fO STl,,,
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
(5202G)
EPA 540-F-99-015
OSWER 9375.3-05P
PB99-963319
September 1999
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and
Containment Sites
Through the "Superfund Redevelopment Initiative," EPA is helping communities restore properties, once
restricted from use due to risk to human health and the environment, to productive uses. These uses may
include a range of activities, such as commercial businesses, recreational facilities, and ecologically
enhanced areas. This fact sheet is designed to assist Remedial Project Managers (RPMs). On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs), and State agencies in working with communities to incorporate reuse options into
on-site containment remedies, such as the municipal landfill presumptive remedy, when possible. The
fact sheet does not establish new policy, but rather illustrates how reuse of property has been
accomplished successfully under the existing program at several sites. In addition, the fact sheet
describes design considerations that were creatively implemented at the sites, identifies techniques to
facilitate land use, and discusses potential reuse limitations.
Softball is played at an outdoor recreation complex
developed at the Chisman Creek Superfund Site.
INTRODUCTION
For over eighteen years EPA has characterized and
remediated municipal landfills under its Superfund
program. Based on the wealth of information acquired
and the lessons learned from evaluating and cleaning
up these sites, the Agency developed a presumptive
remedy for CERCLA municipal landfill sites (see
OSWER Directive No. 9355.0-49FS). This
presumptive remedy calls for containment of the
landfill mass, and collection or treatment of landfill gas
and/or leachate, as appropriate. The effectiveness of
the remedy is dependent on a containment system that
is properly operated and maintained, and institutional
controls that provide for the continued integrity of the
containment system, thereby ensuring long-term
protection of future site users. EPA uses similar
containment strategies at other sites where a decision
is made to leave some contaminated material onsite.
In either case, the containment system used at the site
is designed to provide protection of human health and
the environment for both current and future users of
the site.
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites
-------
The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative reflects the Agency's belief that EPA's responsibility to local
communities to clean up contaminated properties in a manner that protects human health and the environment,
generally should be carried out such that cleanups are protective for reasonably anticipated future land use.
Superfund sites can be recycled in a variety of forms, including redevelopment of the site (e.g., construction
of a new facility), reuse of existing resources on the site (e.g., a new business in pre-existing buildings), or
enhancing the ecosystem on and around the site. EPA does not favor one type of reuse over another,
as land use is a local decision. Instead, EPA is working with community leaders to determine remedial
action objectives for cleanups that will allow for reasonably anticipated future land uses, where possible.
Although the landfill presumptive remedy and other containment requirements may limit future uses, EPA
believes that a significant number of sites using containment strategies may be appropriate for future
ecological, recreational, or commercial/industrial reuse. EPA believes that reuse should help to ensure proper
maintenance of the remedy while providing tangible benefits to key stakeholders, especially the surrounding
community. The possible benefits of reuse include:
• Positive economic impacts for communities living around the site including new employment
opportunities, increased property values, and catalysts for additional redevelopment activities;
• Stakeholder acceptance of the municipal landfill presumptive remedy .because of potential time and cost
savings, and increased involvement in the restoration and redevelopment process;
• Enhanced day-to-day attention, potentially resulting in improved maintenance of remedy integrity and
institutional controls; and
• Improved aesthetic quality of the area through discouragement of illegal waste disposal or trespassing
on restricted portions of the site, as well as increased upkeep of the site by future site occupants.
This fact sheet provides information on reuse projects that have been implemented successfully at landfills
and other sites using similar containment remedies. It identifies features to be considered during the design
phase, and highlights examples of project designs that incorporated creative solutions to facilitate reuse. In
addition, this fact sheet addresses reuse issues—such as transfer of operation and maintenance (O&M)
responsibilities and implementation of institutional controls—that are crucial to the continued protection of
human health and the environment. Finally, the fact sheet delineates EPA guidance and tools for stakeholders
interested in reusing a landfill site.
IDENTIFYING REASONABLY ANTICIPATED FUTURE LAND USE
To ensure that a containment remedy is protective for the reasonably anticipated use(s) of a site, RPMs
and/or OSCs should involve stakeholders as early in the Superfund decision-making process as possible.
Discussions with local land use planning authorities, appropriate State and local officials, property owners, and
the public, as appropriate, should be conducted as early as possible in the scoping phase of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).
To identify reasonably anticipated future land uses, the following types of information, much of which typically
is available from local planning authorities, may be evaluated: current land use; zoning laws; zoning maps;
comprehensive community master plans; population growth patterns and projections (e.g., Bureau of Census
projections); accessibility of site to existing infrastructure (e.g., transportation and public utilities); institutional
controls currently in place; site location in relation to urban, residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and
recreational areas; Federal/State land use designation (Federal/State control over designated lands range from
established uses for the general public, such as national parks or State recreational areas, to governmental
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites
-------
facilities, which often have extensive site access restrictions, such as Department of Defense facilities);
historical or recent development patterns; cultural factors (e.g., historical sites, Native American religious
sites); natural resources information; potential vulnerability of groundwater to contaminants that might migrate
from soil; environmental justice issues; location of on-site or nearby wetlands; proximity of site to a floodplain;
proximity of site to critical habitats of endangered or threatened species; geographic and geologic information;
and location of Wellhead Protection areas, recharge areas, and other areas identified in a State's
Comprehensive Groundwater Protection Program.
