Posts

Brownfields Road Map (U.S. EPA, 2018)

Prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Office of Land and Emergency Management, The Brownfields Road Map 6th Edition breaks down Brownfields site investigation and cleanup into an easy to understand, step-by-step process that provides valuable and up-to-date information to a wide range of Brownfields stakeholders involved in or affected by the redevelopment of Brownfields sites. It introduces readers to a range of considerations and activities, and provides links to online technical resources and tools.

The first edition of the Road Map, published in 1997, provided a broad overview of the U.S. EPA Brownfields Program and an outline of the steps involved in the cleanup of a Brownfields site. Designed primarily for stakeholders who were unfamiliar with the elements of cleaning up a Brownfields site, the Road Map built awareness of the advantages offered by innovative technologies. As the EPA Brownfields Program
matured, the second (1999), third (2001), and fourth (2005) editions were published to update information and resources associated with the program, innovative technologies, and emerging best practices. The fifth edition, published in 2012, streamlined the publication to make it more accessible to users, providing additional resources covering new technology applications and methods.

This edition builds off the streamlined approach of the fifth edition, providing updated content and guidance on the Brownfields remediation process. New features include an updated list of “Spotlights,” highlighting and describing key issues. This edition provides updated information on Brownfields funding and best management practices (BMPs), with guidance on how to incorporate greener cleanups and new standards into the cleanup process.

This edition of the Road Map will help:

  • New and less experienced stakeholders. The Road Map will help these users learn about the technical aspects of Brownfields by introducing general concepts and methods for site investigation and cleanup.
  • Decision-makers who are familiar with the EPA Brownfields Program but are also interested in obtaining more detailed information. The Road Map provides these users with up-to-date information about the applicability of technologies and access to the latest resources that can assist them in making technology decisions. In addition, it highlights BMPs that have emerged in recent years.
  • Community members. The Road Map helps to encourage community members to participate in the decision making process by providing information about the general site cleanup process and tools and alternatives to site cleanup, as well as guidelines and mechanisms to promote community involvement.
  • Tribal leaders. The Road Map offers information on technical and financial assistance specific to tribes for implementing cleanup and restoration activities on tribal lands, as well as successful remediation examples highlighting the potential community restoration opportunities associated with Section 128(a) Response Program funding.
  • Stakeholders who hire or oversee site cleanup professionals. The Road Map includes information to help stakeholders coordinate with many different cleanup practitioners, such as environmental professionals, cleanup service providers, technology vendors or staff of analytical laboratories. The Road Map provides these stakeholders with a detailed understanding of each phase in a typical Brownfields site cleanup and presents information about the roles that environmental practitioners play in the process.
  • Regulators. The Road Map will increase the understanding by regulatory personnel of site characterization and cleanup technologies and approaches. The Road Map also serves as a resource that regulators can use to provide site owners, service providers and other stakeholders with useful information about the EPA Brownfields Program. The Road Map also provides links and pointers to additional information on specific technologies, approaches, and issues.
  • Other potential Brownfields stakeholders. The Road Map helps other stakeholders, such as financial institutions and insurance agencies, by providing information for their use in assessing and minimizing financial risks associated with Brownfields redevelopment.

The Road Map draws on the EPA’s experiences with Brownfields sites, as well as Superfund sites, corrective action sites under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and underground storage tank (UST) sites to provide technical information useful to Brownfield stakeholders. Specific conditions—such as the nature and extent of contamination, the proposed reuses of the property, the financial resources available, and the level of support from neighboring communities—vary from site to site. Readers of the Road Map are encouraged to explore opportunities to use the BMPs described in the following pages in accordance with applicable regulatory program requirements. The use of BMPs and site characterization and cleanup technologies may require site specific decisions to be made with input from state, tribal, and/or local regulators and other oversight bodies.

 

Tracking brownfield redevelopment outcomes using Ontario’s RSCs

By David Nguyen, staff writer, Hazmat Management Magazine

GeoEnviroPro’s latest webinar event featured Dr. Christopher De Sousa, a professor and director of the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Ryerson University.  He spoke about his research using record of site conditions (RSCs) to track brownfield developments in Ontario.

Christopher De Sousa.BA, MScPL, PhD (Associate Professor, Ryerson University)

A RSC is typically filed on the Environmental Site Registry with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) after property has undergone a Phase I, and often a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and the property is undergoing a zoning change to a more sensitive land use (i.e., industrial to residential).  A record of site condition summarizes the environmental condition of a property, based on the completion of ESAs.

