Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michael Gianotto-Iook at the Salazar bill language for federal lands language. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Paul Frohardt- The issue of federal lands is a fundamental question, and EP A has always <br />said, if you are an owner, you are liable. What is the right policy? <br /> <br />Joan Mulhern-If there is a property owner that is legally liable AND financially <br />capable. <br /> <br />Joe Pizarchik- This was debated a lot in P A program. Decided to disregard whether <br />there was a windfall to landowner to concentrate on what they wanted to <br />accomplish-cleanups! <br /> <br />Paul Frohardt-EPA's bill would have allowed a cleanup to take place on lands where <br />there was a viable owner, so long as the owner did not create the mine residue. The EP A <br />bill would not have authorized these land owners to be Good Samaritans, and any Good <br />Sam clean up would not have reduced any existing liabilities of the land owner. This <br />approach would expand the range of sites eligible for a Good Samaritan cleanup. It is an <br />option that deserves further consideration. <br /> <br />Incidental ReprocessinelRecyclinl: <br /> <br />Michael Gianotto-Does not like the Strawman approach. If you are going to do this, <br />who cares if the Good Sam keeps the $? You are not going to make a profit. Don't want <br />to discourage people. Want to allow profits to go to the Good Sam. Concern is that <br />companies may think they can defray all costs and make a profit. He doesn't think this <br />will happen much. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Joan Card-This bill would allow that outcome, but not become a remining loophole. <br />The strawman allows the proceeds to go toward the costs. Will there be a profit? <br /> <br />Paul Frohardt -No practical difference than what is in the strawman, assuming that <br />remediation costs more than the proceeds from incidental recovery. <br /> <br />Kathy Benedetto-how are you going to audit for this? <br /> <br />Joe Pizarchik-in P A, this hasn't come up because they have a separate remining law, <br />and because there is little to no value in the minerals at most of these sites. <br /> <br />Cathy Carlson-'- There is a very narrow place where there could be agreement on this <br />whole Good Sam discussion. We need to stay focused on the area where there is <br />agreement and not get side-tracked on issues like remining or whether you can make a <br />profit as a Good Sam. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />6 <br />