Early discussions with stakeholders will assist EPA in understanding the reasonably anticipated future uses
of the site and in identifying specific institutional and engineering controls that may be necessary. Three
categories of land reuse have been employed at former municipal landfills—ecological enhancement,
recreational reuse, and commercial/industrial reuse. Each of these categories is discussed in the sections that
follow. Case studies are used throughout this fact sheet to illustrate engineering and policy considerations,
and protective, feasible solutions for integrating site reuse with a containment remedy. Exhibit One
summarizes key characteristics of the case studies included in this fact sheet. Detailed case studies of these
sites are available on the Superfund homepage located at http://www.epa.gov/superfund.
Ecological Enhancement
The historical practice of siting landfills in remote areas often allows all or part of a landfill site to be used for
future ecological use. Wildlife enhancement areas and wetlands provide green space and habitat for
indigenous species, and often serve as a cost-effective and design-friendly means of returning landfills to
beneficial use. Historically, EPA has accommodated restoration of ecologically significant areas, when
possible, including landfills located in areas with significant, existing habitat. The first step is to consult with
other Federal and State agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to target specific indigenous
birds and wildlife that are in need of habitat. Once this information has been gathered, it may be possible to
conduct the cleanup in a manner that will support plant and animal species while ensuring that the selected
vegetation and engineering controls will protect the landfill cover and maintain the effectiveness of the
remedy.
One example of ecological restoration is at the Army Creek
Landfill in New Castle County, Delaware. At this site, EPA
and the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) turned a sixty-
acre abandoned landfill into a wildlife enhancement area. This
remedy and reuse project provided protective habitat for
various native terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species.
Additionally, various
grains, wildflowers, and
custom vegetation
were planted on the
site cap to encourage
migratory birds to stop, nest, and feed on the land. Revegetation of the
site and reconstruction of the wetlands were completed at no additional
cost to the Agency.
Army Creek Landfill Superfund Site before
cleanup and ecological restoration.
The Army Creek Landfill Superfund
Site after cleanup and ecological
restoration. Today the area supports
various terrestrial and aquatic
species of wildlife.
Another example of ecological restoration is the remedy implemented
at the Bower's Landfill site in Pickaway County, Ohio. Knowing that
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites
-------
part of the site was flooded an average of 29 days a year, EPA determined that converting a portion of the
site into a wetlands would be both cost-effective and beneficial to the surrounding ecosystem. To make
ecological restoration a reality, the RPM consulted with the Ohio Division of Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to design the wetlands area. EPA used clay from a portion of the site to build the cap over
the landfill. The area that was excavated was then graded to provide waterways and retention ponds and
to promote the growth of plants and wildlife with minimal maintenance. The seven-acre wetlands that were
constructed now effectively control flooding of the landfill source, and provide food, shelter, and habitat for
a variety of plants and animals.
Recreational Reuse
Former municipal landfills can also find new life as low-impact
recreational areas. Landfills are a natural fit for this type of
activity because they typically have a large surface area and the
cap can be contoured to meet the specifications for ball fields or
golf courses. In addition, communities are generally hospitable to
new recreational areas because they have a tendency to increase
property values and enhance the quality of life in the immediate
area.
For instance, at the Chisman Creek Landfill in York County,
Virginia, the cleanup plan developed by EPA and the PRPs was
based on local residents' desire for a sports complex in the
community. The site cap was engineered to serve as a
foundation for future playing fields and graded to allow for park
structures such as bleachers and fences. The Chisman Creek
site is now a 41-acre complex that contains two lighted softball
fields, four soccer fields, parking, vending faclities, and facility
equipment storage.
Sunset at the Old Works Golf Course,
Deer Lodge County, Montana. In 1997,
25,000 rounds of golf were played at the
course.
Another case of recreational reuse at a site implementing a containment remedy is the Old Works/East
Anaconda Smelter Superfund Site in Deer Lodge County, Montana. After extensive discussions with both
the PRP and the local community, EPA approved a cleanup plan that accommodated the development of a
golf course over a portion of the property. In order to construct the golf course, the PRPs utilized many
unique design features that not only facilitated redevelopment, but also allowed for the protection of future
golfers and a nearby trout stream, and future development around the golf course.
For landfills and other sites with mounds or sloped areas, the DuPage County Landfill/Blackwell Forest
Preserve illustrates a recreational use that makes the most of this fairly common feature. Solid waste
materials at the former landfill were deposited to a height of over 188 feet above ground level. After the site
was closed, the town saw a need for a recreational resource, and decided to convert the former landfill and
surrounding area into a multi-use area featuring hiking trails, camping facilities, and picnic areas for warmer
months and a sledding/toboggan hill in winter months.
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites
-------
Industrial/Commercial Reuse
Some landfills, because of their locale or surroundings, may not be suitable for ecological or recreational
reuse. These sites are generally located in industrialized areas that lack significant wildlife and/or habitat
acreage. However, other factors, such as proximity to major transportation routes and suppliers or customers
make these sites a potential setting for industrial or commercial redevelopment.
The remediation of the Raymark site in Fairfield
County, Connecticut, is one of the first cases in which
effective consideration of the reasonably anticipated
future land use in developing a cleanup plan helped
reuse occur. From 1995 through 1997, Region 1 and
the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection (CDEP) decontaminated and demolished
all site buildings and structures, consolidated
contaminated soils, addressed highly concentrated
pockets of contaminated groundwater, installed a gas
collection system, and capped the entire 33-acre
property so that future development could occur. A
partnership was formed among EPA, CDEP, the
Town of Stratford, and a local developer, which
ultimately will allow for the construction of a 300,000
square foot retail shopping complex on the site.
Remediation underway at the Raymark Superfund
Site. The site will support a 300,000 square foot
shopping complex.
The Delaware Sand and Gravel site in New Castle County, Delaware, is another example of industrial
redevelopment of a former landfill. Although construction of a low-permeability landfill cap was required,
the owner was interested in reusing a portion of the site for temporary storage of heavy equipment. Region
3 allowed PRP construction of a "wear surface" over a 5-acre portion of the RCRA landfill cap. The wear
surface was designed and constructed to withstand daily use by a sixteen-ton load—the weight of the heaviest
piece of equipment that was going to be used on the site in its new capacity. Similarly, the containment
remedy at the Mid-Atlantic Wood Preserver site in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, allowed the site to be
paved as a parking lot for the use of the adjacent business.
Another example of commercial/industrial redevelopment is the Industri-Plex site, which is located in a dense
commercial and industrial area in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Remediation of the site included PRP
construction of permeable and/or impermeable caps and other covers (e.g., concrete foundations, asphalt
parking lots, etc.) over approximately 110 acres of contaminated soils. Development projects planned or
underway include construction of a Regional Transportation Center (RTC), a retail store on 19 acres, and up
to 750,000 square feet of office and hotel space.
REMEDY CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Section 121(d)(2) of CERCLA, remedial actions must meet or waive all applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) identified for a response. For landfills, ARARs generally include
closure requirements in compliance with Subtitle D or Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) (for more information on closure requirements as ARARs, see "Presumptive Remedy for
CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites, September 1993, Directive No. 9355.0-49FS). Whatever the intended
future use of the site, the integrity of the cap and other components of the containment remedy must be
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites
-------
protected and maintained. The following sections identify remedy considerations that have been addressed
at sites where it has been possible to accommodate reasonably anticipated land uses in the remedy. These
considerations include design components for the containment remedies, implementation of appropriate
institutional controls, and ongoing O&M activities.
Design Components
Plans and specifications for a landfill or other containment cap system generally provide the following
components, regardless of the intended future use of the site: cap design and integrity; runoff collection
system design and safety; monitoring well location and design; leachate/gas collection system design and
safety; and vegetative choices. When a particular reuse of a site is anticipated, in general, EPA will attempt
to conduct site activities in a manner that will be protective for the anticipated future use. The following
sections provide examples of sites where remedial actions were conducted in such a way that desired future
uses were successfully incorporated into the remedial design.
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites
-------
Exhibit One: Case Study Site Characteristics
Site Name
Army Creek
Landfill, DE
Region 3
PRP lead
Bower's Landfill
Site, OH
Region 5
Fund lead
Chlsman Creek
Site, VA
Region 3
PRP lead
Anaconda Smelter
Site.MT
Region 8
PRP lead
Land Use
Wildlife refuge
Wetlands habitat
creation
Soccer and Softball
fields
18-hole golf course
Design
Considerations
Vegetative cover
(species);
O&M Schedule
Burrowing animal control
Flood and erosion
control
Monitoring well integrity
Wetlands preservation
Prevention future direct
contact
Runoff and irrigation
control
Materials recycling
Operation & Maintenance
PRP Inspects and mows cap on
rotating schedule; removes
penetrating trees and other
plants; monitors gas vents;
removes nuisance reeds from
wetlands; runs humane capture
and release program; collects
and treats graundwater and
monitors air and groundwater
State O&M program includes
quarterly inspection for leachate
and gas formation, groundwater
monitoring, mowing cap
vegetation, inspecting and
repairing the cap, and repairing
the fencing.
Routine O&M transferred to
York County Parks and
Recreation; PRP responsible for
O&M of engineering control
equipment. Post closure
monitoring program for ground
and surface water down
gradient of the fly ash pits.
O&M and monitoring transferred
to Deer Lodge County; O&M
requirements include monitoring
and maintenance of the
vegetative cover and Installation
and maintenance of a fence
around the perimeter of the site;
Future transfer of site
ownership will transfer O&M
responsibilities.
Objectives of Institutional
Controls
Ensure that any future use is
consistent with, and protective of,
the site remedy. Any activities
performed at the site must be done
In an environmentally and
otherwise acceptable, manner
consistent with all laws,
regulations, ordinances, zoning
requirements, or other rules
Imposed by Federal, State, County,
or Local government bodies.
Prohibit groundwater extraction in
west field and restricting
disturbance of the landfill surface.
If necessary, farming will be
prohibited on land west of site.
Prohibit excavation of soil, restrict
building, and restrict groundwater
use under and down gradient of
the pits.
Short-term institutional controls to
control access and land use will
be implemented throughout the
area of the site. County
responsible for land use decisions
and issuing redevelopment
permits.
RPM Information
Debra Rossi
(215)814-3228
rossi.debra@epa.gov
David Wilson
(312)886-1476
wilson.david@epa.gov
Andrew C. Palestlni,
(215) 814-3233
palestlnl.andrew@epa.go
V
Charles Coleman
(406) 441-1150 Ext. 261
coleman.charles@epa.go
V
Reuse ofCERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites
-------
Exhibit One: Case Study Site Characteristics
Site Name
Raymark Site, CT
Region 1
Fund lead
Delaware Sand &
Gravel Site, DE
Region 3
PRP lead
Mid-Atlantic Wood
Preserver Site, MD
Region 3
PRP Lead
Industri-Plex Site,
MA
Region 1
PRP lead
DuPage County
Landfill/Blackwell
Forest Preserve,
IL
Region 5
PRP Lead
Land Use
Retail shopping
plaza
Storage facility for
.light industrial
equipment
Parking lot for
adjacent business
Transportation
center; retail store;
office and hotel
space
Natural recreation
area; hiking and
camping facilities;
sledding hill; lake
Design
Considerations
Designed to allow future
development on top of
cap such that no
penetration of cap will
be necessary
Load bearing;
gas collection with vents
located outside work
area
Wear surface over cap
Design permeable and
impermeable covers to
prevent direct contact
with soils contaminated
with heavy metals. The
design considers long-
term protectiveness/
effectiveness and
freeze-thaw action.
Minimized tree removal
over footprint of site. If
existing landfill gas
system is Incapable of
meeting recreational
uses, system will go
from passive to active
(designed to be
upgraded), additional
gas collection wells will
be added, and/or thermal
treatment device will be
added.
Operation & Maintenance
O&M program includes
conducting routine monitoring of
groundwater and surface
water, O&MofDNAPL
collection system, O&M of soil
gas collection system, and O&M
of enhanced gas collection
system.
Owner inspects RCRA cap;
monitors gas vents; mows
Developer Inspects and
maintains asphalt paving and
carries out environmental (air,
surface water, sediments, &
groundwater) monitoring.
Air, surface, and ground-water
quality monitoring and post-
closure care consistent with
RCRA regulations.
Forest Preserve District will
handle all operation and
maintenance. Rigorous
inspections of cap integrity (i.e.,
after weather events, look for
excessive wear in recreational
areas)
Objectives of Institutional
Controls
Some use restrictions on types of
businesses that can operate on
property and restrictions on
excavating below impermeable
layer.
Use of the surface area barrier is
restricted by weight, spillage,
storage, excavation, and other
measures.
Ensure the Integrity of containment
structure Is not compromised by
future use of the property.
Under development. The
institutional controls will preserve
the continued effectiveness of the
remedy, which ensures the
protection of human health and the
environment, while allowing
property owners greatest possible
use of the site.
Prohibit excavation of soil,
restricting building and ground-
water use. However, have
petition flexibility to accommodate
non-Invasive improvements
RPM Information
Mike Hill
(617)918-1398
hill.michael@epa.gov
Phil Rotstein
(215) 814-3232
rotstain.phll@epa.gov
Eric Newman
(215)814-3237
newman. eric®. epa.gov
Joseph LeMay, P.E.
(617)918-1323
lemay.joe@epa.gov
Michael Bellot
Region 5
312-353-6425
bellot.michael@epa.gov
Reuse ofCERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites
-------
Cap design and integrity
Basic considerations in cap design include material, thickness,
permeability and slope stability. However, the future use of the
site may require design components that incorporate specific
reuse considerations. At the Chisman Creek site, the cap was
engineered to serve as a foundation for future playing fields and
graded to allow for park structures such as bleachers and
fences. Precautions, such as placing underground utilities in
oversized clay trenches, were taken to protect future workers
from coming into contact with fly ash. At the Delaware Sand
and Gravel site, the wear surface was constructed to withstand
daily use by a sixteen-ton load—the weight of the heaviest
piece of equipment onsite, an eight-ton forklift with a maximum
front-end load of eight tons. Other design considerations may
take into account unique site characteristics; for example,
sledding at the DuPage Landfill site slope is limited to days
during which there are at least three inches of snow on the
ground. Caps can also be designed to accommodate large
commercial buildings.
At the Raymark Superfund Site in
Connecticut, foundation pilings were
engineered into the protective cap, which
will support a 300,000 square foot retail
complex.
Capping underway at the Summitville
Mine Superfund Site, Rio Grande
County, Colorado.
For example,
underlying soils and waste were compacted through surcharging and
dynamic compaction, and in one area of the site, steel pilings were
installed below the protective cap at the Raymark Industries site to
support the loads of the cap, parking lot, and a 300,000 square foot
retail shopping complex. Through a Prospective Purchaser
Agreement (PPA) (see page 13 for a discussion of PPAs), the
developer agreed to reimburse EPA for the additional costs
associated with the soil stabilization techniques implemented in
preparation for the future shopping complex, and agreed to avoid
actions that could disrupt the protective cover.
Runoff collection system design and safety
Surface water runoff controls typically are used to prevent the migration of leachate or contaminant plumes
with lateral drainage features. Again, site reuse may entail modifications of system designs to contain or treat
the flow prior to release. Under EPA supervision, the PRP installed a state-of- the-art drainage system at
the Old Works/East Anaconda Smelter site. This system directs runoff from the hills which surround the
course into a large holding pond. The design of this unit protects the overall integrity of the cap, minimizes
stormwater runoff to a nearby trout stream, and allows the water to be used as an irrigation source. At the
Army Creek Landfill site, concerns of flooding in low lying areas where treated water feeds into the adjacent
Army Creek resulted in modifications to the slope and discharge layout of several existing onsite sediment
basins to create a standing wetlands area. One of the sediment basins, already colonized with native wetland
plant species, was left in its natural state. The second basin was replanted with plant species typical to
riparian wetlands in the area. At the Chisman Creek Landfill site, the surface water collection system was
so efficient that the York County Parks and Recreation Department had to re-sod the support layer to slow
rainwater drainage in order to maintain grass on the fields.
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites
-------
Monitoring well location and design
Containment remedies generally include monitoring wells to ensure that leachate from the contained mass
does not migrate to underlying groundwater. The location and design of these wells can be planned so that
Site reuse does not affect use of the wells. At the Bower's Landfill site, monitoring wells in the constructed
wetland area were fitted with risers and the surrounding earth was mounded to minimize water intrusion
through the wells and to make access easier during flood conditions.
Leachate/Gas collection system design and safety
Leachate and gas collection and treatment systems are also design considerations that may be integrated with
future land use. Both the placement of collection equipment and treatment options (e.g., vents and flares)
can be planned to accommodate future reuse. Gas vents at the Delaware Sand and Gravel site were installed
horizontally, away from the reuse area, and towards an unobstructed five acres. This portion of the property
will not be reused due to unsuitable slope. Engineers at the Chisman Creek site discovered that the original
design of the groundwater collection system would significantly impact the stability of the land under the
highway bisecting the site and several nearby homes. To avoid these impacts, a series of horizontal drains
were drilled laterally into the base of the ash pit. This lower-cost and more efficient design was adapted from
highway construction projects and required the use of a specially constructed drill rig. At the Army Creek
site, gooseberry was planted around the gas vents to provide a food source for animals as well as visual cover
of the vent pipes. At the DuPage County Landfill site, the Forest Preserve District agreed to conduct
breathing zone ambient monitoring that includes different seasonal variations and atmospheric changes. If
the existing landfill gas system does not meet recreational use safety requirements, the Record of Decision
is written to change the gas collection system from passive to active (the system was designed to be
upgraded), to add additional gas collection wells, and/or to add a thermal treatment device.
Vegetation Choice
The vegetation selected for containment remedies generally will help reduce erosion and water penetration
and enhance evapotranspiration. Vegetative support layers usually are organic silty loam topsoil, and
vegetation generally has shallow roots and may be selected based on a low possibility of bioaccumulation.
At the DuPage County Landfill site, the Forest Preserve District conducted an Arboreal Study to determine
if the trees and brush were detrimental to the cap. Although some trees were eliminated to allow for the
footprint of the planned site cap, every effort was made to remove as few trees as possible. At the Army
Creek landfill site, EPA consulted with ecologists to identify specific grains, wildflowers, and vegetation that
would attract migratory birds. The selected seed mixture provided the land coverage and erosion control
needed to maintain the integrity of the cap, while providing food and habitat to a variety of plant and animal
species. A similar revegetation strategy was used at the Delaware Sand and Gravel site for those portions
of the property that were unusable for redevelopment because of slope or other terrain-related factors. One
significant change in the seed mix used to revegetate the Delaware Sand and Gravel site was the absence
of red clover seed, as previous experience at the Army Creek site indicated that this plant attracted unwanted
burrowing animals.
Institutional Controls
Remedies that involve on-site containment of waste often incorporate institutional controls to prevent an
unanticipated change in land use that could result in unacceptable exposures to contamination, or at a
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites 1 o
-------
minimum, alert future users to the residual risks and monitor for any
changes in use. Examples of institutional controls include land use
regulations imposed by local governments, property law devices such
as easements and covenants that restrict future land or resource use,
and informational devices such as deed notices that inform
prospective purchasers of residual on-site contamination. For
example, a local ordinance might prohibit the use of contaminated
groundwater or require periodic maintenance of a parking lot or other
engineered barrier.
Jack Nicklaus testing out a sand trap
at the Old Works Golf Course
developed over a 120-acre capped
area at the Anaconda Superfund Site.
The 14,000 cubic yards of black sand
in the course sand traps is finely
ground inert smelting slag.
Institutional controls play a key role in ensuring long-term
protectiveness, and should be evaluated and implemented with the
same degree of care as is given to other elements of a remedy. In
developing remedial alternatives that include institutional controls,
EPA determines the type of institutional control to be used, the existence of the authority to implement the
institutional control, and the appropriate entity's resolve and ability to implement the institutional control. An
alternative may anticipate two or more options for establishing institutional controls, but should fully evaluate
all such options. Because of their importance in restricting future land uses, it is best to identify the need for
institutional controls as early in the remedy selection process as possible to identify implementation and long-
term enforcement issues. It also is vital that stakeholders be informed whenever institutional controls are
added or modified so that future development can accommodate existing or altered land-use restrictions.
EPA personnel working at the Old Works/East Anaconda site
crafted a creative solution for ensuring compliance with
institutional controls while allowing for continued redevelopment
at the site. Citizens, the PRP, and local, state, and federal
government officials formed the Old Works/East Anaconda
Development Area (OW/EADA) to promote redevelopment of
a 1,300 acre area of the site. The Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
Comprehensive Master Plan was then prepared to provide
guidance for accommodating future development and its possible
effects on the environment and surrounding land uses. The
Master Plan incorporates a Development Permit System (DPS),
which regulates proposed development activity or land use
located anywhere on the site, such as drilling wells, excavation,
or new construction, irrespective of land ownership, to ensure it
is consistent with environmental and safety guidelines. Other
institutional controls such as land use and groundwater
restrictions, private land ownership controls, dedicated
developments, covenants, and easements, will be implemented
to complement the DPS and ensure overall compliance with the
Master Plan.
Native grasses and flowers at the restored
Army Creek Landfill Site.
The DuPage Landfill site has institutional controls hi place that prohibit construction of buildings on the site;
however, language does provide the flexibility to petition for non-invasive improvements. For example, the
Forest Preserve District successfully petitioned to put a temporary building at the top of the hill during the
winter months for the purpose of renting toboggans.
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites
11
-------
Operation and Maintenance
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities protect the integrity of the selected remedy for a site. O&M
measures are initiated after the remedy has achieved the action objectives and goals outlined in the Record
of Decision (ROD), and after the remedy is determined to be operational and functional (O&F) based on
State and Federal agreement. Typically, remedies are considered O&F either one year after construction
is complete or when the remedy is functioning properly and performing as designed—whichever is earlier.
Remedies requiring O&M measures include landfill caps, gas collection systems, groundwater
extraction/treatment systems, groundwater monitoring, and/or surface water treatment. Once the O&M
period begins, the State or PRP is responsible for maintaining the protectiveness of the remedy in perpetuity.
O&M monitoring typically includes four components: inspection; sampling and analysis; routine maintenance;
and reporting. Although O&M activities may be transferred through a rental or purchase agreement to a new
owner, the State or PRP is still ultimately responsible for the protectiveness of O&M activities. However,
the costs for O&M activities can often be offset through reuse or redevelopment at a site.
For example, the softball fields and recreational sports complex created as part of the redevelopment of the
Chisman Creek Superfund site are operated by York County. The O&M activities at the site, such as
mowing the grass, preventing cap deterioration, and routine repairs, are now handled by the County as part
of their normal park operations. This has, in effect, eliminated the costs for O&M at the site. Another
example is the result of the redevelopment that took place at the Army Creek Landfill site. EPA determined
that converting the site into a wildlife enhancement area would provide a much needed protective habitat for
various birds and wildlife. Various grains, wildflowers and custom vegetation were planted on the site cap
to encourage migratory birds to stop and feed on the land. Bird boxes also were installed along the riparian
wetlands of Army Creek to encourage nesting. The site is mowed once a year before the nesting season to
provide food and shelter for migratory birds. Additionally, the site is mowed on alternating years in vertical
or horizontal grids that leave straight stands of protective, vegetative cover for terrestrial animals. Gooseberry
was planted around the gas vents to provide a food source for animals as well as visual cover of the vent
pipes. Cap integrity is maintained through removal of deep-rooting, woody plants from the capped area and
a humane trapping and relocation of woodchucks that may burrow into the cap. O&M at this site also
includes activities to minimize invasion of non-native reeds into the wetlands area. Revegetation of the site
and reconstruction of the wetlands was completed at no additional cost to the Agency, has not significantly
increased operation activities at the site, and has decreased some maintenance activities, such as mowing
the site, to once per year.
REUSE CONSIDERATIONS
The following sections summarize select EPA guidance and tools for stakeholders interested in reusing a site
at which containment is part of the remedy. These sections include discussions on early involvement of
stakeholders, confirmation of reuse viability, and use of redevelopment tools that are available in the event
that reuse is desired.
Solicit Input from Stakeholders
The actual reuse of a site is driven by many factors, including the local business climate, real estate and land
prices, and natural site features. However, the most important aspect when determining the reasonably
anticipated future land reuse is the early involvement of all interested parties. Throughout the cleanup
process, from site discovery to construction completion, EPA encourages open dialogue with the community
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites 12
-------
to determine the reasonably anticipated future land reuse. Reuse can create many benefits that productively
impact local communities, including new jobs, higher property values, and better quality of life through the
preservation of open space and recreational areas. If all stakeholders, including the community, state, and,
if applicable, PRPs, should reach an agreement on what they believe reuse may be as early as possible in the
RI/FS process if a containment remedy is being considered for the site, EPA can be reasonably confident
about the future use. For municipal landfill sites, the presumptive remedy allows for an up-front assumption
regarding the appropriate remedial alternatives in the RI/FS process (i.e., scoping).
Fact sheets, notices hi local newspapers and/or public meetings are appropriate notification tools for beginning
the dialogue concerning reasonably anticipated future uses of the site. In addition, a letter, phone call or other
appropriate communication to the local land use planning authority associated with the site may be made prior
to such notifications. More focused communications, such as letters or fact sheets may be mailed or hand
delivered to adjacent property owners, especially when a residential neighborhood is situated in close
proximity to the site. This is especially important because in some instances the local residents near the
Superfund site may feel disenfranchised from the local land use planning and development process. Also,
if the site is located in a community that is likely to have environmental justice concerns, extra efforts may
be made to reach out to and confer with segments of the community that are not necessarily reached by
conventional communication vehicles or through local officials and planning'commissions.
A critical component of the notification and discussion process is a clear explanation of the limits of
reasonably anticipated future land uses. For example, reuse of municipal landfills as residential developments
is discouraged. In addition, site managers should begin a dialogue with PRPs so that they continue the
process if they assume responsibility for the RI/FS and future site remediation activities. Through early and
open dialogue with stakeholders, EPA believes that realistic land-use scenarios can be developed that will
facilitate the RI/FS, and expedite the cleanup and ultimately the redevelopment of the site.
Confirm Reuse Viability during RI/FS Process
Once the reasonably anticipated future land use(s) of a site is identified, it is important to confirm the viability
of planned uses by analyzing data collected during the RI/FS, such as the nature and extent of contamination,
containment alternatives, site topography, and other factors presented previously. Any combination of
unrestricted uses, restricted uses, or use for long-term waste management may result, but it is important to
confirm that the reuse options desired by the community are viable given the characteristics of the site. By
maintaining an active role in site planning, EPA can attempt to accommodate site reuse, where possible,
ensure that reuse options are consistent with the presumptive remedy or other containment design, and verify
that any institutional controls ensure protection of human health and the environment and enforce limitations
on reuse.
Redevelopment Tools
Once community outreach has been initiated and EPA has gathered information on possible reuse options,
the Agency can attempt to ensure that the remedy is protective for the reasonably anticipated reuse. EPA
has worked with States and localities to develop and issue guidance that will clarify the liability of prospective
purchasers, lenders, property owners, and others regarding their association with activities at a site. These
guidance documents state EPA's decision to use its enforcement discretion not to pursue such parties in
specific situations. EPA anticipates that these clear statements will alleviate concerns these parties may
have, and will facilitate their involvement in cleanup and redevelopment. Three guidance documents of
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites 13
-------
particular interest are described in greater detail below.
Prospective Purchaser Agreements
The prospective purchaser agreement (PPA) is a tool that EPA may use to facilitate cleanup and
redevelopment of contaminated property, with over 90 PPAs signed through the end of fiscal year (FY) 1998.
Through PPAs, EPA provides parties interested in acquiring contaminated property with CERCLA covenants
not to sue for cleanup of preexisting environmental conditions. PPAs also shield purchasers from contribution
claims by liable parties who may seek to recover some of their cleanup expenses from purchasers. PPAs
may relieve the liability concerns of prospective purchasers, and, therefore, facilitate the cleanup and reuse
of contaminated properties.
In 1995, EPA issued guidance expanding the circumstances under which the Agency will provide covenants
not to sue to prospective purchasers of contaminated properties. The Guidance on Agreements with
Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Property gives the Agency greater flexibility to enter into
agreements under which EPA agrees not to sue the purchaser for contamination that existed at the time of
the purchase. Included in the guidance is a model PPA to streamline and facilitate negotiations with
prospective purchasers.
PPAs ensure continued protection of the site after it is passed along to a purchaser. Through PPAs, a
prospective-purchaser must commit that the continued operation of the facility or redevelopment will not
aggravate or contribute to the existing contamination or interfere with EPA's response action. The
prospective purchaser also must agree that the future use of the property will not pose health risks to the
community and those persons likely to be present at the site. Under the appropriate sections of the settlement
document, EPA can include provisions to ensure that the remedy design specifications are not violated; that
long-term O&M activities at the site are attended to; and that there is compliance with institutional controls.
EPA and developers have entered into PPAs at the Anaconda Smelter, Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers,
Raymark, and Industri-Plex sites.
Partial Deletion from the National Priorities List (NPL)
Where there is substantial agreement among local residents, land use planning agencies, owners, and
developers, EPA can be reasonably confident about the future use of the site. In such cases, site managers
may consider the feasibility of deleting a parcel of land from the NPL. Site size and the extent of
contamination are factors to consider in a decision to partially delete. If the site can realistically accommodate
the entire remedial footprint, an appropriate buffer zone and the planned reuse option, then partial deletion of
the site may be possible. EPA has used its partial deletion authority at 14 sites through the end of FY98.
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the National
Priorities List. In accordance with 40 CFR § 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no
further response is appropriate to protect public health or the environment. In making such a determination,
EPA considers, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
Section 300.425(e)(l)(I). Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate
response actions required;
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites 14
-------
Section 300.425(e)(l)(ii). All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; and
Section 300.425(e)(l)(iii). The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant
threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Partial deletion of an NPL site is initiated when EPA prepares and publishes relevant documents, which are
made available in the Deletion Docket at an official information repository. The State, with respect to the
NPL site and applicable operable units, is asked to concur on EPA's final determination regarding the partial
deletion. Concurrent with a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register, a notice is published in a newspaper
of record and is distributed to appropriate Federal, Tribal, State, and local government officials, and other
interested parties. These notices announce a thirty (30) day public comment period on the deletion package,
which commences on the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register and the newspaper of
record. If, after review of all public comments, EPA determines that the partial deletion from the NPL is
appropriate, EPA will publish a final notice of partial deletion in the Federal Register. Site managers should
explicitly state from the initiation of this scenario that EPA cannot participate in any activities associated with
the deleted portion of the site.
Comfort/Status Letters
In order to minimize stakeholder liability concerns associated with a potentially reusable site, Regional staff
may issue a comfort letter. These letters provide potential buyers with as much information as possible from.
which to draw their own conclusions of the potential risk of Superfund liability. Three types of letters can be
issued to parties who purchase, develop or operate a restored property:
• No Current Federal Superfund Interest Letter - a letter sent at a site that EPA deleted from the NPL
or that EPA no longer includes on its list of potential Superfund sites;
• Federal Interest Letter - a letter indicating the status of EPA's involvement, where EPA anticipates
or has already begun a response at the site; and
• State Action Letter - a letter stating that the corresponding state has assumed response action at the
site.
By establishing early contact with potential stakeholders, defining realistic beneficial reuse options, and using
the full range of redevelopment tools, site managers may be able to accommodate reasonably anticipated land
uses at municipal landfills and other sites using containment remedies.
Limits to Betterment Activities
At sites with reuse potential, stakeholders may propose an action that is beyond the authority of the Agency.
EPA may modify a remedial action if EPA finds that the proposed change or expansion is necessary and
appropriate to the EPA-selected remedial action. In this case, any additional costs would be paid as part of
the remedial action. If EPA finds that the proposed change or expansion is not necessary to the selected
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites 15
-------
remedial action, but would not conflict or be inconsistent with the EPA-selected remedy, EPA may agree to
integrate the proposed change or expansion into the planned CERCLA remedial work if:
• The state, PRP, or developer agrees to fund the entire additional cost associated with the change or
expansion; and
• The state, PRP, or developer agrees to assume the lead for supervising that component of the remedy,
or if EPA determines that component cannot be conducted as a separate phase or activity, for
supervising the remedial design and construction of the entire remedy.
• If a state does not concur in a remedial action selected by EPA, and the state desires to have the
remedial action conform to an ARAR that has been waived under § 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(C), a state may
seek to have that remedial action so conform in accordance with the procedures set out in CERCLA
section 121(f)(2).
The Raymark site is an example of a remedy that included an enhancement. EPA worked closely with the
developer to incorporate redevelopment plans into the containment strategy for the site. The developer
requested that a series of soil stabilization techniques be used, including the installation of steel pilings below
the cap to support the planned retail shopping complex. EPA signed a PPA with the developer that ensured
that the company paid for the installation of the steel pilings and other enhancements.
CONCLUSIONS
The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative, which is aimed at choosing cleanups consistent with reasonably
anticipated reuse where possible, is a program that can yield positive economic, environmental, and social
benefits for communities with Superfund sites. The keys to a successful reuse effort are: remedies that are
protective for reasonably anticipated future land uses, institutional controls that impose necessary reuse
• limitations, early and active participation from all stakeholders, and appropriate enforcement tools for
redevelopment.
The essential step to success is to incorporate the plan to reuse the site with the plan to clean up the site.
With the municipal landfill presumptive remedy, it may be possible to accommodate ecological, recreational,
or commercial/industrial reuses in the cleanup plan. Whatever the intended future use of the site, all landfill
remedies must first be designed to protect the integrity of the cap. EPA must maintain an active role in reuse
planning to ensure that reasonably anticipated future reuse options are consistent with the presumptive
remedy or other containment design, and that institutional controls and O&M activities are managed properly.
Additional keys to success require the early and active participation of all stakeholders, including EPA, the
appropriate state and local authorities, any PRPs, and the site neighbors and surrounding community. EPA
can help facilitate the reuse of a site, but cannot accomplish this goal on its own. Therefore, it is imperative
that site managers take the appropriate steps to involve these stakeholders as early as possible in the process.
Early discussions with stakeholders will help ensure that the interests of all involved and affected parties are
properly represented. Also, if the need arises based on these discussions, it may be appropriate for EPA to
use legal tools like PPAs and model comfort letters to clarify potential issues of liability. By following these
steps, EPA believes that realistic land-use scenarios may be accommodated in cleanup and redevelopment
of sites, where possible.
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites 16
-------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
• Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites. September 1993. 14 pp. (EPA) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 540/F-
93/035, OSWER-9355.0-49FS, PB93-963339. Washington, DC. Quick Reference Fact Sheet.
• Presumptive Remedies: CERCLA Landfill Caps RI/FS Data Collection Guide. 1995. 8 pp. (EPA)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 540/F-
95/009, OSWER-9355.3-18FS,PB95-963412.
• Presumptive Remedies and NCP Compliance. June 14, 1995. 12 pp. (EPA) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, CERCLA Administrative Records Workgroup ORC Region IV, Solid Waste and
Emergency Response Division. Washington, DC.
• Rules of Thumb for Superfund Remedy Selection. 1997. 23pp. (EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 540/R-97/013, OSWER 9355.0-69,
PB97-963301. Washington, DC. -
• Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process. 1995. 13 pp. (EPA) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA 540/R-95/052, OSWER
9355.7-04, PB95-963234/HDM. Directive. Washington, DC.
• Procedures for Partial Deletions at NPL Sites. 1996. 9 pp. (EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 540/R-96/014, OERR Directive
9320.2-ll,PB96-963222. Washington, DC.
• Guidance on Settlements with Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Property. 1995. 24pp. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 'PB96-105044.
Washington, DC.
• Policy on the Issuance of Comfort/Status Letters. PB97-123921. November, 1997.
• Handbook of Tools for Managing Federal Superfund Liability Risks at Brownfields and Other Sites,
November 1998, EPA330-B-98-001, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites 17
------- |