De Sousa’s research focussed on the effects of the RCS legislation since its introduction in 2004, focussing on the scale and value of projects using RSCs from 2004 to 2015 (noting the revisions to the RSC legislation in 2011).  Property Assessments and Tax information was used to determine the nature of the developments that have occurred on brownfields.  Private sector stakeholders were interviewed to determine the factors that influence private sectors to develop on brownfields.

The research showed that from 2004 – 2015, 31% of RSCs were filed for Toronto properties.  However, the cities with the greatest total area redeveloped (based on RSC filings) were Brampton and Vaughn, with Toronto having the third largest total area redeveloped. With the exception of Ottawa, projects requiring RSCs occurred primarily in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area.

Of the RSCs filed from 2004 – 2015, 24% consisted of only Phase I environmental site assessments (ESA), 69% consisted of a generic Phase I and II ESAs, and 7% used a Phase I and II ESA combined with a site specific risk assessment.

With land use changes, the most common previous land use was commercial (36.8%) followed by industrial (22.3%) and the most common intended land use was residential (67.5%) followed by commercial (14.9%).

Toronto’s development focussed on residential projects located near major transit and roadways (85.6% of which being condos).  Smaller municipalities like Waterloo and Kingston also primarily developed residential properties (31% and 58%, respectively).  De Sousa notes that provincial growth plans and community improvement plans can help municipalities be more proactive in housing and economic development goals.

From a private sector perspective, the main motivations for brownfield developments are based on real estate factors (profit, market, locations), with barriers being costs, liabilities, and time (in project reviews and approvals).

Facilitation strategies that governments can utilize involve financial and regulatory changes, particularly in more effective and efficient processes and tools in high priority areas, with perhaps more government intervening regulations in secondary/ weaker markets to encourage development of brownfields vs. greenfields.

Toronto’s Port Lands feature numerous brownfields sites, image by Marcus Mitanis

Canadian National Brownfield Summit – June 13th 2018

Learning from the Past; Charting the Future
Attend Canada’s First Brownfield Summit, hosted by CBN

CBN is pleased to host the first-ever Brownfield Summit as this year’s edition of our annual conference. Join us in
Toronto June 13. The summit will feature:

  • Our popular Cross-country Check-up: a session on recent regulatory changes and an opportunity to learn about new initiatives from our panel of regulators
  • Legal Update: case law shapes our practice as brownfielders. This session will feature presentations on the most recent court cases affecting brownfields
  • Emerging Technology: focused presentations on the technological trends that will affect your brownfield practice today and in the future
  • NRTEE +15: the cornerstone of the Summit. Revisit the 2003 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) report as we find out what has worked, what still needs to be done, and what challenges are emerging. Then, join us in a discussion and determination of the brownfield agenda for the next few years

This will be a working event, so be prepared – bring the knowledge you’ve gained as a brownfield practitioner and your insights into brownfield redevelopment/reuse, roll up your sleeves and set the stage for the future of brownfields in Canada!

Register Today!

Contaminated sites could pose issue for Saskatoon’s transit plan

As reported in the Phil Tank in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, the city of Saskatoon has tested the soil at several locations where transit stations are planned for the bus rapid transit (BRT) system. The results of the tests will not be known until later this month, but Mayor Charlie Clark says contaminated sites, like former gas stations, pose a big issue for Canadian cities.

The testing took place along the proposed BRT red line, which is expected to run on 22nd Street on the west side of the river and on Eighth Street on the east side.

“Brownfields (contaminated sites) along some of these major streets are a real problem,” Clark told reporters Tuesday at city hall. “We have a lot of gas stations that have been abandoned, left there and the owners are just sitting on them and not allowing them to be sold and redeveloped.”

The CP railway crossing on 22nd Street, one of the main routes of the BRT system. (Google Maps)

Clark, who was promoting an event to gather residents’ input on the city’s various growth plans, said he would like to see clearer rules from the province and the federal government on contaminated sites.

The City of Saskatoon has limited tools to force sites to be sold or redeveloped or to compel owners to clean up contamination, he said.

“We frankly don’t think the taxpayers of Saskatoon should have to pay to clean up contaminated sites where somebody was operating a gas station or a fuel distribution site for many years, generating a profit off of it, and then leaving it as a barren and wasted piece of land,” Clark said.

The city’s brownfield renewal strategy is among a number of different planks in its overall growth strategy, which was featured at a community open house in early March.

Brownfield Renewal Strategy

Saskatoon’s Brownfield Renewal Srategy (“BRS”) states that abandoned, vacant, derelict, underutilized properties shouldn’t stop revitalization.  The strategy supports redevelopment of brownfield sites to maximize their potential and revitalize the main transportation corridors within the City.  The goal of the BRS is to create environmental guidance manuals, provide advisory services, and implement incentive programs to encourage brownfield redevelopment.

