1. 1 LAND USE CONTROLS THE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Presented by MGP Partners LLC December 7, 2000

2. Presented by MGP Partners 2 MGP Partners LLC Founded in 1997 as real estate firm focused on rehabilitating contaminated sites nationwide Partners have completed over 30 risk based cleanups in 22 states as brownfield redevelopers Providing advisory services to corporations, institutions and governments for developing strategies to finance, remediate, redevelop and manage the risks of properties having environmental conditions Experience with Superfund, RCRA and Brownfield sites

3. December 7, 2000Presented by MGP Partners 3 Importance of Land Use Controls (“LUCs”) Viability of LUCs underlie most risk based cleanups Failure of LUCs may cast doubt on acceptance of risk based cleanups and affect the achievement of GPRA goals Important public policy interest in ensuring integrity of LUCs

4. December 7, 2000Presented by MGP Partners 4 Interested Stakeholders Government Regulators Owners/PRPs Buyers Lending Institutions Neighbors Communities Municipalities

5. December 7, 2000Presented by MGP Partners 5 Where are we today? LUCs not uniformly integrated into remedy selection process No clear-cut approach to monitoring compliance State laws and resources vary Enforcement is uncertain Remedies for failure of LUCs not clearly defined Regional Inconsistencies

6. December 7, 2000Presented by MGP Partners 6 Areas of Concern Viability of Specific LUCs Financial Assurances Monitoring Notice Remedial Costs Involved with Failure of LUCs Compliance Access to Information

7. December 7, 2000Presented by MGP Partners 7 Design of Pilot Study A conceptual model for study in Pennsylvania Use of not-for-profit 501(c) Trust Trust holds rights and assumes obligations for LUCs Trust receives fees from private and public sources to administer LUCs

8. December 7, 2000Presented by MGP Partners 8

9. December 7, 2000Presented by MGP Partners 9 Benefits and Services Shifting burden of financial risk from government to Trust  Government $$ replaced with Trust funds  More efficient use of state resources Creating institutional responsibility for stewardship of LUCs  Trust can integrate federal oversight with varying state programs  Consistent outcomes not requiring similar state programs  Quality assurance for remedy monitoring and compliance on a state, regional and national basis Infrastructure created in Pilot Study can be duplicated efficiently in other states

10. December 7, 2000Presented by MGP Partners 10 Proposed Trust Responsibilities Certifying Viability of LUCs Providing Financial Assurance Monitoring Compliance Reporting and Notice to Stakeholders Ensuring Compliance with LUCs Maintaining Database

11. December 7, 2000Presented by MGP Partners 11 Public/Private Partnerships USEPA/PADEP MGP Partners LLC Potential Partners  Other States  Federal Agencies and Departments  Municipalities

12. December 7, 2000Presented by MGP Partners 12 Final Comments Risk-based closures require viable LUCs LUCs must be maintained to be effective Public/private trust may ensure the integrity of LUCs