Re: [CPEO-BIF] Pruitt's Memorandum: "Prioritizing the Superfund Program"

["Larry Schnapf" <Larry@schnapflaw.com>]

It will be interesting to see how the $50MM threshold is determined/intepreted. Is it based on the highest of estimates in the FS? Is it include all OUs? Can a region use OUs to prevent reaching the threshold?

Lawrence Schnapf
 
55 East 87th Street #8B
New York, New York 10128
212-876-3189 (p)
917-576-3667(c)
Larry@SchnapfLaw.com
www.SchnapfLaw.com 
2016-17 Chair- NYSBA Environmental Law Section 
AV Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell
Listed in 2010-16 New York Super Lawyers-Metro Edition
Listed in 2011-16 Super Lawyers-Business Edition
Listed in The International Who's Who of Environmental Lawyers 2008-16
Chambers USA 2009-10 Client Guide of America's Leading Lawyers for Business

-----Original Message-----
From: Brownfields [mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 1:43 PM
To: Brownfields Internet Forum <brownfields@lists.cpeo.org>
Subject: [CPEO-BIF] Pruitt's Memorandum: "Prioritizing the Superfund Program"

On May 22, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a Memorandum, “Prioritizing the Superfund Program,” ordering a 30-day review by an internal task force. The task force will make recommendations to expedite Superfund cleanups. Pruitt also directs the centralization – in his office - of remedy selection decisions at sites estimated to cost $50 million or more. I have attached the full memo.

It makes sense for a new administration to review Superfund, with all its complexities. Pruitt’s goal to streamline the program has been addressed many times by both internal and external committees, sometimes with success. But reading between the lines, I believe there is cause for concern, particularly in the context of the Trump Administration’s proposal to slash EPA’s budget by nearly one third.

Promoting the more rapid reuse of contaminated sites is a good objective, but that’s something that Superfund has been working on for years. I am worried, however, that the memo does not mention the importance of protecting public health and the natural environment, the reason that the Superfund law was enacted in the first place. Nor does Pruitt acknowledge the scientific reality – underscored by the National Research Council in a series of studies – that remediating complex contamination sites to allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure takes a very long time.

Pruitt’s directive that “sound risk management principles” be considered when selecting remedies, particularly at contaminated sediment sites, suggests that he questions the dredging of contaminated sediment at mega-sites such as the Hudson River (New York). Of course, such principles are already the basis of such remedy decisions, but the responsible parties, such as General Electric, have consistently challenged those decisions because of the enormous cost.

Pruitt also asks that oversight be reduced to reduce the “burdens” borne by responsible parties. He makes a one-sided assumption, ignoring the burdens that contamination imposes on affected communities. He should have suggested that oversight be right-sized, but again he seems to have already concluded that the Superfund program is a problem for polluters, not for the people whose homes and health are threatened by the contamination.

He includes local governments in his list of Superfund stakeholders, but he fails to mention the key role of public stakeholders. EPA, other federal agencies, and state regulators have long recognized the importance of directly engaging the people who live, own property, work, study, play, and worship on or near contaminated sies.

In fact, his order to centralize remedy selection decisions at major sites seems to undercut public participation. Not only does robust community engagement tend lead to happier communities, but it also often leads to better remedies.

Pruitt’s memo must be understood in the context of the proposed EPA budget and staffing cuts. There is always room to improve Superfund – in fact, any regulatory program – but under the Trump budget it’s pretty clear that procedural changes will lead to less cleanup, not more efficient cleanup.

I have taken part in numerous committees that have sought to streamline oversight and make remediation more cost-effective. Again, those are good goals. But I fear that the new Administration has already concluded that a weaker Superfund program is a better one.

Lenny


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