The City of Saskatoon sees the BRS as requirement for achieving the City’s target of achieving 50% growth through infill.

The BRS will create a suite of tools and programs designed to assist prospective developers and property owners with the environmental requirements associated with impacted and potentially impacted brownfields.

Mayor Clark noted Saskatoon and its surrounding region has been identified as the fastest growing metropolitan area in Canada, with 250,000 additional residents anticipated in the next few decades.

Lesley Anderson, the director of planning and development with the City of Saskatoon, talks renewal strategy

Applied research is reclaiming contaminated urban industrial sites

As reported by Cody McKay in the Vancouver Sun, there is outstanding discovery research occurring at universities across Canada. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of this research doesn’t translate into commercial application.  Consecutive Canadian governments have attempted to tackle this challenge, focusing research dollars on particular aspects of the research-innovation ecosystem.  This has left those not in the funding limelight to cry protest, plead neglect or worse, be under-valued.  Yet the reality is that we need to support all types of research.

Canada needs researchers devoted to fundamental science, but also those who can take existing research knowledge and apply it to solve an identified challenge for society or for industry.

Enter collaborations with applied research.  And a Canadian-made solution.

There are tens of thousands of brownfield sites scattered across Canada — many of them in urban locations. “Brownfields” are those abandoned industrial sites, such as old gas stations, that can’t be redeveloped because of the presence of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants in the soil. As a result, they remain empty, barren eyesores for communities, financial drains for their landowners who can’t repurpose the land and environmental liabilities for future generations.

Over the past decade, a collaboration between Federated Co-operatives Limited, a Western Canada energy solutions company which owns a number of brownfield sites, and the University of Saskatchewan (U of S) developed a variety of methods to stimulate the bacteria in the soil to consume the petroleum-based contaminants more rapidly.

This U of S remediation method is faster than the natural attenuation process, which can take decades.  The U of S method has the potential to remediate a contaminated site in a northern climate in only a few months.  It is also less invasive and potentially more cost-effective than the “dig-and-dump” approach that is popular in some regions of Canada.  “Dig-and-dump” refers to excavating all the contaminated soil at site, transporting it to a landfill for disposal, and filling in the excavation with clean fill.  The research team provided an estimated cost savings on remediation of up to 50 percent, depending on the extent of contamination and the cost of dig-and-dump.  With an estimated 30,000 contaminated gas station sites in Canada, halving remediation costs represents a total potential savings of approximately $7.5 billion.

Collaborating with the University of Saskatchewan and Federated Co-op, and building on their earlier research, Dr. Paolo Mussone, an applied research chair in bio-industrial and chemical process engineering, and his colleagues at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT) Centre for Sensors and System Integration built sensors to monitor the bacteria and track how quickly the pollutants in the soil were degrading.  The team experimented with the technique and the sensors at an old fuel storage site owned by Federated Co-op in Saskatoon that had been leaking for 20 years.  They were able to use the technology to monitor the bacteria’s consumption and adjust the stimuli that increased this consumption in real time.

This applied research significantly shortened the time it took to clean the site, and only a few years later, the land is now home to a commercial retail space.

Dr. Mussone’s work is focused on building prototypes that use emerging nano- and biotechnologies.  The goal of this applied research is to help the energy sector improve operational efficiencies, reduce emissions and accelerate environmental remediation.  So where some would see the scars of industrial activity on the landscape, Dr. Mussone sees an opportunity to put his research into action.

Eventually, Dr. Mussone hopes to see the technology applied across Western Canada, where similar sites continue to hinder community-building efforts.

The science research undertaken by the University of Saskatchewan and Federated Co-op, and the collaborative applied research undertaken by NAIT, has led to a sustainable, commercial solution. Polytechnic institutions excel at this type of research translation.

Sometimes it is far too easy the federal government to forget about the impact of research, only focusing instead on the supply for new science dollars.  Across the country, universities, polytechnics and community colleges are each undertaking research that could have immediate impact, or future benefit.

Rather than pitting these fundamentally different models of research against one another, Canadians should celebrate the diversity of strengths that exist in our country.

Canada has excellent applied research opportunities that can be harnessed for economic impact.  Recognizing and supporting all types of research, and more significantly, fostering research collaboration amongst institutions with different research mandates and missions, is the surest and most positive way to build a sustainable science and innovation ecosystem for Canada.

Reclaiming contaminated land is NAIT Applied Research Chair Dr. Paolo Mussone’s mission

 

 

 

 

 

Canadian Brownfields Survey

The Canadian Brownfields Network (CBN), in conjunction with Ryerson University is conducting a survey on the perceptions of progress on recommendations that the National Roundtable on the Environment & Economy (NRTEE) released in 2003.

