United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-86/066 Feb. 1987
Project Summary
Reclamation and
Redevelopment of
Contaminated Land:
Volume I. U.S. Case Studies
G. L Kingsbury and R. M. Ray
The full report. Volume I of a two-
volume set, presents information on
reclamation and redevelopment of con-
taminated land in the United States.
Case studies describe land use history,
nature of the contamination, redevel-
opment objectives, site remediation,
and criteria for cleanup.
In numerous cases in the United
States, uncontrolled dumping and in-
dustrial spills have contaminated prop-
erties with hazardous materials (now
more than 18,000 sites have been in-
ventoried by the U.S. EPA). Since many
of these properties are in prime urban
locations, issues surrounding the recla-
mation and redevelopment of contami-
nated properties have assumed na-
tional importance. The principal
objective of this study has been to doc-
ument with case studies relationships
between site remediation methods,
cleanliness criteria, and redevelopment
land uses.
After extensive interviews with fed-
eral and state officials in all 50 states,
16 uncontrolled hazardous waste sites
were selected for detailed study. For
each of these sites, remedial actions
have been undertaken or are planned,
with some upgraded redevelopment of
the property in mind. Redevelopments
include single- and multi-family resi-
dential, recreational, commercial, insti-
tutional, and light industrial land uses.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Hazardous Waste Engi-
neering Research Laboratory, Cincin-
nati, OH, to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the same
title (see Project Report ordering Infor-
mation at back).
Introduction
In view of the large number of uncon-
trolled hazardous waste sites in the
United States and the extent of effort
required to properly remediate these
sites, issues related to uncontrolled haz-
ardous waste site remediation and re-
development are of national signifi-
cance. However, because site
remediation and reuse are relatively
new public concerns, very little informa-
tion concerning hazardous waste site
redevelopment has previously been
compiled to describe instances where
redevelopment has occurred following
site cleanup. The full report presents a
beginning in this new area.
Purpose
The purpose of the full report is to
document the value and importance of
land reuse planning in the design of
hazardous waste remediation meas-
ures. Major^emphasis is placed on pre-
senting the functional relationships
among alternatives with respect to site
remediation methods, cleanup criteria,
and options for reuse. The three main
objectives are to:
1. identify and document specific in-
stances where uncontrolled haz-
ardous waste sites have been
cleaned up and redeveloped;
2. assemble information on the
criteria used to guide hazardous
waste cleanups; and
-------
3. examine the relationships be-
tween site reuse and the extent of
remediation or cleanup criteria.
Case Studies
To serve as case studies to illustrate
contaminated land reclamation and de-
velopment, 16 sites located in nine
states were selected and examined in
detail. Case study sites included former
Department of Defense (DOD) proper-
ties, defunct coal gasification sites,
abandoned chemical recovery and
drum recycling facilities, a former steel
mill, munitions, fertilizer, and pesticide
manufacturing sites, a coal tar refinery,
a warehouse for chemical storage, and
several uncontrolled dump sites. Land
reuses at these sites included industrial
parks, recreation parks, a hotel and con-
vention complex, single family resi-
dences, a public school, residential con-
dominiums, a housing complex for
handicapped and elderly, a neighbor-
hood playground, and State offices and
facilities.
Six of the land reuse case studies
were located in California. Concerns at
these sites pertained mainly to potential
exposure of persons who might live or
work at the site following redevelop-
ment. In most cases, material and soil
that was determined by the California
Department of Health Services (CDHS)
to be hazardous was removed to a per-
mitted disposal facility. All of the Cali-
fornia case studies were located near
large metropolitan areas.
In Hercules, California, the former site
of the Hercules Powder Works which
manufactured dynamite and other mu-
nitions from 1912 until 1963, three cases
of successful redevelopment were doc-
umented. A residential subdivision (sin-
gle family homes) with a public school
was developed as Bayside Village on
the southernmost portion of the former
Hercules property following a very
stringent remediation effort in 1981.
Cleanup operations on a second tract of
the property were completed in 1983 by
Bio-Rad Laboratories, and an industrial
park is currently being developed there.
Another tract of 50 acres was also
cleaned up in 1983 to make way for the
residential condominiums known as
Hercules Village.
Residential condominiums were also
developed at former uncontrolled haz-
ardous waste sites in Huntington Beach
and Yorba Linda, California. Contamina-
tion at these sites stemmed from dump-
ing of refinery wastes including both
acid and alkali sludges. The removal op-
erations at these sites were complicated
by extensive foul odors from sulfur
compounds released from the
petroleum waste during excavation. All
waste material and contaminated soil
were removed to a landfill permitted to
receive hazardous waste.
In south San Francisco a former steel
mill and fabrication plant site was rede-
veloped as "The Gateway," a hotel and
convention center complex. The reme-
diation agreement stipulated that the lo-
cation of the contaminated soils be
clearly designated on a site map and
that these areas not be excavated or
substantially disturbed in the future
without CDHS approval. A deed restric-
tion was negotiated as a way of enforc-
ing these provisions over time.
