2023 CPEO Brownfields List Archive

From: paul nathanail <paul@lqm.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 13:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Reply: cpeo-brownfields
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Cities' role in reviewing the potential for vapor intrusion in new development
 
Good post Lenny!

On this side of the pond the local authorities (the cities you refer to) are both regulator (of our equivalent to CERCLA) and grantors of planning permission. One requirement of gaining that permission is to demonstrate the land is safe and suitable for the new use.

So the expertise grows and can be supplemented by external experts when needed. However the cool thing is the series of regional networks which spread knowledge and raise standards and build competence in the local authorities AND the practitioners whose work informs the planning permission process.

Kind regards,

Paul Nathanail


On 3 Apr 2023, at 19:47, Lenny Siegel <LSiegel@cpeo.org> wrote:

The Community Within The Corridor controversy in Milwaukee highlights a general challenge in the development of housing on properties with a potential for vapor intrusion. Few cities have the expertise to evaluate vapor risk, yet while serving on the Mountain View, California City Council I learned that local governments have an advantage over the regulatory agencies that have the vapor risk expertise. Developers come to cities seeking approval, while regulators have to “chase after” responsible parties, whether they be developers or the original polluters.

I have long supported Brownfields development, in part because developers can come up with the resources to clean up abandoned properties. But it’s important that cities, not just regulators, systematically review proposals to build on contaminated property. When I was a local elected official, I felt a responsibility to be sure that I would not be putting future building occupants in harm’s way. Fortunately, I had the expertise to get my colleagues to insist on post-construction, pre-occupancy indoor air sampling. Also fortunately, my city is such a desirable place to develop that developers were happy to go along with whatever reasonable conditions we imposed.

In California, there is significant, well-intentioned pressure to reduce the environmental review of housing projects, particularly affordable housing. In Mountain View we showed that such review can make such projects safer for future residents.

Lenny


Lenny Siegel
Executive Director
Center for Public Environmental Oversight
A project of the Pacific Studies Center
LSiegel@cpeo.org
P.O. Box 998, Mountain View, CA 94042
Voice/Fax: 650-961-8918
http://www.cpeo.org
Author: DISTURBING THE WAR: The Inside Story of the Movement to Get Stanford University out of Southeast Asia - 1965–1975 (See http://a3mreunion.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
  References
  Prev by Date: [CPEO-BIF] "Evacuation of contaminated Milwaukee [Wisconsin] apartments leads to finger-pointing between city and state officials"
Next by Date: [CPEO-BIF] "Brownfield clean-up project underway at Baron Drawn Steel site, " Toledo, Ohio
  Prev by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] Cities' role in reviewing the potential for vapor intrusion in new development
Next by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] "Evacuation of contaminated Milwaukee [Wisconsin] apartments leads to finger-pointing between city and state officials"

CPEO Home
CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index