Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Steve Quarles-would be lost opportunity. Industry wants to participate. Where they are <br />best fitted to participate is more complicated, larger sites. <br /> <br />Brent Fewell-knows there is disappointment that the strawman doesn't include <br />Superfund, but he asks industry to temper expectations. We have a great opportunity to <br />come up with reasonable solutions. <br /> <br />Joan Card--ditto Brent. In AZ, the impairments are from small, abandoned mines in the <br />wilderness areas. The strawman would allow these cleanups. <br /> <br />Michele Nellenbach-EPW spent months last year trying to find the middle ground and <br />we did with the Committee-passed bill. To walk away from the agreements in that bill is <br />premature. Biggest bang for your buck in reducing liabilities and getting sites cleaned up <br />is with the Inhofe bill. If you go away from that bill (taking out Superfund), you may <br />gain some votes, but you will lose a lot of others. <br /> <br />Maryann Sabbaghian, House Natural Resources Committee Minority-Understands the <br />idea is that we can take one step here with CW A, and then come back in the future <br />possibly to take the next step with Superfund. But that is not how Congress works. If <br />they pass something, they will not want to come back to fevisit it fOf a very long time. <br /> <br />Ryan McGinness, NV-Gov. Gibbons supports inclusion ofCERCLA. NV does not see <br />state doing many of these cleanups. It will be the industry, and they need Superfund <br />protection. He does accept that in other states, the states will do cleanups and <br />acknowledged that CW A may be a bigger issue in states with greater rainfall. Tom Porta <br />added, that even if CERCLA is included not sure NV would want to do these projects. <br />Maintaining water treatment in perpetuity would be a big disincentive. <br /> <br />V elma Smith-There are cleanups happening now. Not sure that any Good Sam <br />legislation is needed. <br /> <br />Brent Fewell-true some sites are being done under Superfund actions, but difference is <br />that the focus of this effort is orphan sites. <br /> <br />Peter Butler-Have completed over 50 cleanups. Have used comfort letters, but it seems <br />like we are going backwards. What remains are the sites with water, i.e. need CW A. <br />These sites account for 90% of the metals. We've stuck our necks out for 10 years. Also <br />need to include Superfund. <br /> <br />Paul Frohardt-State of Colorado supported the Salazar bill. More sites could be cleaned <br />up if Superfund is included. But, in 13 years, no sites have been cleaned up. CO has <br />identified 11 sites that could be cleaned up if strawman passed (i.e., CW A only bill.) <br />States are looking to get something adopted. Want to get at least one step accomplished. <br /> <br />Michele Nellenbach-Including Superfund is not political. TV and Animas probably <br />won't get sued under CERCLA, but mining companies will. <br /> <br />3 <br />