1997 CPEO Military List Archive

From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Reply: cpeo-military
Subject: LAND USE & REMEDY SECTION - RFF
 
[The report described in the press release below appears to be a 
valuable realistic assessment of the relationship of land use to remedy 
selection. It contains a brief case study of Fort Ord, California. I 
may comment on the report when I finish reading it, and I'm trying to 
reformat the executive and case study for posting. Lenny Siegel]

Linking Land Use to Superfund Cleanups Presents Challenges For Managing 
Site Contamination and Sustaining Public Involvement Over the 
Long-Term, RFF Report Finds 

FOR RELEASE: June 11, 1997
CONTACT: Michael Tebo (202) 328-5019 <tebo@rff.org>

WASHINGTON, DC -- As the United States Congress debates revisions to 
Superfund, the law that governs the cleanup of sites contaminated with 
hazardous substances, one of the most important questions is whether to 
require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to base cleanup 
decisions on the expected future land use at a Superfund site. Such an 
approach has the potential to reduce cleanup costs, help local 
governments redevelop sites that have sat idle and encourage more 
public deliberation in cleanup decisions. However, such a policy could 
result in higher levels or residual contamination at sites destined for 
industrial or commercial uses. At these sites, EPA, along with state 
and local governments, will have to devise effective land use controls 
to prevent future exposure and will have to more effectively involve 
the public in cleanup and reuse decisions, according to a new report 
published by Resources for the Future's Center for Risk Management. 

In their report, Linking Land Use and Superfund Cleanups: Uncharted 
Territory, RFF's Katherine Probst, Robert Hersh, Kris Wernstedt and Jan 
Mazurek raise a number of concerns related to land use-based remedies.

"The debate about linking land use and remedy selection at Superfund 
sites has been going on for the past few years," project director 
Katherine Probst says. "There has, however, been little investigation 
of what happens at sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) when 
land use plays a prominent role in the remedy selection process. There 
also has been little analysis of what institutions are involved in 
making land use decisions and maintaining land use these restrictions 
over time. Our report aims to fill these gaps."

In their report, Probst, Hersh, Wernstedt and Mazurek examines how EPA 
currently integrates future land use into remedy selection and describe 
the institutions involved in land use regulation. To illustrate the 
interaction between remedy selection and land use, the researchers 
present case studies of cleanups at three NPL sites - Abex (Portsmouth, 
Virginia), Industri-Plex (Woburn, Massachusetts), and Fort Ord 
(Monterey, California). Each case study examines how land use 
considerations influence site cleanup decisions. 

>From their investigation and analysis, the researchers conclude that:

* Agreement about the future use of a site may not lead to agreement 
about the appropriate remedy - or cleanup standards - for that site. 

* It is often not possible to determine the "anticipated future use" of 
a site, and the remedy selection process can lead to unanticipated land 
uses at Superfund sites. 

* Institutional controls - restrictions placed on groundwater and land 
use - are often critical to ensuring long-term protection, often 
neglected and left to the end of the remedy selection process, and 
subject to legal, administrative, and social pressures that may limit 
their effectiveness. 

* Linking cleanup decisions to land use considerations places an even 
heavier responsibility on EPA to effectively involve the public in the 
remedy selection process. 

Probst, Hersh, Wernstedt, and Mazurek recommend that EPA should revise 
the National Contingency Plan (NCP) - the regulatory blueprint for the 
Superfund program - to address the role of land use in remedy 
selection, including incorporating the development of institutional 
controls into the formal remedy selection process. They also advise 
that EPA, in consultation with state and local governments, develop a 
strategy (for eventual codification in the NCP) to ensure effective 
long-term regulatory oversight of Superfund sites where contamination 
remains at levels that present a risk to public health after the remedy 
has been constructed and implemented.

"Institutional controls 'work' only if they are complied with," Probst 
cautions. "And while this is true of any site remedy, institutional 
controls require monitoring and enforcement over long time periods."

"It is unclear what legal mechanisms are most effective, what 
institutions will be responsible for enforcing institutional controls, 
and who's going to pay for these additional responsibilities," Probst 
says. "We need to be able to answer these questions if land use-based 
remedies are to be protective over the long term."

The research for the report was supported in part by EPA's Office of 
Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of Policy Analysis. The 
report can be downloaded on the Internet at 
<http://www.rff.org/research/reports/home.htm>. Hard copies can be 
ordered by calling (202) 328-5000.

 # # #

  Follow-Ups
  Prev by Date: Re: SENATE PROVISION TARGETS CAPE COD ACTION
Next by Date: Re: SENATE CLEANUP NUMBERS
  Prev by Thread: Re: SENATE CLEANUP NUMBERS
Next by Thread: Re: LAND USE & REMEDY SECTION - RFF

CPEO Home
CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index