Re: "DEFENSE REFORM" ANALYSIS

["Barry Steinberg" <kutak_r@ix.netcom.com>]

Lenny-- reference HR1778. I am VERY concerned over the language in
section 302 which addresses "reasonably anticipated land uses" in the
remedy selection process. That language is not identified as a factor in
the selection of an institutional control. My fear is that this
legitimizes institutional controls in the legislation, as opposed to
the NCP, without providing a safeguard to the local community with
respect to the decision of what the reasonably anticipated land uses
will be. An institutional control, selected as part of the remedy, can
foreclose future uses, and in so doing, becomes a self fulfilling
prophesy. If the Feds are going to use institutional controls to limit
the cost and duration of cleanup, the buy in by the local community
should be a lot stronger than the list of factors which the President
shall consider. I would advocate a position that an institutional
control which limits future use of land shall not be imposed without the
concurrence of the local governmental body which will exercise municipal
jurisdiction over the land in question. Given the trend toward reducing
budgets for cleanup, which impacts most directly on DoD and DoE
communities, there is a lot of pressure being brought to bear on
communities to accept industrial levels of remediation. So long as the
DoD policy, expressed in the BRIM, is that the level of cleanup will be
to the level necessary to support the reuse plan, there is a safeguard
to my concern. But this legislation will no doubt be used for the
proposition that the federal agency ( DoD under Executive Order 12580)
will determine what the reasonably anticipated future use will be. Note
that the list of factors in the statutory proposal is not an exclusive
list. I can envision at least one of the services saying that the local
reuse plan is speculative and does not represent a financially viable
opportunity. The critical issue is, who will decide what is best and
achievable for the local community. The Federal agency, responsible for
the contamination and the source of scarce funds to remediate, or the
local community, which in the case of base closure property, has already
suffered a severe economic blow and now must contend with the agency
which is leaving to determine what is likely to be the future use of the
land. Barry Steinberg