The CBN is most interested in knowing if persons involved in brownfield redevelopment feel if progress has been made on the NRTEE’s recommendations.

CBN and Ryerson have developed a survey for NRTEE +15 – have your say: https://survey.ryerson.ca:443/s?s=6603survey.ryerson.ca/s?s=6603 . Survey results will form the basis of discussion at our 2018 Conference June 13. Please participate!

Possible benefits of participating in this study include that we aim to identify methods for increasing brownfields redevelopment activity in Canada, and encourage more involvement in brownfield redevelopment through comprehensive understanding of existing plans and policies.

City of Welland, Ontario and Brownfields Development

As reported in the Welland Tribune, Welland, Ontario is on top of the heap when it comes to incentivizing its brownfield community improvement programs and has success stories it can share and build off of, a consultant told city council this week.

Luciana Piccioni, president of RCI Consulting, was before council Tuesday night to talk about Welland’s draft brownfield community improvement program, an 11-year-old document in need of a review and update.

Piccioni went through four programs the city currently has in place — an environmental site assessment grant program (ESA), brownfields tax assistance program (TAP), brownfields rehabilitation grant program (TIG), and brownfields planning and building permit fees refund program — and what needed to be updated and changed with each.

“Overall, with the exception of the rehabilitation grant program, Welland’s brownfield incentive programs are still competitive. Welland is one of only a few municipalities in Ontario that offers both a development charge reduction and a TIG for brownfield redevelopment projects,” Piccioni said.

He said it’s one thing that sets the municipality apart from others in the province.

Former Atlas Steel Plant in Welland Ontario

As RCI began to update the brownfield community improvement programs, a half-dozen key stakeholders in the development industry and brownfield developers were invited to a workshop.

“That went very well … and we brought back revisions to them and they were very supportive.”

Piccioni said the stakeholders had positive responses about applying for incentive programs and said city staff were recognized as being responsive and good to work with.

The stakeholders also said the city has an open for business and co-operative mindset, but suggested increasing dedicated city staff resources to help speed up the application process.

Comments about Niagara Region with respect to the handling of brownfield and other CIP incentive programs applications were less than positive, Piccioni told council.

Stakeholders also suggested the city increase its flexibility when it comes to interpreting program requirements, allowing for unique situations to be looked at and evaluated for possible inclusion.

It was also suggested the city consider expanding and enhancing the marketing of off of the incentive programs, success stories and long-term benefits.

“You’re starting to have those success stories now,” Piccioni said, adding he expected to have a final draft ready for council to see in April.

Council heard some of the changes being made to the plans included making it harder for people just trying to get financing for a brownfield property with no intention of developing it.

Piccioni said developers would be asked to provide a letter of intent.

“It would prove to us that they intend to redevelop the property. There would be just enough hoops to discourage the pretenders and encourage the intenders.”

As of March 2017, there were 17 applications submitted for ESA grants, the TIG and rehabilitation grants, with 15 approved, two not approved and two abandoned. The total grant amount requested was roughly $560,000.

Proposed U.S. Infrastructure Plan Supports Reuse of Brownfields and Superfund Sites

The Trump Administration released its ambitious $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan on Feb. 12, 2018 – a plan that includes many provisions focused upon encouraging the reuse of contaminated brownfields and Superfund sites.  On the same day, the Administration released its proposed budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, which called for a 23 percent cut from FY 2018 levels in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) budget.  The U.S. EPA also released its final Strategic Plan for 2018-2022, emphasizing a focus upon the agency’s core mission, cooperative federalism and the rule of law.  What does all of this mean for the redevelopment of contaminated sites in the United States?

Infrastructure Plan

 Financial Incentives

The infrastructure program would establish an Incentives Program that could be very beneficial for state and local reuse of contaminated sites.  Up to $100 billion would be set aside for the Incentives Program, which would fund a wide range of projects, including brownfields and Superfund sites, stormwater facilities, wastewater facilities, flood control, water supply, drinking water supply and transportation facilities.  The funds would be divided among the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. EPA.  The infrastructure plan suggests criteria by which applications would be evaluated, with substantial weight (70 percent) being given to obtaining commitments for non-federal revenue for sustainable, long-term funding for infrastructure investments and for operations, maintenance and rehabilitation. In order to motivate performance, the grant recipient would need to enter into an infrastructures incentives agreement with the lead federal agency and to agree to achieve progress milestones. If the milestones are incomplete after two years, the agreement will be voided unless there is good cause to extend the agreement for another year. No individual state could receive more than 10 percent of the total amount available under the Incentives Program.

