Re: [CPEO-MEF] Implementing Institutional Controls at Brownfields and Other Co

[CPEO Moderator <cpeo@cpeo.org>]

The following is an early version of Lenny Siegel's chapter in the
just-released American Bar Association tome on institutional controls.
It can be downloaded as a Word document at:
http://www.cpeo.org/pubs/ABA%20IC%20Chapter2.doc
____________________________________________

THE PUBLIC VIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS:
Two Case Studies from Moffett Field
by Lenny Siegel
September, 2002

In general, when given the opportunity to comment, public stakeholders -
the people who live, work, study, or play on or near contaminated
property - prefer "complete cleanup" to responses that are designed to
leave contamination in place. They tend to view institutional controls
as risky or ineffective. They see them as a way for responsible parties
to shift their costs to others, or to the future. Many accept
institutional controls as a substitute for cleanup only because they
feel they have little influence over remedy selection.

That generality breaks down, however, when one isolates the reason for
the institutional controls. Active community members do indeed oppose
incomplete cleanup when it results primarily from the desire of a
polluter or developer to save money. However, when there's a better
reason not to treat or remove contamination, the public turns to
institutional controls to add a layer of protection.

Experience at Moffett Field, in my own community, illustrates both the
strength and flexibility of community concerns about cleanups based upon
institutional controls. Moffett Field - until 1994 the Moffett Naval Air
Station - is now owned primarily by NASA, which for decades has operated
the adjacent Ames Research Center.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~