - learn about releases of hazardous  
> substances? Are regulatory requirements met?
>
> Tell the list what happens in your state.
>
> 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

_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org