The Dade County Transit Authority
has plans for a maintenance facility at
the former Miami Drum Services site in
Miami, Florida. The contamination re-
sulting from the drum recycling opera-
tion caused major concern because the
Biscayne Aquifer, which supplies the
drinking water for Dade County, lies
only one meter below the natural
ground surface at the site. Although
total metal concentrations in the soil
were used as guidance in the initial ex-
cavations, final excavations were
guided by the results of chemical tests,
together with engineering and scientific
judgment.
The former Chemical Metals Indus-
tries, Inc. sites in Baltimore, Maryland,
also presented an immediate potential
hazard. In this case, the major concerns
included imminent threat of fire or ex-
plosion in the residential neighborhood
due to the chemical incompatibilities of
the materials present and to the poten-
tial hazard posed by runoff from the
site. Following a remedial action under
CERCLA, the site now serves as a neigh-
borhood playground and as the location
of a State office building.
In Winooski, Vermont, a warehouse
formerly occupied by a silk-screening
firm and used for storing a variety of
chemicals has been renovated to pro-
vide housing for elderly and handi-
capped persons. Remedial action at the
site involved removal of piles of solid
chemical wastes that had filtered
through cracks and holes in the wooden
flooring.
Remediation and redevelopment at
the Kapkowski Road site in Newark,
New Jersey, are underway by the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Pockets of PCB-laden oil are being elim-
inated through a series of oil recovery
wells. The site had been used for mai
years as a dump, receiving solid refu
and waste oil. The property is adjacen
to the Newark Airport, a prime location
for an industrial park. The extent of the
remediation to be performed will be de-
termined when excavation begins for
building. If, during construction, soils
are encountered that contain more than
5 ppm of PCBs, the contaminated mate-
rial will be removed to a permitted dis-
posal facility.
A local Industrial Foundation in Glen-
wood, Iowa, is currently seeking a ten-
ant for a site formerly occupied by a
pesticide plant. An extensive cleanup at
the site was carried out following a fire
in 1979.
At Pittsburgh, New York, a. recre-
ation park now occupies a site where a
coal gas generating plant operated from
1896 until 1960. Large quantities of coal
tars stored in unlined ponds resulted in
the contamination. The site remediation
consists of containment onsite and a
cement-bentonite partial cutoff wall to
arrest any further migration of the con-
tamination into the Saranac River. In al-
lowing the material to remain onsite,
the New York State Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has
imposed certain restrictions to develop-
ment.
Two other coal gasification sites lo-
cated in Seattle and Bellingham, Wash-
ington, are now used as recreation
parks. The extent of the remediation ef-
forts at these sites is not documented
because at the time of the redevelop-
ment, hazardous wastes were not of
much concern. Recent investigations at
both sites have revealed the presence of
high levels of polycyclic aromatic hy-
drocarbons from coal tar.
Among the U.S. Department of De-
fense (DOD) sites where remediation
and redevelopment have been under-
taken is the Frankford Arsenal site lo-
cated in eastern Philadelphia on the Del-
aware River. For more than 150 years,
this 110 acre site was associated with
federal munitions research, develop-
ment, and production. When the U.S.
Army decided to excess the facility in
1976, the U.S. Army Toxic and Haz-
ardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA)
assumed responsibility for the site
cleanup to satisfy the requirements of
the General Services Administration
prior to sale of the property to private
developers. A large portion of the old
arsenal has been sold to a development
consortium and will be developed for
use by multiple tenants for light indus-
-------
_try. The property closest to the water is
intended for use as a regional marina
and park to be built by the Pennsylvania
State Fish Commission. Projected for
completion in 1986, development of this
18-acre facility is expected to cost $3
million.
The redevelopment of a former coal
tar refinery site in Renton, Washington,
is currently in the planning stage. The
site has extensive contamination from
slag and waste landfilled during the op-
eration of the refinery which produced
creosote and pitch for wood preserving.
A private development consortium has
proposed a remediation scheme which
is considered by the Regional EPA offi-
cials and local authorities to be sound.
The proposed remediation and redevel-
opment plans have been delayed re-
cently because the site was placed on
the National Priorities List (NPL).
Conclusions
There are many instances in the
United States where uncontrolled haz-
ardous waste sites have been or soon
will be redeveloped for some upgraded
land use. This trend is expected to in-
crease as more sites are remediated.
Sites that are redeveloped following
hazardous waste cleanups are not eas-
ily documented through references to
the open literature, for several reasons.
First, the brief history of federally sup-
ported waste site remediation efforts in
this country has not yet resulted in a
long list of completed projects. Second,
the substantial costs and investment
risks associated with hazardous waste
site cleanup operations appear to have
discouraged developers from attempt-
ing to reclaim many contaminated sites.
Third, the delays associated with
decision-making may stifle redevelop-
ment projects where hazardous wastes
are involved. When developers do be-
come involved with an uncontrolled
hazardous waste site, they try to per-
form the necessary remediation to the
satisfaction of the regional and local au-
thorities with little publicity, if possible.
