DIRTY TRANSFER MODIFIED, APPROVED

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>

MODIFIED DIRTY TRANSFER LANGUAGE APPROVED
The House-Senate Conference Committee has modified and approved 
language in the Fiscal Year 1997 Defense Authorization Act, which will 
allow, under specified conditions, the transfer of military bases and 
other federal property to non-federal entities before, as previously 
required by the Superfund law, all remedies are in place. Though the 
bill is far from enactment - the President may veto it for other 
reasons - the current provision is likely to become law.
The new language appeared in the Congressional Record July 30, 1996, 
pp. H9006-9007. Quickly reading the fine print, I have found two 
substantive changes from the Senate-passed version. (The House bill 
included no comparable provision.) When I receive the Conference 
Committee's report, I'll go into more detail.
First, at the request of offices of some state attorneys' general, the 
Administrator of EPA will be authorized to defer the limitation on 
transferring contaminated property on the "Superfund" National 
Priorities List "with the concurrence of the Governor of the State in 
which the facility is located." As before, the Governor decides the 
deferral if the property is not on the National Priorities List. The 
Senate language gave the Governor NO role at Superfund-listed properties.
Second, the Administrator or Governor may determine that a property is 
suitable for transfer based on a finding that: "the property is 
suitable for transfer for the use intended by the transferee, AND THE 
INTENDED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE 
ENVIRONMENT." The ALL CAPS clause is new.
I continue to believe the no one ever showed a need for this major 
change in the Superfund law. While empowered communities should be able 
to use the final language to prevent undesirable transfers, others will 
end up helpless when the armed service or other government agency 
strikes a deal with local development interests, and then tells the 
community, "Take it or leave it."
To minimize the harm, I suggest that activists in states with a strong 
tradition of environmental protection work with their state regulatory 
agencies and attorneys general to develop procedures for the Governor 
or the appropriate officials to make a finding of suitability for the 
transfer of property at which remedies are not in place. If strong, but 
reasonable rules are put into place in those states, others may follow. 
In this way, the damage from this ill-advised change of statute might 
be mitigated.
Lenny Siegel