From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org> |
Date: | Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:51:19 -0700 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | SIGNED LAND USE/REMEDY LETTER |
We mailed the following signed letter on the relationship of land use to remedy selection, with sign-ons, to decision-makers at U.S. EPA and Cal-EPA on Friday, September 26. Since CAREER/PRO does not engage in direct legislative advocacy, it will be up to others to send copies of the letter directly of members of Congress or state legislatures. Furthermore, since we don't know which state agencies are addressing these issues administratively, we could use help figuring out how to distribute the letter to hazardous waste policy offices in other states. Lenny LAND USE AND REMEDY SELECTION: THE SIGNED LETTER September 26, 1997 Dear Environmental Policy-Maker: We are writing to draw to your attention a significant issue in the development of risk management strategies for hazardous waste cleanup: the relationship of cleanup standards to anticipated future land use. Remedies based upon institutional land use controls often curtail local planning prerogatives simply to benefit responsible parties. They fail to recognize that land use policies in many areas are likely to change over the life of the contamination. Furthermore, controls - even when they are reinforced by legal instruments that "run with the land" - provide uncertain or temporary protection for public health and the environment. Nevertheless, remedies are increasingly being linked to the future use of the contaminated property. We believe that it is both possible and imperative to build safeguards into the decision-making process, both to recognize that land use planning generally is and should remain a local prerogative and to ensure that the local community is prepared to enforce whatever controls are necessary. Specifically, we recommend: * The appropriate regulatory agency(ies) shall not approve any remedy or response that incorporates or requires institutional controls on future land use - that is, which restrict otherwise acceptable uses of the property - without FULL PUBLIC REVIEW (notice and hearings) and approval by the applicable local land use planning authority. Any such process should be designed to involve directly site neighbors and others directly affected by the resulting decisions. * Where, through a formal finding of technical impracticability, it is found that the property cannot be cleaned to the level desired by the community, the local jurisdiction still should be directly involved in the determination of institutional controls, for which in the long run it may bear the responsibility of enforcement. * Review and approval by the local land use planning authority should not diminish the ability of the general community and community working groups or advisory boards to oversee the remedy selection process. This includes the provision of advice regarding the adoption of land use or other controls necessary for remedies to be effective. * In addition, local predominance in land use planning does not and should not override the roles of public trust agencies and natural resource trustees to protect the land and other natural resources for which they have responsibility. * While the level of public involvement in the cleanup decision-making process often diminishes once remedies are selected, it is essential to maintain continuing channels for public oversight wherever those remedies require long-term institutional controls or active operation and maintenance. * In addition, mechanisms to assure the effectiveness of institutional controls are essential. We believe that this approach will increase the likelihood that land use controls will be both appropriate and effective. Anything less passes the economic, health, and natural resource cost of the contamination to the site's neighbors, the community in general, and to future generations. SIGNED: Mary Burtness Co-chair of the King Salmon Air Force Station RAB King Salmon, AK Ecology Center Berkeley, CA Michael Warburton, Coordinator Public Trust Legal Project Berkeley, CA Marady Conner Principal Conner Communication Los Angeles, CA Vernon J. Brechin, Director AE Systems Mountain View, CA Don Zweifel Orange, CA Lenny Siegel Director, SFSU CAREER/PRO San Francisco, CA Peter Strauss, PM Strauss & Associates San Francisco, CA Mark Youngkin Community Member Presidio Restoration Advisory Board San Francisco, CA Anne W. Callison Concerned Taxpayer Denver, CO Richard Hugus Otis Conversion Project, Cape Cod Falmouth, MA Paul Zanis Impact area review team member Forestdale, MA Theodore J. Henry University of Maryland at Baltimore Baltimore, MD Dan Alstott President/CEO AuSable Manistee Action Council Grayling, MI Alice Slater Global Resource Action Center for the Environment New York, NY Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., P.G. Executive Director Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, Inc. Oak Ridge, TN Mavis Belisle Director Peace Farm Panhandle, TX Gerald Pollet J.D. Executive Director Heart of America Northwest Seattle, WA Laura Olah Executive Director Citizens For Safe Water Around Badger Merrimac, WI Bart Olson Sauk County 20th District Supervisor Merrimac, WI | |
Prev by Date: Missile Site destruction by Implode - Impacts on Ground Water Next by Date: Protocol Health Risk Assessment of MMR | |
Prev by Thread: Missile Site destruction by Implode - Impacts on Ground Water Next by Thread: Protocol Health Risk Assessment of MMR |