Additional funds would be set aside for a Rural Infrastructure Program, including funds for brownfields and land revitalization as well as stormwater and wastewater facilities, drinking water, flood risk management and water supply.  States would be required to develop a comprehensive rural infrastructure investment plan (RIIP). Some funds would also be provided for tribal infrastructure and the infrastructure needs of U.S. territories.

Superfund, Brownfield, and RCRA Sites in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2013)

Yet another category of funds would be set aside for the Transformative Projects Program – projects that are likely to be commercially viable but have unique technical and risk characteristics that might deter private sector investment.  Projects that could be covered by this program could fall within commercial space, transportation, clean water, drinking water, energy or broadband.  A total of $20 billion would initially be set aside for this program, with the U.S. Department of Commerce chairing the program.  Funds could be used for demonstration, project planning, capital construction, or all three.  If a project receives financial assistance for capital construction, it would be expected to enter into a value share agreement with the federal government and would be required to publish performance information upon achieving milestones and finishing the project.

The federal government would also dedicate $20 billion from existing federal credit programs, and broaden the use of Private Activity Bonds, to assist complex infrastructure projects. These sources of funding would include: the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA); Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF); Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA); Rural Utility Service (RUS) lending; and Private Activity Bonds (PABs).

The Administration would amend TIFIA to make loans and credit assistance available for other types of projects – such as passenger terminals, runways and related facilities at non-federal waterways and ports as well as airport projects – until FY 2028.  Similarly, the Administration is proposing to amend RRIF to cover the credit risk premium for short-line freight and passenger rail project sponsors, thereby incentivizing more project sponsors to apply for RRIF credit assistance.  It would also like to amend WIFIA (33 U.S.C. 3905) to include flood mitigation, navigation and water supply, and to eliminate the requirement that borrowers be community water supply systems.  The Administration would like to make WIFIA funds available for remediation of water quality contamination by non-liable parties.  It would remove the current spending limit of $3.2 billion, which was put in place when WIFIA was a pilot program, and would amend the restriction upon using WIFIA funds to reimburse costs incurred prior to loan closing.

Liability Relief

The Administration proposes establishing a Superfund Revolving Loan Fund and Grant Program and authorizing sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) to be eligible for brownfields grants.  It would amend the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act in order to do so. This would allow non-liable parties to tap into a low-interest source of funds to perform removals, remedial design, remedial action and long-term stewardship.  The program would be targeted toward portions of NPL sites that were not related to the response action; to portions that could be parceled out from the response action site; to areas where the response action was complete but the site had not yet been delisted; or to areas where the response action was complete but the facility was still subject to a consent order or decree.

The Administration would also propose additional liability protections to states and municipalities acquiring contaminated properties in their capacity as sovereign governments by clarifying and expanding the current liability protections in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 101(20)(D).  These governmental entities would be eligible for grants and would be protected from liability, so long as they meet the obligations imposed upon bona fide prospective purchasers (BFPPs), including exercising appropriate care with regard to releases, so long as they did not contribute to the contamination.

The Administration would also give EPA express authority to enter into administrative settlement agreements with BFPPs or other third parties who wish to clean up and reuse contaminated Superfund sites.  This could include partial and early remedial actions.

The Administration’s infrastructure proposal would encourage greater flexibility in funding and execution requirements, as infrastructure needs should be integrated into cleanup design and implementation. Better integration would allow third-party financing and promote site reuse.

Expedited Permitting

The Administration proposed a “one agency, one decision” environmental review structure, in which a single federal lead agency would complete the environmental review within 21 months and issue either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD).  The lead agency would then have another three months to issue any necessary permits, including state permits issued under federal law pursuant to a delegation of authority.  The agency would not be required to evaluate alternatives outside the scope of the agency’s authority or the applicant’s capability.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) would be directed to revise its regulations to streamline the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to increase the efficiency, predictability and transparency of environmental reviews.  The Administration would eliminate what it considers to be duplicative reviews by EPA under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.  It would also encourage each federal agency to increase its use of categorical exclusions (CEs) and would allow any federal agency to use a CE established by another federal agency without undergoing the CE substantiation and approval process.

The Administration would also recommend amending the law to allow federal agencies to accept funds from non-federal entities to support review of permit applications and other environmental documents to expedite project delivery and defray costs.

The Administration would also make changes under the Clean Water Act to eliminate redundancy and duplication. For example, it would allow federal agencies to select nationwide permits without the need for additional Army Corps review. It would authorize the Secretary of the Army to make jurisdictional determinations under the Clean Water Act and would eliminate EPA’s ability to veto a Section 404 permit under Section 404(c). It would allow the same document to be used for actions under Sections 404 and 408 of the Clean Water Act.  The Administration would lengthen the term of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from five years to 15 years and provide for automatic renewals.

