Institutional controls for future land use at active installation restoration program (IRP) sites

Abstract

One of the strategies now in vogue in hazardous waste cleanup is basing remedial strategies on future land use. The initial thrust of CERCLA for permanent and complete remedies has given way, pushed by concepts like “brownfields” and base closure and reuse, to strategies often based on “institutional controls” that attempt to stabilize future land uses at a site based on residual risk. The heart of this concept is that instead of removing all wastes from a site, some wastes can safely remain so long as in the future the site is not used in such a way that the residual contamination poses an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. “Institutional controls” is a term for land use management strategies that do not rely on engineering approaches to reduce risk, but rather seek to ensure that the site is not used in an inappropriate way in the future.

This article cautions that such a strategy has inherent residual risks that must be understood by those involved in implementing hazardous waste cleanups and those responsible for future uses of contaminated property. Simply put, institutional controls are only as good as the processes that are in place to ensure they are respected in the future. This presents particular problems for active duty installations because most of the protections commonly available to private sector sites are not useful at active installations. This article discusses an initiative by the Air Combat Command to develop a handbook on instituting and maintaining land restrictions. It will also discuss that effort in light of the April 21 EPA Region IV guidance on assuring Land Use Controls at Federal Facilities. This article is based on a paper and presentations given at the 1998 ACC Environmental Training Symposium.