From: | brock.martha@epamail.epa.gov |
Date: | Wed, 9 Feb 2000 09:20:08 -0800 (PST) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | Re: [CPEO-MEF] Fort Totten Gift |
Advice on checking deed language is right on. However, an added twist: The concern is that the collective Mr. Syretts are not necessarily protected by deed language alone. I am reading between the lines that Mr. Syrett is not the transferee of the property, but is some other party -- a lessee, licensee, or perhaps an employee of one of the above. Even if the new owner of the property is given notice about storage, release or disposal of hazardous substances on the property during its ownership of DoD, that is no guarantee that the end-user, the ones who actually need the notice because they are the ones that the risk-based decisions are based upon, is given notification. The system of notifying interested parties, as well as a system of implementing institutional controls, should ensure that the end user is given effective notice of the environmental history and condition of the property. You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html. If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to: cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com _______________________________________________________ Follow the U.S. presidential race on our Politics list! http://www.topica.com/lists/politics | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Questions Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] No Cleanup Is an Island | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Questions Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] No Cleanup Is an Island |