Similar changes would be made under the Clean Air Act. For example, the Administration would amend the Clean Air Act so that state departments of transportation (state DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) would need only to demonstrate conformity to the latest National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), rather than to old and new standards for the same pollutant. Similarly, MPOs would be allowed to demonstrate conformity in a newly designated non-attainment area within one year after EPA has determined that the emissions budget is adequate for conformity purposes.

The Administration proposes eliminating overlapping Section 4(f) review by the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development before the DOT can be authorized to use parklands or historic sites unless there is no prudent or feasible alternative. This process can add an extra 60 days to the project development review process, even when those agencies have little direct involvement in the project. Another layer of review is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Protection Act (NHPA) for historic properties that is not aided by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The Administration recommends that an action taken under a Section 106 agreement should not be considered a “use” under Section 4(f), therefore eliminating some duplication and delay.

The Administration would expand the NEPA assignment program to allow DOT to assign, and states to assume, a broader range of NEPA responsibilities, including project-level transportation level conformity determinations as well as determinations regarding flood plain protections and noise policies to make the NEPA assignment program more efficient.

Also proposed by the Administration is a pilot program with up to 10 pilot sites that would be expected to meet performance standards and enhanced mitigation, in lieu of complying with NEPA and relevant permits or other authorizations.

The Administration also proposed judicial reforms, including limiting injunctive relief to exceptional circumstances and revising the statute of limitations to 150 days (rather than a statute of limitations of up to six years).

Proposed Budget

The Administration also released its “Efficient, Effective, Accountable: An American Budget” on Feb. 12, 2018, in which it proposed a 23 percent cut in EPA’s budget compared to FY 2018.  The White House added $724 million to EPA’s budget in a supplemental request, including $327 million for the Superfund program and $397 million for State and Tribal Assistance Grants for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs).  At the same time, the Administration proposed cuts of 16 percent in grants to states (to $2.9 billion) and proposed cuts of 35 percent in funding to state and local agencies for air quality management (to $152 million).  The Administration requested $151 million for enforcement at Superfund sites and $20 million for the WIFIA program.

U.S. EPA’s Final Strategic Plan

The FY 2018-2022 EPA Strategic Plan, also released on Feb. 12, 2018, continued to emphasize three main goals: the agency’s Core Mission, Cooperative Federalism, and the Rule of Law and Process.  Among its two-year priority goals, The U.S. EPA intends to make an additional 102 Superfund sites and 1,368 brownfields sites ready for anticipated use (RAU) by Sept. 30, 2019. The U.S. EPA intends to use a “Lean” management system designed to deliver measurable results that align with the Strategic Plan.

Objective 1.3 is particularly relevant to the issues discussed above with regard to redevelopment of brownfields and Superfund sites. Objective 1.3 is to revitalize land and prevent contamination by providing better leadership and management to properly clean up contaminated sites to revitalize and return the land back to communities.  The strategic plan identifies both strategic measures and strategies for achieving these goals. First, it announces the number of sites the agency intends to have RAU by Sept. 30, 2022:

  • 255 additional Superfund sites
  • 3,420 additional brownfield sites
  • 536 additional Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facilities
  • 56,000 additional leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites meeting risk-based corrective action standards

The U.S. EPA then announced the strategies by which it intends to achieve these goals, including the use of new technologies and innovative approaches; prioritizing sites that have been on the NPL for five years or more without significant progress; and reprioritizing resources to focus on remedial actions, construction completions, ready for reuse determinations and NPL site deletions.  The U.S. EPA will award competitive grants for the assessment, cleanup and reuse of brownfields sites, and will focus on sites subject to RCRA corrective action and LUST sites.  The U.S. EPA will review more than 12,500 risk management plans (RMPs) to help prevent releases and train RMP inspectors, and it intends to update its RCRA hazardous waste regulations to protect the health of the 20 million people living within 1 mile of a hazardous waste management facility. It will also issue polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) cleanup, storage and disposal approvals, since this work cannot be delegated to states or tribes.  The U.S. EPA acknowledged that many of the sites that remain on the NPL are large, more complex and may contain multiple areas of contamination, and may contain emerging contaminants such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).  The U.S. EPA promised to engage stakeholders at all levels in making cleanup and land revitalization decisions.

As part of Objective 3.1, compliance with the law, the U.S. EPA stated that it would continue to follow an “enforcement first” approach under CERCLA to maximize the participation of responsible parties to perform and pay for cleanups. It indicated it would focus its resources on the highest priority sites that present an immediate risk to human health and the environment, and return these sites to beneficial use as expeditiously as possible.  It will also use advanced monitoring technologies to ensure compliance and work with the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and state associations to modernize ways to improve compliance.

