Re: [CPEO-BIF] [EPA's March 17 listening session is an opportunity]

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

[Moderator's note: I am encouraging this discussion both to promote 
attendance at EPA's March 17, 2010 Listening Session (9:30 am at EPA 
East in DC) and to search for common ground in advance of that dialogue. 
For those members of this list who find the number of postings 
burdensome, please e-mail me to request the "Daily Digest" format. - LS]

I have two question for those who fear the consequences of enhanced 
disclosure requirements:

First, how imminent and substantial should an endangerment be to require 
notification to the government and/or disclosure to the public? If a 
release has been identified that impacts a neighboring property, should 
the occupants and owners of that property be notified? Or do you think 
the obligation exists only where a completed pathway has been 
documented? (In some cases, the impact may even apply to the property 
being assessed, there may be occupants [residents, workers, students, 
visitors] with no knowledge of the investigation.)

Second, to avoid "deal-killing," how long does a Recognized 
Environmental Condition need to be kept secret (proprietary) after the 
completion of an environmental assessment? Conceivably one might argue 
different periods for consummated transactions, pending transactions, 
and abandoned transactions.

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