|From:||Emery Graham <"egraham"@ci.wilmington.de.us>|
|Date:||Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:15:09 -0700 (PDT)|
|Subject:||Re: "INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: THE NEXT FRONTIER"|
I don't understand why there shouldn't be stiff fines, jail terms, and penalties for failure to execute institutional control agreements. It seems that there is more than passing hesitance to use normal legal sanctions in situations where the life, health, and safety of the public is at risk. I find it very hard to discount the fact that the vast majority of the decision makers and writers on this topic tend not to be the same people who live close proximity to these hazardous waste sites. Why wouldn't we want this problem to be controlled by those government representatives with the closest ties to the location and to the people most likely to be effected? So let me ask this question. If you were living near a hazardous waste site that had been put back in use and institutional controls were put in place, what level of sanction, monitoring, and control would be satisfactory to you? Would you want your local government, your state government, or your federal government to be the enforcement agency? In this entire hazardous waste site debate there seems to be a point where we are not capable to posit an ideal situation and seemingly retreat from saying what our selfish opinions might be if we were personally confronted with the worse case scenario. The insights and perspectives that emerge from conscious thought about our "selfish" perspective is valuable information in the same sense as any other perspective of the situation is valuable information. It might be surprising to compare the level of concensus generated by "selfish" vs "scientific" perspectives. email@example.com wrote: > Please feel free to post a response to the brownfields listserve or contact > Kate Probst (firstname.lastname@example.org) if you have any specific questions and > comments for the author. > > TC > > Center for Risk Management Newsletter, Resources for the Future > Issue No.15 Spring 1999 > > INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: THE NEXT FRONTIER > > Katherine N. Probst > > After many years of little progress, it appears that the U.S. Environmental > Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund program is making a dent in addressing > the majority of sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). Finally, there > is actually cleanup going on at the majority of sites. Most of those in the > Superfund community can heave a huge sigh of relief that as remedies have > been selected for almost all the sites on the NPL we don't have to continue > to debate "how clean is clean." Unfortunately, however, there is a new > issue that demands policymakers attention: the issue of the reliability and > enforceability of what are called "institutional controls." Institutional > controls in the Superfund context refer to legal measures-such as > permitting, deed restrictions, and zoning-placed on land and groundwater > use to assure that the public does not come into contact with contamination > left on site. While it is hard to get reliable statistics on the use of > institutional controls at NPL (or other) sites, it appears that the > institutional controls are increasingly part of Superfund remedies. > > The lack of reliability of institutional controls is one of the hot topics > being discussed at forums that focus on the future use of contaminated > sites-whether these sites are privately owned sites on the NPL, sites that > are the responsibility of the Departments of Defense and Energy, or > "brownfields" sites. Independent research, by folks at RFF and elsewhere, > suggests that there is good reason to be concerned about the lack of > institutional, legal, and informational mechanisms for enforcing > restrictions on the use of contaminated property. > > Some of the major questions being raised include: What is the legal basis > for institutional controls? Who is responsible for making sure that > institutional controls are monitored? Who has the authority and the > resources to take legal action if institutional controls are not > maintained? Are these activities the responsibility of the federal > government, state governments, or local government? According to recent > surveys by state and local government associations, it appears that each > level of government is under the impression that assuring compliance with > institutional controls is someone else's responsibility. > > One key question is: Who is responsible for making sure that physical > barriers to contain site contamination and efforts to monitor the movement > of contamination are maintained over time after all engineering controls > have been implemented? Increasingly, citizens groups and state and local > governments around contaminated sites are suggesting that responsibility > for these types of activities be clearly spelled out at the same time as > the remedy (or cleanup plan) is selected-not after cleanup is completed, as > is often the case. A major issue is who is going to cover the costs of > these kinds of activities. > > A second question is how can one be sure that whatever measures are needed > to assure the integrity of institutional controls (that is, to assure > long-term protection) are maintained over time? What institutions will be > responsible for these activities in the decades to come, after local > citizens and governments at all levels don't remember the contamination > that was once so visible? > > Some Possible Solutions > > A number of steps can-and should-be taken to address these concerns. These > changes do not require amendments to the Superfund law, which is in a state > of perpetual congressional debate, although they do require leadership on > the part of the federal Superfund program. > > 1. EPA and the states should set up a national web site with information on > land, water, and groundwater restrictions at contaminated sites. One of the > ways to ensure that sites are used in an appropriate manner is to make > public the use restrictions placed on each site. Interestingly, the > Superfund law requires that the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease > Registry (ATSDR), in cooperation with other federal agencies and the > states, "establish and maintain a compete listing of areas closed to the > public or otherwise restricted in use because of toxic substance > contamination." It appears, however, that this information has not been > maintained nor made easily accessible to the public. Implementing this > requirement in a sensible manner and putting the information on the > internet would make information on site use restrictions readily accessible. > > 2. EPA should amend the Superfund National Contingency Plan (NCP) to > clearly set out requirements surrounding the use of institutional controls > at contaminated sites. Most of the language of the NCP, the regulatory > blueprint for the Superfund program, focuses on the process leading up to > and including the selection of a site remedy. Little attention is paid to > assuring the continued protection of the remedy over time. Because a remedy > that relies on institutional controls is only effective-and protective-if > these controls are complied with, it is critical that the same > administrative and legal structure applied to remedy selection be applied > to institutional controls. Specifying more clearly the role of > institutional controls at contaminated properties, and the organization > that will be responsible for monitoring, maintaining and enforcing these > controls is crucial to the success of the Superfund program, and will > provide a model that can be used at contaminated properties not on the NPL. > > 3. EPA and HUD in conjunction with the states should develop national > guidelines for what kinds of information regarding site contamination > should be disclosed to prospective purchasers and tenants, as well as > requirements for public involvement in brownfields programs and funding for > local public information programs. While it would be counterproductive to > issue federal brownfields regulations, much would be gained by national > guidelines articulating recommended policies regarding disclosure of > contamination and risks, and the role of public involvement. This effort > could culminate in a model public involvement program as well as model > disclosure policies for leases and sales agreements of contaminated > properties. > > Implementation of these three proposals alone would not "solve" the problem > of enforcing institutional controls. However, the recommendations would go > a long way toward dealing with a problem that , despite its importance, has > gone largely unaddressed.
Prev by Date: "INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: THE NEXT FRONTIER"|
Next by Date: Creating "brightfields" on Brownfields
Prev by Thread: "INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: THE NEXT FRONTIER"|
Next by Thread: Re: "INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: THE NEXT FRONTIER" -Reply