LAND USE AND CLEANUP STANDARDS

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

THE RELATIONSHIP OF LAND USE TO CLEANUP STANDARDS

The following is a paper I am submitting to a the Funding and Priority
Setting Work Group of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration
Dialogue Committee. Although it should be understood as an effort to
find common ground among stakeholders and officials with sharply
different public positions on the issue, it represents my views and my views
alone.

I would appreciate any feedback.

Lenny Siegel

The future use of land and water is currently considered as a factor in 
establishing cleanup standards under federal law and many state laws 
as well. This is appropriate, but to meet the needs of impacted 
communities and budget-conscious federal agencies, the conditions 
under which future use is considered should be clarified. In particular:

1) For properties being transferred from federal ownership, immediate 
future use should be determined by the local, regional, or state bodies 
with jurisdiction over the site or the water resources. In considering 
cleanup standards, however, long-term future use should be 
considered as well.

2) Properties remaining in federal hands, the federal agency should 
either clean up to standards linked to long-term reasonably foreseeable 
use, or the federal government should guarantee it will reopen the 
cleanup if transfer is contemplated.

3) Long-term - that is, reasonably foreseeable - future use should be 
determined in consultation with diverse representatives of the affected 
communities, such as the members of a site-specific advisory board, 
not just reuse or development entities.

4) The migration of hazards and the impact of contamination on 
adjacent areas should be considered.

5) The potential for mixed uses, such as child care centers in industrial 
or office areas, should be evaluated.

6) The cost and delay of determining and evaluating the impact of 
future use may make the strongest standard - such as, cleanup to meet 
a residential scenario - the most timely and cost effective.

7) Land and water not cleaned up to the strongest standard should be 
subject to institutional controls and/or monitoring for the life of the 
hazard. The cost of those controls should be considered in evaluating 
the savings achieved by implementing the proposed weaker standard.

8) In cases where it is technically unfeasible or prohibitively expensive 
to clean a site fully, the level of residual contamination may determine 
the future use.

9) All parties should agree who will be liable: A) if new toxicological 
information indicate that cleanup was insufficient; B) if the federal 
agency later decides to transfer the property; C) if despite institutional 
controls, people or natural resources are harmed by remaining 
contamination; or D) the community decides later that it wants to 
change the use to one requiring more cleanup.