________________________

About the Authors

Amy L. Edwards is the co-chair of the firm’s National Environmental Team, as well as its Military Housing and Installations Redevelopment Team. She is a partner in the firm’s Public Policy & Regulation Group, which has been ranked among the top law and lobbying firms in Washington, D.C., by numerous publications. Ms. Edwards has been recognized as a leading environmental lawyer for several years by Chambers USASuper Lawyers and Best Lawyers. After holding several other leadership positions, she will become the Chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy and Resources (SEER), the pre-eminent national organization representing lawyers in these fields, in 2018-2019.

Nicholas Targ is a San Francisco attorney with more than 20 years of experience assisting clients in the public and private sectors efficiently achieve their land use, environmental and policy goals. He co-chairs Holland & Knight’s national environmental team. Mr. Targ’s practice focuses on complex redevelopment projects, environmental compliance and government advocacy. His representative work includes strategic legal advice on brownfields redevelopment, Superfund compliance, and state and federal grant and policy advocacy. Mr. Targ has successfully advocated for infill funding and policy initiatives on behalf of public, private and nonprofit coalition clients.

This article was first published on the Holland & Knight LLP website.

Growing Interest in Brownfield Redevelopment in Windsor

As reported in the Windsor Star, it has taken almost seven years for a municipal brownfields development incentive program to take hold in the City of Windsor, immediately across the Detroit River from the City of Detroit.

In the last several months, applications to the Brownfield Redevelopment Community Improvement (CIP) Plan have been steadily streaming in — seeking grants to help fund feasibility and soil studies, and then even more money to help pay for the pricey cleanup.

If they become realities, these developments could add up to hundreds of new residences on: the former GM Trim site on Lauzon Road; a collection of former industrial properties between Walkerville and Ford City; and most recently a large property near Tecumseh Road and Howard Avenue that for 50 years was the home of Auto Specialties, a manufacturer of malleable castings and automotive jacks for the auto industry.

Greg Atkinson, a senior planner with the city who co-ordinates the Brownfields CIP program, said it’s “awesome news” that investors are finally taking advantage of this “great incentive package.”  The reason they’re jumping aboard now, he said, is that Windsor’s land prices have risen and residential vacancy rates have declined to the point where developing these cheaper brownfield properties now make financial sense.

“But without the incentives I don’t think they would be redeveloped,” Atkinson said. “With them, they’re pushed into that realm of viability, and that’s what we’re starting to see.”

Almost 140 sites across the city have been identified as brownfield properties, covering 559 acres.

“Historically, there has been little interest in redeveloping brownfield sites due to the uncertainty surrounding the extent of contamination and the potential cost of cleanup,” says a city report that goes to the city’s planning, heritage and economic development standing committee Monday. It says one redeveloped brownfield acre saves 4.5 acres of farmland on a city’s outskirts from being developed, and that for every dollar invested in brownfield redevelopment, $3.80 is invested in the community.

An illustration cut out from an unknown trade publication/manual, circa 1940, shows the Auto Specialties Manufacturing Company (Canada) located near the northeast corner of Tecumseh Road and Howard Avenue. The plant made malleable castings for the automotive industry and also automotive jacks. Photo courtesy of the University of Windsor, Leddy Library. UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR / WINDSOR STAR

“It’s great to see owners and developers coming forward and saying ‘We’d like to tap into this fund because we’re interested in redeveloping this site,” Mayor Drew Dilkens said of the recent flow of applications. “The more of these 140 properties we can activate, the better it will be for all of us in the City of Windsor because it provides more taxes and lowers everyone’s share.”

The most recent application is from THMC Windsor, for a $7,000 grant to pay half the cost of a feasibility study on the viability of redeveloping part of the massive parking lot behind the medical buildings at Howard and Tecumseh into a residential project. Auto Specialties operated on the 12.5-acre site from the 1920s to the 1970s.

The next grant THMC could apply for provides up to $15,000 to cover half the cost of soil and groundwater testing for possible contamination. Then if the owner decides to go ahead with cleanup, the Brownfield Rehabilitation Program compensates for the cleanup costs by effectively freezing taxes where they are (versus what they would rise to when the site’s redeveloped) for the first 10 years. There’s even a big break on development fees.

“It really does cover a lot of costs,” Atkinson said of the program.

Of the 15 applications to the program since 2010, 13 have come in the last 22 months. Grants have totalled $1.9 million, leveraging $16.9 million in private sector investment, according to the city.

