I need written confirmation which demonstrates wether corrective
action is or is not reguired at an interim status facility under rcra,
epa or any other rules.The hazardous waste storage facility consisted
of a 10`x10` metal shed with two drums which was closed properly and
there was never a spill.The facility was only on one parcel which is
part of a large brownfield redevelopment project in michigan.However
we have been told all parcels adjacent and listed on the application
fall under 111 rules.Do they? |
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
08 Nov 2003 06:24 PST
Hello,
You have posted two questions here (for $200 each) that are very
similar in content. Do you want both of them answered? If not,
please let us know.
|
Clarification of Question by
mrdemo-ga
on
08 Nov 2003 12:23 PST
Actually I intended to only ask one question is there any way out of
the corrective action period....
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
09 Nov 2003 04:38 PST
Mrdemo-ga,
I'd like to understand your situation a little better in order to
provide the best answer possible to your question.
Ordinarily, it is the *developer* of a potential brownfield property
who will arrange to have an environmental assessment of the property
carried out (usually by a professional environmental contractor). The
assessment establishes the "baseline" of any existing problems at the
site, and protects the buyer from liability.
On the other hand, an operator of a hazardous waste storage facility
that ceases operations has obligations regarding "closure" of the
facility.
What situation are you are in? Are you closing down a haz waste
storage facility? Are you interested in selling your parcel to a
developer? Have you had any initial discussions with either the
developer or the brownfields contacts in the local government where
you are?
The specifics of your situation will dictate the steps you need to take.
I can certainly provide you a generic overview of site closure and the
brownfield redevelopment process in Michigan, and how a site goes
about getting a clean bill of health. If that's the type of answer
you want, just let me know.
But if you're looking for very specific information about your
situation -- who to contact, what steps to take -- then I need to know
(1) what town in Michigan the site is located, and (2) a bit more
about it's history, and particularly the specifics of the current
situation that is prompting you to ask for written confirmation about
the need (or not) for corrective action.
Thanks.
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
mrdemo-ga
on
09 Nov 2003 07:29 PST
We are the property owner who perfomed a proper bea however we were
told a year or so later that the bea only protects us from state
liabilty not the feds which have (as I understand) entered into a mou
with mdeq and they were supposed to form a new group to address these
issues on a state level.Where we are at now is that we want to(for one
example)sell an office bldg across the sreet from the old plant we
intend to demolish. We have been told we must perform corrective
action or somehow demonstrate its not needed at the tune of 30k
(estimate with no gaurantee).They say all of these things and claim no
exceptions. The problem is we have never seen any thing in black and
white other than mdeq staff letter telling us to get going.I have a
hard time with complying without written documentation that I can read
and interpet possibly for the benifit of developers.I also feel this
issue may have come up with all of the brownfields being developed
nationally and if it did I believe reasonable people from both sides
of the table would have agreed that this reguirement was not the
intent of the regs and possibly developed a letter ruling excepting
certain parcels.I also feel that just the swmus that were identified
during an epa inspection need to be addressed which is something we
intend to do anyway since we bought this property to cleanup and
redevelop. We were not the operator however we have been told the
liabilty runs with the property so therefore we can not sell the
property since we would be, at least ethically, obligated to inform
the potential purchaser of the alleged or the mandatory reguirement
which quite frankly will scare them away .Accordingly the property
will not be developed which is the exact opposite of what the
government is trying to accomplish.I just can not believe that anyone
would be expected to spend 500k testing hundreds of acres just because
who ever filled out the application, so they could store a couple
drums of cleaner ,listed all of the property they owned instead of
just listing one small parcel. Our consultant who did the bea as well
as tons of additional work claims its an unfortunate circumstance but
we need to comply lets get started.I feel we need to find a way to
reduce costs by figuing out a way to convince the right people that
these reguirements are not necessary ,acorrdingly our agenda is quite
different.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
09 Nov 2003 15:26 PST
Oh....My....Goodness.
You're going to give the government a bad name, ha ha!
I hardly know where to begin, so let me just say a few things in no
particular order:
--I know a good deal about environmental matters and MAY be able to help you out.
--There's no way me -- or anyone -- can say "Do A, B and C, and you'll
have your certificate". The Brownfields program is new. The
program's issues are just now being identified and are a long way from
being resolved. The relationship between the feds and the state and
local guys are just beginning to be worked out. You'll have to invent
the process as you go along.
--But...there is definitely a real desire on the part of the
government officials involved in Brownfields to be (dare I say it...)
helpful, and to solve problems (especially if you hint that you're
talking to the press about your situation). So there is a chance you
can work things out.
--I can't give you a simple, straightforward answer to your question.
Instead, if I post an answer, I would see it as something of a
dialogue process that we could keep active for a few weeks or months,
if needs be, in order to respond to new developments and information.
At the same time, we ourselves would have to be able to have some sort
of "closure" to our own process...I'd like to hear your thoughts about
how to best go about this.
--Do you belong to a trade association? If so have you asked them for
advice, or even for their active intervention?
--And lastly, a few specific comments about your remarks:
-no amount of BEAs or certifications will ever exempt you from
potential liability for a site you owned...if anyone's telling you
otherwise, get it in writing!
-the BEA *can* however, be used to limit the liability of a new owner
of a site...this is supposed to make it easier for, say, a buyer to
purchase the office building across the street, and be assured that,
at least, the new buyer won't be held liable for any old problems.
--generally, the government does not give YOU confirmation that your
site does not need corrective action. Just the reverse...YOU should
be telling THEM that you followed closure requirements, that you
looked and there is/is not contamination, and the site is (or isn't)
good to go.
At least, this is my understanding of how things should be working.
I can't make any sort of promise about what I can deliver as an
answer. I can only offer to try my best to help you out in the
context of this very public forum.
If that is of interest to you, let me know, and we'll get the ball rolling.
And of course, best of luck to you.
pafalafa-ga
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
30 Nov 2003 08:53 PST
Hello?
|
