USA Today is reporting that the EPA has hidden an already enatced decision to lift restrictions on the sale of PCB-contaminated land.

The ban on the sale of contaminated land has kept numerous rail and industrial sites in a state of suspended decay.

The lift of the ban will ease the sale of these sites.

There are two messages to preservationists:

1. If there is a contaminated site you want to get your hands on, do it now.

2. If you ahve hesitated photographing and measuring the "old such and such" site, do it now.

Rob

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?
rdavis@rypn.org

If there is a contaminated site you want
to get your hands on, do it now.

Rob there's a couple of things to consider.

First,what do they mean by contaminated? Is it some meaurement less than 1 part per billion or something soaked? Unfortunately, USA Today is to much distribution,too little journalism to take at face value.

Second, even if they lift the ban on sales- you'll still have issues related to CERCLA and RCRA liability as well as potential civil liability.



superheater@rrmail.com

Here's the link to the USA Today Article - not a whole lot more. Nothing obvious on the www.epa.gov site that relates to this, either.



USA today article on PCB sites
randygustafson@stoneconsulting.com

> Second, even if they lift the ban on sales-
> you'll still have issues related to CERCLA
> and RCRA liability as well as potential
> civil liability.

I am not fan of McNewspaper, either, but the EPA has been doing some things "under the radar" this summer so I don't doubt the story.

You are quite right about clean up still being an issue, but what this EPA move should do is make it easier to sell lands *without* a clean-up. RIght now, owners have to clean it, then sell it.

The new interpretation of the law means that landowners who have kept old sites "as is" because clean-up woiuld cost more than they are willing to pay, can now sell them to buyers willing to bear the clean-up costs.

That little nugget is why I suggest that it might be a good time to photograph and measure sites, especially locomotive servicing areas.

Any owner of a contaiminated site that can sell it and let it be someone else's problem probably will. You can bet that railroad-owned lands will be subject to this -- think large abandoned yard sites.

Rob



rdavis@rypn.org

> Any owner of a contaiminated site that can
> sell it and let it be someone else's problem
> probably will. You can bet that
> railroad-owned lands will be subject to this
> -- think large abandoned yard sites.

> Rob

Part of the problem is the originator of the contamination, as long as the corporate trail exists, will still be responsible for the results. You cannot pass off this responsibility.


lamontdc@adelphia.net

> Part of the problem is the originator of the
> contamination, as long as the corporate
> trail exists, will still be responsible for
> the results. You cannot pass off this
> responsibility.

Passing off this responsibility to the new owner is *exactly* what you can do now, which is why I think this will lead to demolitions and reuse of sites.

The article says:

"The policy shift does not affect cleanup standards and liability rules for PCB sites. The memo says the change is needed to resolve cases in which buyers want to clean up PCB-fouled sites that are owned by people who lack the money or ability to do it.

"The new owner inherits responsibility for cleanup," EPA lawyer Bob Perlis says.

> "The policy shift does not affect
> cleanup standards and liability rules for
> PCB sites. The memo says the change is
> needed to resolve cases in which buyers want
> to clean up PCB-fouled sites that are owned
> by people who lack the money or ability to
> do it.

> "The new owner inherits responsibility
> for cleanup," EPA lawyer Bob Perlis
> says.

I would hate to have to be the "Solomon" that separates the "I don't wanna" from the "I can't afford it". Watch and see


lamontdc@adelphia.net

A couple points come to mind:

1. Previous interpretations of some EPA rulings have led to business that create pollution being forced to leave their polluted sites and relocate, only to then pollute their new locations as well. Isn't it better to limit pollution to areas that are already contaminated rather than contaminate more areas?

2. If this allows more contaminated areas to in fact become economically feasable to clean up and redevelop, aren't we better off because of it from both economic and environmental POV?

Dave



irondave@bellsouth.net

> A couple points come to mind:

> 1. Previous interpretations of some EPA
> rulings have led to business that create
> pollution being forced to leave their
> polluted sites and relocate, only to then
> pollute their new locations as well. Isn't
> it better to limit pollution to areas that
> are already contaminated rather than
> contaminate more areas?

> 2. If this allows more contaminated areas to
> in fact become economically feasable to
> clean up and redevelop, aren't we better off
> because of it from both economic and
> environmental POV?

> Dave

"The policy shift does not affect cleanup standards and liability rules for PCB sites."

"The new owner inherits responsibility for cleanup," EPA lawyer Bob Perlis says.

Something is telling me this does not ring true. Yes the new owner promises to clean the site up and has to follow all the guidelines. The big YABUT I see is the remaining "liability" rules.
This does not appear to me that they are releasing the original owners from the original liability.

Dave, you are absolutely right something should be done as a real incentive to make use of Brownfield sites before we crap up virgin areas ... maybe this is a start... until the Democrats get back into office (TIC).

lamontdc@adelphia.net

> Any owner of a contaiminated site that can
> sell it and let it be someone else's problem
> probably will.

CERCLA doesn't allow that. If you ever owned it, or brought the goodies to the site-your responsible. On the positive, it discourages cocealment. On the negative-you can get bitten when you had no idea you had responsibility.

I say "caveat emptor" applies

You can bet that
> railroad-owned lands will be subject to this
> -- think large abandoned yard sites.

Definitely!!!!!!

> Rob


superheater@rrmail.com

You know what? You're probably right. I made the mistake of trying to interpret an interpretation of government rules. Who knows how it will play out? That will be up to the lawyers.

It's a change in the EPA's position, but what will it really mean? Wait and see, I guess, is the only way to tell.

Rob

rdavis@rypn.org