From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org> |
Date: | Mon, 20 May 1996 10:04:15 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | DEFENSE SUPERFUND CHANGES |
From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org> DEFENSE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS ARE MOVING Last year (Fiscal Year 1996) the Defense Department Environmental Security office convinced Congress to include in the Defense Authorization Act language allowing long-term leases at closing military bases, even when cleanup remedies were not in place. This year (Fiscal Year 1997), the Senate Armed Services Committee has included in its version of the Defense Authorization Bill three amendments to the Superfund laws. 1. Restrict the definition of contaminated parcels to those where hazardous substances were "known to have been released," deleting the other standard: properties where hazardous substances were stored for one year or more. This is relatively non-controversial, but I don't know of any sites where the old language has turned out to be a real problem. 2. Allow EPA to withhold listing a property that would otherwise qualify for the Superfund National Priorities List, if cleanup is proceeding under other authorities. This has been an issue in several parts of the country, including Wisconsin and California, where activists and at least some EPA staff believe that Superfund listing heightens response. In addition - until DOD implements its Technical Assistance for Public Participation program - listing is the only way to provide technical assistance grants to community groups. Some states, however - such as California - feel that listing would disrupt effective ongoing programs, particularly at closing bases that are already receiving a great deal of attention. 3. Most significant, the Senate committee is backing the Defense Department's proposal to allow the transfer of contaminated federal property, if the EPA Administrator (in the case of Superfund NPL sites) or state Governor (for non-NPL sites) approves. Specifically the proposed change to CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) Section 120(h)(3) says that the prohibition on transfer by deed may be deferred if EPA or the State determines that (i) the property is suitable for transfer; and (ii) the contract of sale or other agreement governing the transfer between the United States and the transferee of the property contains assurances that all appropriate remedial action will be taken with respect to any releases or threaten releases at or from the property that occurred or existed prior to the transfer." THIS IS A MAJOR REVISION TO THE SUPERFUND LAW. IT WOULD APPLY TO ALL FEDERAL FACILITIES, NOT JUST CLOSING MILITARY BASES. Proponents of the change, apparently including US EPA, argue: * Earlier transfer would make it easier for localities suffering from the negative economic impacts of base closure to line up financing for new beneficial uses. * This puts federal facilities on an even footing with privately owned sites. * The obligation to clean up remains. In fact, the Defense Department has an active program that identifies and remediates formerly used defense sites that were transferred before their level of contamination was known. Opponents of the change argue: * Other changes in the law, such as CERFA (the Comprehensive Environmental Response Facilitation Act) have already made it easier to accelerate the transfer of property that is suitable for transfer. * Unlike private facilities, federal agencies cannot be forced to spend money that Congress has not appropriated. To overcome that problem, section 120(h) - the prohibition on transfer - gives regulators the authority they need to force cleanup. * Cleanup at most formerly used defense sites is proceeding at an extremely slow rate, despite the fact that many of these are used by the public. * Superfund changes should be made as part of the Superfund reauthorization process, with full participation by Congressional committees with environmental jurisdiction. At the policy level, this is a debate between people who, on both sides, spend their time planning, implementing, and regulating cleanup. However, in the field - where the backhoe meets the road, enactment of this proposal would strengthen the bargaining position of those military and regulatory officials who are trying to limit actual environmental restoration. In this era of tight federal budgets, there is constant pressure for communities with closing bases to compromise environmental standards to hasten reuse of closing or closed military bases. Sometimes certain interests in those communities shortsightedly want rapid reuse at the expense of environmental protection. In my opinion, the weakening of the prohibition on transfer would weaken the bargaining position of communities that want full, rapid cleanup. It might still be possible to convince EPA or state officials that transfer-before-cleanup is unsuitable, but it will be difficult. In the short run, sweeping contamination under the rug may lead to more rapid reuse, but contamination may re-emerge later and undermine public health, environmental protection, and even the economic benefits of new uses. It's better to do it right the first time. That is, follow the current law and put all remedies in place before permitting the transfer of contaminated federal property. The Superfund provisions in the Defense Authorization Act next go to the Senate floor. The Senate Environment Committee, which has jurisdiction over CERCLA, plays no direct role in the debate. If approved, the legislation goes to a Senate-House conference committee. Though the House bill does not include any of these provision, many of the members of the House National Security Committee are likely to support them. Thus, unless there is a major outcry from state officials or community activists, one of the major protections in the Superfund law will disappear. Lenny Siegel | |
Prev by Date: NEW RANGE RULE DRAFT Next by Date: THE GOOD, BAD, AND UGLY | |
Prev by Thread: NEW RANGE RULE DRAFT Next by Thread: THE GOOD, BAD, AND UGLY |