Uncontrolled waste site development
projects appear to be of two distinctly
different types. The first typ, nay be
termed the developer-initiated ^devel-
opment effort. Such cases of site
cleanup and redevelopment occur in
large metropolitan regions and other
areas where the locational advantages
of a site alone are so great that cleanup
costs can be recovered through future
resale of the remediated property. In
such cases, the decision to remediate
and redevelop a specific site is made in
the private sector, and the public sector
simply regulates and certifies the
cleanup process. Such was the case for
several of the examples of site redevel-
opment case studies in California.
The second type of hazardous waste
site redevelopment project is the public-
initiated project where reuse of the land
is clearly secondary in importance to
the site remediation that is required for
public health and safety. This appears to
be the case, for example, with almost all
sites on the NPL. For most public-
initiated cleanup operations, remedia-
tion activities are so complicated and
costly that the economic value of the
site following cleanup only partially jus-
tifies the cleanup operation, if at all.
Where a remediated site passes into
public ownership, reuse will probably
be determined by the specific property
needs of the governing body at that par-
ticular location and time.
It is important to note that these two
types of hazardous waste site redevel-
opments result from two entirely differ-
ent motivating forces. In the first case
(developer-initiated cleanups), the de-
veloper is simply responding to land
market forces and diverting into
cleanup operations dollars that would
otherwise be used to purchase uncon-
taminated land. In the second case
(public-initiated cleanups), the redevel-
opment decision is made in the public
sector, and there is no explicit require-
ment that cleanup costs be recovered
through future uses of the property.
Of the reuse sites examined in this
study, few involved Super-fund monies.
The complexity of the legal process in
dealing with Superfund site cleanup is
not conducive to deliberate redevelop-
ment efforts. Even in cases where emer-
gency remedial response actions have
been completed, it appears that the site
may remain in receivership and go un-
used for long periods of time (typically
several years) while the courts decide
cost recovery and/or property owner-
ship issues.
A central issue for the planning of any
site redevelopment is the criteria to be
used in determining the extent of
cleanup that is to be required. Accept-
able concentration limits to establish
the extent of cleanup that is necessary
to protect public health and welfare
have not been determined for most
toxic substances of concern.
Almost all states have problems deal-
ing with the "how-clean-is-clean?"
issue. Since different uses may imply a
need for different cleanup criteria, this
type of judgment must be made on a
case-by-case basis. Residential use is
generally felt to require the most strin-
gent cleanup.
In order to determine acceptable con-
taminant levels in soils, two primary ex-
posure routes are usually considered—
1. inhalation of gases, vapors, or air-
borne particulate emanating from
the site; and
2. ingestion of contaminated drink-
ing water.
Other routes that can contribute to ex-
posure include absorption of pollutants
through direct skin contact or uptake of
water or soil contaminants by plants
and subsequent ingestion by man.
Recognized guidelines pertaining to
acceptable pollutant levels include air
quality standards, occupational expo-
sure guidelines, drinking water stand-
ards, and water quality criteria. Al-
though developed for other purposes,
these established sets of guidelines are
frequently relied upon as criteria for
cleanup.
Most states have not established a
systematic screening approach to iden-
tify potential hazardous wastes sites in-
cluding sites with potential for reuse. As
a result, plans to develop an uncon-
trolled hazardous waste site for a sensi-
tive reuse could proceed without com-
ing to the attention of the State
authorities. Most states do not have a
plan or formal mechanism for dealing
with redevelopment of contaminated
land. The only work that has been done
in some states is the cleanup of spills or
other emergency response action.
California appears to lead other states
in the formulation and enactment of leg-
islation and regulations pertaining to
the cleanup and redevelopment of
properties contaminated with haz-
ardous waste. With adoption of the
CAM Standards, California has begun to
define quantitatively what is meant by
"hazardous waste contamination."
Their program for guiding redevelop-
ment of contaminated land appears to
be the most advanced state program in
the Nation.
There are many sites in the United
States that require remedial actions and
reuse planning. The learning experi-
ences of developers and public agen-
cies addressing the issues arising from
contaminated land and its redevelop-
ment can benefit others who might be
involved in similar activities. Therefore,
an ongoing effort to assemble the type
of information provided through this
-------
study could serve as a valuable source
of information for federal, state, and
local authorities. Such information
would also be of value to developers in
the private sector who, having more
knowledge of successful redevelop-
ment projects as well as potential pit-
falls, might be more inclined to get in-
volved in remedial actions.
The full report was submitted in fulfill-
ment of Contract No. 68-03-3149, 23-1
by Research Triangle Institute under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Carrie L Kingsbury and Robert M. Ray are with Research Triangle Institute,
Research Triangle Park. NC 27709.
Naomi P. Berkley is the EPA Project Officer (see below)
The complete report, entitled "Reclamation and Redevelopment of Contaminated
Land: Volume I. U.S. Case Studies." (Order No. PB 87-142 121/AS; Cost:
$18.95, subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield. VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
:C!ALM«C
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S2-86/066
0000329 PS
------- |