The earliest and most prominent success happened at a former gas station property at Dougall Avenue and West Grand Boulevard, which was turned into a small commercial development with the help of $67,000 in city grants. The former Wickes bumper plant — now run as a big UHaul operation, also was rejuvenated thanks to $1.5 million worth of grants. A former gas station at Riverside Drive and Marentette Avenue has been cleaned up and readied for redevelopment. And earlier this year, the Sood family received study grants to redevelop the former Seagrave fire truck plant property on Walker Road into about 12 townhouses and turn 17 acres of largely vacant industrial land south of Edna Street, west of St. Luke Road and north of Richmond Street into between 200 and 250 residential units.

On Monday night, council approved grants totalling $32,000 to help pay for three feasibility and environmental studies costing $97,000 for the 60-acre former GM Trim site. The current owner Farhi Holdings has plans to redevelop the site into a commercial-residential project with about 240 residential units. 

Dilkens said there’s clearly a demand for residential development in the east side of the city where Farhi’s land is located, and replacing the derelict site with a new housing project would benefit the entire area.

But Atkinson cautioned that not all these projects end up being developed. “Sometimes, they’ll determine it’s not feasible, there’s no demand for what they’re thinking of, or they might do the sampling and find out it costs too much to clean up.”

The Walker Power Building in Windsor, Ont., summer 2015

U.S. Federal Brownfield Legislation: U.S. House of Representatives Passes Amendments

By Walter Wright, Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

The U.S. House of Representatives (“House”) on November 30th passed amendments that would address the federal Brownfield program.

H.R. 3017 is titled the “Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017” (“H.R. 3017”).

H.R. 3017 amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and reauthorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”)Brownfield Program.  The legislation appears to have bipartisan support.

Residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial properties are sometimes difficult to sell, redevelop, and/or finance because of perceived or real environmental contamination issues. Properties or facilities subject to such impediments are typically called “Brownfields.”

The EPA has defined a “Brownfield” as “abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial or commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.” Besides EPA, many states have Brownfield programs whose purpose is to eliminate unnecessary barriers of the redevelopment of commercial or industrial properties which may have environmental concerns. Arkansas has had such a program for several years.

H.R. 3017 makes several changes to the federal Brownfield related statutory provisions, which include:

  • Clarifies the liability of states and local units of government that take title to property involuntarily by virtue of their function as a sovereign
  • Clarifies when sites contaminated by petroleum may be considered a Brownfield site and when a leaseholder may qualify for certain liability protections
  • Expands eligibility for nonprofit organizations and for eligible entities that took title to a Brownfield site prior to January 11, 2001
  • Increases the limit for remediation grants under the Brownfields Program, establishes multipurpose grants and allows recovery of a limited administrative cost
  • Adds to the list of criteria for the grant program, whether a grant would facilitate the production of renewable energy
  • Allows EPA to provide additional funds for small, rural, and disadvantaged communities and Indian tribes
  • Reauthorizes funding for Section 104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Section 128(a) of the same statute

A bill addressing federal Brownfield issues has also been introduced in the Senate (“S. 822”). This bill is denominated the “Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development Act of 2017.”

Issues addressed in S.822 include:

  • Funding for technical assistance grants to small communities and rural areas
  • Expansion of the scope of eligible grant recipients to include nonprofit community groups
  • Authorization of funding from multipurpose grants to address more complex sites
  • Allow certain entities that do not qualify as bona fide perspective purchasers to be eligible to receive grants (as long as government entities did not cause or contribute to a release or threaten the release of a hazardous substance at the property)
  • Direct EPA in providing grants to give consideration to Brownfield sites located adjacent to federally designated floodplains

A copy of H.R. 3017 can be downloaded here and copy of Senate Bill 822 here.

This article was first published on the Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. website.

_____________________

About the Author

Walter G. Wright, Jr. is a member of the Business Practice Group.  His practice has focused for almost thirty years on environmental, energy (petroleum marketing), and water law.  Mr. Wright’s expertise includes counseling clients on issues involving environmental permits, compliance strategies, enforcement defense, property redevelopment issues, environmental impact statements, and procurement/management of water rights.

Mr. Wright routinely advises developers, lenders, petroleum marketers, and others about effective strategies for structuring real estate and corporate transactions to address environmental financial risks.  He also serves as General Counsel and provides legislative representation to the Arkansas Oil Marketers Association, Arkansas Recyclers Association (scrap facilities) and Arkansas Manufactured Housing Association.  A unique part of his practice has been drafting and negotiation of a variety of specialized agreements involving the sale or consignment of motor fuels along with the ancillary agreements associated with the upstream segment of the petroleum industry.

Events

Nothing Found

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria