EPA REGION 3
HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP SITES
LAND USE & REUSE ASSESSMENT
A comprehensive review of land use occurring on hazardous
waste cleanup sites in the Mid'Atlantic Region
March 2006
Draft - Final Report
-------
Acknowledgments
Financial and technical support for this project were provided by EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) Land Revitalization Office. Additional thanks goes to the
management of Region 3's Hazardous Site Cleanup and Waste & Chemicals Management Divisions
for their support and to the Superfund, Federal Facility, and RCRA Project Managers (EPA and
state) who collected the information.
This report would not have been possible without the contribution of the individuals listed below
who participated in many meetings and conference calls to work out the challenges associated with
developing the data elements, definitions, collection methodology, data assessment, data
management, and report drafting.
Patricia Corbett, Region 3 Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
Melissa Friedland, OSWER, Office of Superfund Remediation Technology Innovation
Kristeen Gaffhey, Region 3 Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
Deborah Goldblum, Region 3 Waste and Chemicals Management Division
Bonnie Gross, Region 3 Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
Craig Koller, Student Intern for Region 3 Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
Jill Lowe, Region 3 Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
Sara Rasmussen, OSWER, Office of Solid Waste
Mark Stephens, Region 3 Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
Guy Tomassoni, OSWER, Land Revitalization Office
Maria Williams, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Electronic copies of this report are available at http://www.epa.gov/region03/revitalization/. For
more information or questions about this report, contact the project leaders:
gaffnev.kristeen@epa.gov
215-814-2092
goldblum.deborah@.epa,
215-814-3432
-------
Disclaimer
This report is a product of EPA Region 3 Mid-Atlantic Region, with financial and technical
support provided by OSWER's Land Revitalization Office. This report is intended to provide
information to EPA management, program staff, and states for consideration in developing and
implementing revitalization measures. The statements in this document do not constitute official
Agency policy, do not represent an Agency-wide position, and are not binding on EPA or any other
party.
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
1. Purpose and Approach 1
1.1 Goals of Assessment 1
1.2 Background 2
1.3 Implementation 3
1.4 Overview of Data Collected 5
1.4.1 Current Land Use 5
1.4.2 Type of Use 7
1.4.3 Cleanup and Reuse Connection 8
1.4.4 Agency Effort to Facilitate Use/Reuse 8
1.4.5 Economic and Environmental Benefits 8
1.4.6 Ready for Reuse 9
2. Data Analysis 10
2.1 Data Analysis Approach 10
2.2 Data Factors Analyzed 11
2.2.1 Current Land Use 11
2.2.2 Type of Use 12
2.2.3 Cleanup and Reuse Connection 12
2.2.4 Agency Effort Beyond Cleanup to Facilitate Use/Reuse 12
2.2.5 Economic and Environmental Benefits 12
3. Data Results 13
3.1 Combined Program Results 13
3.2 SuperfundNPL (non-Federal Facility) Results 18
3.3 Federal Facility Results 22
3.4 RCRA Corrective Action (non-Federal Facility) Results 26
4. Lessons Learned 30
4.1 Data Collection Lessons 30
4.2 Data Results Lessons 33
5. Recommendations and Potential Future Directions 35
5.1 Recommended Uses for the Information 35
5.1.1 Developing Cross-Program Revitalization Measures 35
5.1.2 Facilitating Reuse of Underutilized Sites 35
5.1.3 Tracking the Benefits of Reuse 36
5.2 Expand the Assessment to Other Types of Cleanup Sites 36
5.3 Develop a Database for Long Term Maintenance of the Information 37
March 2006
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Appendix A - Survey Form and Examples of How to Complete the Form 38
Land Use/Reuse Assessment Form 39
Examples for How to Complete the EPA Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Land Use/Reuse Assessment Form 45
Appendix B - Maps of Site Locations 47
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites- Site Locations 47
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites- Sites with No Current Use/Vacant 48
Superfund NPL No Current Use/Vacant 49
Federal Facilities No Current Use/Vacant 50
RCRA Corrective Action Facilities No Current Use/Vacant 51
Superfund NPL Current Land Use Proportions 52
Federal Facilities Current Land Use Proportions 53
RCRA Corrective Action Current Land Use Proportions 54
Appendix C - Detailed Data Analyses 55
No Current Use/Vacant Land Detailed Results Reported in Region 3's Hazardous Waste
Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment 55
Economic Benefits Information Reported in Region 3's Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Land Use & Reuse Assessment 58
Enhanced Ecological Use Reported in Region 3's Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land
Use & Reuse Assessment 59
March 2006
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Overview of Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use/Reuse Assessment5
Figure 2-1: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Site Distribution by Program 11
Figure 3-1: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Current Land Use 14
Figure 3-2: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Cleanup Status for Planned Reuse Sites 15
Figure 3-3: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Agency Involvement-Reused & Planned
Reuse Sites 16
Figure 3-4: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Benefits Associated with Use/Reuse-Sites
Reporting Benefits 17
Figure 3-5: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Frequency of Benefits Reported 18
Figure 3-6: Region 3 Superfiind Sites Current Land Use 19
Figure 3-7: Region 3 Superfund Sites Inactive Waste Disposal Areas 19
Figure 3-8: Region 3 Superfund Sites Type of Use 20
Figure 3-9: Region 3 Superfund Sites Agency Involvement-Reused & Planned Reuse 21
Figure 3-10: Region 3 Superfund Sites Tools Used to Support Reuse & Planned Reuse 22
Figure 3-11: Region 3 Federal Facilities Sites Current Land Use 23
Figure 3-12: Region 3 Federal Facility Sites Type of Use 24
Figure 3-13: Region 3 Federal Facility Sites Agency Involvement-Reused & Planned
Reuse 25
Figure 3-14: Region 3 Federal Facility Sites Tools Used To Support Reuse & Planned Reuse . 25
Figure 3-15: Region 3 RCRA Sites Current Land Use 26
Figure 3-16: Region 3 RCRA Sites Type of Use 27
Figure 3-17: Region 3 RCRA Sites Agency Involvement -Reused & Planned Reuse 28
Figure 3-18: Region 3 RCRA Sites Tools Used To Support Reuse & Planned Reuse 29
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites-Sites and Acres for each Program 13
Table 3-2: Cleanup Status for Planned Reuse Sites by Program 16
March 2006
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Executive Summary
Purpose
Usable land is a valuable resource. However, where contamination presents a real or perceived
threat to human health or the environment, options for future land use at a site may be limited.
EPA's cleanup programs have set a national goal of returning formerly contaminated sites to
long-term, sustainable, and productive use. To support this goal, Region 3 undertook a cross-
program effort to collect quantifiable data on land uses occurring on cleanup sites to establish
baseline information. Although anecdotal success stories exist to show that revitalization of cleanup
sites is occurring, Region 3 sought measureable information on land use.
In conjunction with EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and our
state agency partners, Region 3 collected land use information for all Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action high priority, Superfund National Priority List (NPL), and
Federal Facility cleanup sites to determine the following:
~ Number of sites and acres of land being addressed by these
cleanup programs
~ Extent of reuse, as well as vacant property, at cleanup sites
~ Types of uses and reuses occurring
*¦ Relationship between the cleanup status of sites and reuse
Agency efforts to support reuse, and the types and
frequency of tools the Agency is using to facilitate use and
reuse
~ Local economic, social, or ecological benefits from reuse on cleanup sites
~ Challenges in collecting this kind of information prior to developing and promoting broader
national measures for land revitalization goals
Approach
A cross-program workgroup planned the land use assessment. The workgroup included
representatives from Region 3 and OSWER's Land Revitialization, Superfund, RCRA Corrective
Action and Federal Facilities programs as well as state representation from the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The workgroup developed data elements and definitions,
formatted the desired information into a Use/Reuse Assessment Form and distributed the form to
EPA and state project managers.
Land revitalization is the
sustainable, productive
continued use and reuse of
contaminated sites which
promotes economic and social
benefits to communities,
results in cleanups protective
for reuse, and helps preserve
greenspace.
March 2006
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Project managers filled out the Land Use/Reuse Assessment Form for 511 cleanup sites using
available data. For RCRA, the Region collected reuse information on the 289 high priority facilities
that comprise Region 3's 2008 Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) baseline1. Nine of
these RCRA sites are Federal Facility sites. For Superfund, reuse information was collected on
Region 3's 174 non-Federal NPL sites and 48 Federal Facilities being addressed under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), many of
which are also on the NPL.
The information was reported in terms of both the number of sites and the number of acres. All
the information from the assessment forms was transferred to a spreadsheet. Contractor assistance
provided by OSWER was used to assist the Region in developing the spreadsheet to manage and
report the information.
The data collected summarizes the current status of actual land use at cleanup sites in Region
3. However, this assessment did not account for external factors such as local market forces. Since
external influences were not considered, the results may both under represent EPA and state efforts
to facilitate reuse where insurmountable barriers exist and unduly credit the agencies where market
forces had enough impetus to stimulate revitalization on its own.
Key Findings
Most Land at Cleanup Sites is Being Used. The results show that
in Region 3 the overwhelming majority of land (93% of all acres) in the
programs assessed is being used or has a plan for reuse. However,
individual program results varied significantly. (See Chapter 3 for
program specific results). Of the land being used today, 81 percent
continues to operate in the same general manner as when the site was
contaminated (e.g., industrial facilities, military sites). However, a
growing number of cleanup sites have new uses. Across the programs,
15,981 acres (7% of the total land) at cleanup sites have been reused
and an additional 11,010 acres (5% of the total land) have a plan for
reuse.
In a general sense, we can also assume that the reuse of contaminated sites may help to reduce
development pressure on nearby undeveloped areas. In 1997 through a grant provided by EPA,
George Washington University conducted a study to look at whether the redevelopment of
brownfields reduces developmental pressures on surrounding greenfields (i.e., undeveloped areas).
The study showed that on average for every acre of brownfield property redeveloped, a minimum
of 4.5 acres would have been required had the same project been located in a greenfield area.
'The Government Performance and Results Act required all government agencies to develop program measures to track
progress. EPA and the states developed a RCRA baseline to focus efforts on those facilities that likely pose the greatest threat. Based
on a screen of facility specific environmental factors, EPA ranked facilities as High, Medium, or Low priority. For those sites which
ranked High priority, EPA established cleanup goals to meet by 2008 and is tracking progress to achieve those goals.
All site acres were first
classified into four land
use categories: (1)
continued use, (2) reused,
(3) planned reuse, or (4)
no current use/vacant.
Areas in use at a site
were further classified
into type of use such as
industrial, commercial,
recreational, or
residential, etc.
March 2006
ii
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Considering that close to 16,000 acres of land has been reused at hazardous waste cleanup sites in
Region 3, we can estimate that 72,000 acres (about 112 square miles) of greenfield areas have been
preserved in the Region. This estimate does not take into consideration the amount of new
greenspace actually created or preserved on Region 3's cleanup sites as part of their reuse or
continued use.
Cleanup Sites Provide an Opportunity for Reuse. This assessment identified 166 sites or
portions of sites which are vacant, with 17,143 acres—an area approximately the size of
Manhattan—of underutilized properties that may be available for reuse. However, not all of the
property may be suitable for reuse. Some of the property is not recommended for use (2,680 acres
or 16%), some of the property may have limitations on the kind of use which would be safe because
it is being used to manage waste (e.g., landfill) and most importantly, land use and reuse is a local
agency and property owner decision, not an EPA or state decision.
Agency Efforts are Facilitating Reuse. In all
programs, the level of effort to support reuse is
consistent. Of the sites where reuse has occurred or is
planned, Region 3 has been an active participant (81% of
the time) in the process using a variety of tools to support
reuse.
Reuse may Occur Concurrently with Site-wide
Investigations and Cleanups. The data shows that reuse occurs at all stages of the investigation
and cleanup and that property reuse is occurring while sites are under RCRA or Superfund authority.
Although there may be challenges associated with reusing these sites, the data demonstrates that
reuse often occurs at the same time as a site-wide investigation and cleanup and that sites do not
need to wait until completion of the RCRA and Superfund process to reuse a site.
Significant Benefits Result from Reuse on Cleanup
Sites. About one-third of sites reported economic or
environmental benefits associated with the use or reuse of the
site, but quantifiable data was not readily available to project
managers except for a few sites. The benefits reported were
significant even though the Region was not able to gather
extensive information. The quantifiable information received
demonstrates significant benefits occurring from the reuse of
cleanup sites. For example:
~ 38 sites reported a total of 24,986 local jobs leveraged or retained
~- 13 sites reported reuse investments totaling nearly $4 billion in projected redevelopment
investment
*¦ 23 sites reported open space or sustainable reuse on the site
~ 7 sites reported new housing construction resulting in a total of 189 new homes
The different tools (e.g., comfort letters,
meetings, review of reuse plans) used to
facilitate reuse on each site were reported.
This information can be used to
demonstrate the level of effort that Agency
staff are engaged in to support reuse.
Information was collected on the
positive local economic, social, and
ecological benefits associated with
the use or reuse on the site, such
as: jobs created; changes in
property value; reuse investment;
number of houses built; and green
design.
March 2006
iii
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Program Specific Results
One of the goals of the assessment was to establish a Regional baseline of current land use in
acres for all sites to enable the Agency to track changes over time. The table below shows the
baseline information for each program.
Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Sites and Acres for each Program
Full Data Set
Superfund NPL
(non-Federal)
Federal Facilities
RCRA
Corrective Action
Sites*
Acres
Sites*
Acres
Sites*
Acres
Sites*
Acres
Total
511
230,494
174
16,706
57
145,965
280
67,823
Continued Use
320
186,360
66
7,395
45
126,704
209
52,261
Reused
109
15,981
42
941
23
10,154
44
4,886
Planned Reuse
70
11,010
27
2,484
19
2,622
24
5,904
No Use/Vacant
166
17,143
101
5,886
10
6,485
55
4,772
*Sites on this table include entire sites and portions of a site. Consequently, the number of sites will add up
to more than the total number of sites evaluated.
For Superfund NPL sites - About two-thirds of Superfund acres are currently in some kind of
use or have a plan for reuse. The majority of these acres are in mixed use, industrial use, or
recreational use. More than half (54%) of all reuse and planned reuse occurring on Superfund sites
is for greenspace (i.e., combination of acres reported as either recreational or enhanced ecological).
A third of all Superfund acres in Region 3 are currently vacant (5,886 acres), and a third of these
vacant acres (2,119) are not recommended for reuse because of contamination remaining on the site.
This leaves close to 3,800 acres on 101 Superfund NPL sites that may have some potential for future
reuse.
For RCRA Corrective Action - Only two-thirds of RCRA sites were reported to be operating
in the same general manner as when the facility became part of the RCRA program in the 1980s.
Nineteen percent of the sites have a new use or a plan for reuse in place on the entire site or a parcel;
and a majority of the reuse is happening at parcels of former facilities, rather than site-wide. When
redeveloped, this land is used for industrial operations only about half the time, indicating that the
RCRA Corrective Action program will manage a broader range of uses over time. With 14 percent
of sites vacant and additional land as parcels, a total of 4,772 acres is potentially available for reuse
at RCRA Corrective Action facilities.
March 2006
iv
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
For Federal Facilities - The vast majority of land is currently in use as operating military bases
with many of the types of uses including industrial, residential, recreational, and greenspace.
However, there are close to 6,000 acres of vacant land on 10 Federal Facility sites that may have the
potential for future reuse.
Conclusions and Recommendations
While many challenges were encountered collecting and analyzing this information, the goal of
reporting quantifiable cross-program information on land use at cleanup sites was met and
significant benefits associated with land reuse were identified. Region 3 established a quantifiable
baseline to measure progress in returning cleanup sites to use, developed a list of vacant sites to
target reuse efforts, and collected information for communicating revitalization results. The
following recommendations are under consideration as a follow-up to this assessment effort:
»• Fully explore opportunities to facilitate reuse on vacant sites
~ Expand the land use assessment to other categories of cleanup sites
~ Establish an electronic system or database to manage the information
Regional management will decide whether it will collect and refine this information in future
years and develop an approach for implementation. The decision on how to proceed with future data
collection and the long term maintenance of land use information will be highly dependent upon
decisions made at the national level with respect to national land revitalization measures.
March 2006
v
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
1. Purpose and Approach
"...EPA's cleanup programs have set a national goal for returning formerly
contaminated sites to long-term, sustainable and productive use."
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan - Direction for the Future
1.1 Goals of Assessment
To gauge progress on EPA's goal to return formerly contaminated sites to productive use,
Region 3 conducted a comprehensive land use assessment on the surficial use and reuse of land at
hazardous waste cleanup sites during the Spring of 2005. This assessment included CERCLA
(Superfund) NPL sites, RCRA Corrective Action high priority facilities and Federal Facilities, which
include both Superfund and RCRA sites. Although anecdotal success stories exist to show that
revitalization of cleanup sites is occurring, Region 3 undertook a cross-program effort to collect
quantifiable data to enable the region to measure progress toward this goal. In conjunction with EPA
OSWER, which is seeking to identify and establish cross-program land revitalization measures,
Region 3's RCRA, Superfund and Federal Facility programs collected land use information with the
following objectives'.
• Establish a Regional baseline on total acres of land being addressed by these cleanup
programs and current land use occurring on these sites. This baseline will enable the Agency
to track over time the number of sites and acres that are: in continued use, reused, have a
planned reuse, or have no current use;
• Identify the sites, or portions of sites, which have no current use and evaluate options to
facilitate use of these sites;
• Determine the extent of reuse occurring in the cleanup programs;
Determine the types of reuse occurring at cleanup sites to help communicate more tangible
information regarding accomplishments;
• Track and subsequently enhance the EPA and state tools used to facilitate reuse;
• Collect information to demonstrate the positive local impacts (economic as well as
ecological) resulting from use and reuse;
• Provide a better understanding of the relationship between the status of cleanups and reuse;
and
• Identify challenges in collecting this kind of information prior to developing and promoting
broader national measures for land revitalization.
This report includes background information, the assessment approach, data analysis and
findings, lessons learned, recommendations, and potential next steps.
March 2006
1
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
1.2 Background
Usable land is a valuable resource. However,
where contamination presents a real or perceived
threat to human health or the environment,
options for future land use at a site may be
limited. Reusing contaminated sites creates
greater impetus for selecting and implementing
remedies that, in addition to providing clear
human health and environmental benefits, will
support reasonably anticipated future land use
options and provide greater economic and social
benefits.
As a demonstration of its commitment to
support the continued use and reuse of
contaminated property, EPA summarized the
current status of measuring land revitalization in
several cleanup programs and outlined a
conceptual framework for cross-program
measures in OSWER's draft report, Measuring
Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in
America's Communities: Past Accomplishments
andFuture Opportunities (July 27,2005). Region
3's land use assessment provided EPA's Land
Revitalization Office an opportunity to evaluate
the feasibility of collecting some of the
information proposed in their conceptual cross-
program framework.
EPA Region 3's Superfund, Federal Facility, and RCRA Corrective Action programs are also
committed to facilitating beneficial uses and reuses of contaminated sites. These programs joined
forces with the support of OSWER's Land Revitalization Office to pilot a data collection effort to
develop program baselines and evaluate the applicability of cross-program land reuse measures.
The assessment offers a snapshot of the current status of land use at cleanup sites in Region 3
and an indication of the influence agency efforts are having on facilitating reuse. However, this
assessment did not account for local market forces and other external factors. External factors
relevant to site reuse include location, surrounding land use, local economic conditions, crime rates,
proximity to amenities and local government involvement and commitment to redevelopment. Since
these factors were not considered, the results may both under represent EPA and state efforts to
facilitate reuse where insurmountable barriers exist and unduly credit the agencies where market
forces had enough impetus to stimulate revitalization on its own.
Why is Land Revitalization Important?
Land is a finite resource that plays an
important role in the health and vitality of
America's communities. EPA is
committed to supporting land
revitalization as an outcome of the
assessment and cleanup of contaminated
sites because:
• A significant amount of land may
unnecessarily remain unused or
underutilized
• Revitalization can result in higher
levels of protection
• Revitalization can increase the pace of
the assessment and cleanup process
• Revitalization can bring economic,
social, and ecological benefits to
communities
• Revitalization can support land use
planning trends
Source: "Measuring Revitalization of
Contaminated Properties in America's
Communities: Past Accomplishments and Future
Opportunities", OSWER draft report, July 27, 2005
March 2006
2
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Superfund: The Superfund program was created to investigate and clean up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Sites with known or potential health or environmental risks that
are placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) qualify for Superfund cleanup and are eligible for
long-term remedial action financed under the federal Superfund program. The goal of the Superfund
Redevelopment program is to provide tools and information needed to help communities return
Superfund sites to productive use. In fiscal year 2004, the Superfund program announced new
Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) measures to document land revitalization
accomplishments. The revitalization performance measures being reported are the number of
Superfund sites and acres of land that are ready for residential or non-residential reuse. Region 3's
land use assessment collected more detailed information relating to revitalization occurring on
Superfund sites.
RCRA: The RCRA Corrective Action program was designed to oversee the cleanup of
operating industrial facilities which manage hazardous waste. However, due to a variety of economic
factors, the RCRA Corrective Action program is also currently investigating and cleaning up
property with a variety of non-industrial uses. Although the majority of sites continue to be used for
industrial purposes, some are being reused for commercial, residential, and recreational purposes.
Also, a growing number of sites are becoming vacant. While EPA is cognizant of changes in
property use at RCRA sites, to date the program has not collected meaningful data to assess the
situation which may have implications on achieving program cleanup goals.
Federal Facilities: Region 3's Federal Facility program addresses primarily military sites
which are owned by the Federal government. The authority to require cleanup at a Federal Facility
may fall under the jurisdiction of either RCRA Corrective Action, Superfund, or both as many
Federal Facilities requiring cleanup are also listed on the NPL. In Region 3, the Federal Facility
program resides with Superfund in Region 3's Hazardous Site Cleanup Division (HSCD). As a
result, most of the Federal Facility cleanups are carried out by HSCD's Federal Facility program
which relies on CERCLA authority, but some are implemented under the RCRA Corrective Action
program. The Region assessed current land use at all of the NPL Federal Facilities, some non-NPL
Federal Facilities and Base Realignment Closure (BRAC) sites.
1.3 Implementation
A cross-program workgroup planned the land use assessment project with representatives from:
• Region 3 Land Revitalization Program
• Region 3 Superfund Program
Region 3 Federal Facility Program
• Region 3 RCRA Corrective Action Program
• Virginia Department of Environmental Quality RCRA Corrective Action Program
• OSWER Office of Land Revitalization
• OSWER Office of Solid Waste
• OSWER Office of Superfund Remediation Technology Innovation
March 2006
3
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
The workgroup developed data elements and definitions which were formatted into a Land
Use/Reuse Assessment Form (Appendix A) that was distributed to EPA and state project managers.
The project managers were instructed on how to fill out the forms and Region 3 management
provided project managers one month to collect the information. The programs collected information
for 511 cleanup sites. For RCRA, the Region collected use/reuse information on the 289 high
priority facilities that comprise Region 3's 2008 GPRA baseline. Nine of these RCRA sites are
Federal Facility sites. For Superfiind, the pilot collected use/reuse information on the Region's 174
NPL sites and 48 Federal Facilities being addressed by the Superfund Program, many of which are
also on the NPL.
Project managers reported information for each site in acres. For a RCRA site, acres were based
on the land located within the facility's property boundaries. For a Superfund site, property acres
included all acres of land on which investigation and/or cleanup occurred. At all sites, areas where
ground water contamination has migrated off the property were not counted as part of the site. For
sites with contaminated surface water, sediments, or ground water, use or reuse of the site applied
only to the land portion of the site under investigation or cleanup.
To comply with the requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA project managers
and Region 3 states were directed to provide information based on their knowledge, the knowledge
of individuals in their agency, information made available to their agency in the course of
implementing site cleanup, or publicly available information (e.g., Web sites). In addition, EPA
project managers and state agencies were instructed to not seek specific information from private
entities in response to this land use assessment.
All the information from the assessment forms was transferred to a spreadsheet. Contractor
assistance provided by OSWER was used to assist the Region in developing the spreadsheet and to
manage the data elements discussed below.
March 2006
4
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
1.4 Overview of Data Collected
This land use assessment involved collecting information in key areas explained below and
graphically presented in Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1: Overview of Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Land Use/Reuse Assessment
Site
(Total # of acres)
Restored Reuse inactive v*ute
... (Superfund) Disposal Aral
No Current
Use/Vacant
(acres)
Inactive Wute
Disposal Arm
Type of Us^/Reuse (# of acres)
Agricultural Gomrvercial Industrial Er+ianced Ecological Military
Mixed-use Public Services Oths- Federal Recreational Residential
E"
Cleanup Status
¦¦ >¦
1 1 1
p
Ready for Reuse (Superfund GPRA Measure)
1
Agency Tools Supporting Us^Reuse
| 1
Projected Benefits of Usq^Reuse
Local Economic Irrpacts and Ecological Benefits
1.4.1 Current Land Use
Region 3 collected Current Land Use data to establish a baseline to track into the future the
number of sites and acres that are reused over time, become vacant, that remain in continued use.
This information quantifies the extent of reuse occurring and identifies the sites or portions of sites,
which have no current use/vacant. Region 3 used the following four categories of Current Land Use
for all sites: 1) Continued Use, 2) Reused, 3) Planned Reuse, and 4) No Current Use/Vacant.
March 2006
5
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
• Continued Use - A site or portion of a site which is currently being used in the same general
manner as it was when the site became contaminated. For example, continued use would be
an appropriate description for a property where industrial operations resulted in the
contamination and the property is still used as an operating industrial facility.
The RCRA Program counted all acres of an active RCRA industrial facility as Continued
Use, except for parcels specifically designated as Reused or Planned Reuse. For sites
designated as Continued Use, the Superfund Program also recorded the situation where the
use of a property was temporarily halted during cleanup and the same use was resumed after
the site was cleaned up. This is a special kind of Continued Use referred to in the Superfund
Reuse (SURE)2 Database as Restored Reuse.
• Reused - A site or a portion of a site where a new use or uses is occurring such that there
has been a change in the type of use (e.g., industrial to commercial) or the property was
vacant and now supports a specific use. This means that the developed site, or portion of the
site, is "open" or actually being used by customers, visitors, employees, or residents, etc.
OSWER's draft report, Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Sites in America's
Communities: Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities (July 27, 2005), refers to
this scenario as New Use.
• Planned Reuse — A site or portion of a site where a plan for a new use or uses is in place.
This could include conceptual plans, a contract with a developer, secured financing, approval
by the local government, or the initiation of site redevelopment.
• No Current Use/Vacant - A site or portion of a site which is currently vacant or not being
used in any identifiable manner. This could be because site investigation and cleanup are
ongoing, operations ceased, the owner is in bankruptcy, or cleanup is complete but the site
remains vacant. At vacant properties, project managers also reported on whether there was
any interest in site reuse and whether vacant areas were not recommended for reuse.
For sites where current land uses fit into more than one category, project managers estimated the
number of acres that fell within each category. For example, a 100-acre site may have 50 acres in
reuse and 50 acres with no current use.
In addition to determining the surficial use of land, information was also collected on acres of
subsurface land which was historically used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Inactive
waste disposal areas no longer receive waste and may have a cover to protect direct exposures.
However, remedies selected for these areas will typically result in long term management of waste
in-place, resulting in added challenges to their reuse. While EPA supports the reuse of inactive waste
disposal areas, where appropriate (e.g., parking lots, wildlife habitat areas, golf courses), these areas
may have limited reuse options; and, in certain situations, a remedy may specifically prohibit the
2EPA's Superfund program in headquarters created the SURE database to track reuse characteristics at Superfund sites.
March 2006
6
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
land's reuse to protect the integrity of the remedy. As discussed in Chapter 3, Data Results, many
proj ect managers recorded inactive waste disposal areas as "not recommended for reuse." Collecting
information on inactive waste disposal areas may explain why a certain percentage of land is not
being used/reused.
1.4.2 Type of Use
Region 3 collected information, in acres, for each Type of Use occurring or planned to occur to
identify the most common types of uses occurring at cleanup sites. For property designated as No
Current Use, project managers did not need to record a Type of Use.
Type of Use provides information to help EPA identify and communicate what kinds of
economic, social, or environmental benefits may be occurring at a site. For example, if the site is
being used for commercial or industrial purposes, we can assume that jobs were either created or
retained as an economic benefit associated with the site. For sites reporting recreational use, on the
other hand, we can assume that significant social or environmental benefits were provided to the
community. The assessment used the following Type of Use categories. (See Appendix A for the
Type of Use definitions.)
• Agricultural Use • Mixed Use • Recreational Use
• Commercial Use • Military Use • Residential Use
• Enhanced Ecological Use • Other Federal Use
• Industrial Use • Public Service Use
After selecting a Type of Use category, project managers reported on the specific use occurring
at each portion of the site. For example, if a portion of the site was identified as "public service,"
the project manager described the specific use or uses, such as government office building, or public
transit depot, etc.
To address difficulties in distinguishing between the Type of Use and multiple uses over time,
project managers were instructed to follow the SURE database approach to categorizing reusetypes.
That is, the predominant activity, function, and likely exposures scenario determines how a site is
categorized. For example, a project manager would categorize a privately-owned golf course, which
in this case can be categorized as either recreational or commercial, as recreational. The
categorization of recreational reflects the likely exposures scenario, rather than commercial, which
considers the financial aspect of the business. Second, to address the situation where a site had
multiple types of uses over a period of time, project managers were directed to record the most
recent Type of Use.
March 2006
7
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
1.4.3 Cleanup and Reuse Connection
For each Type of Use designated at a site, project managers reported the current cleanup status
for that parcel, which provides EPA with an indication of the relationship between cleanup and reuse
of sites. Project managers used the following broad cross-programmatic milestones to record the
status of investigation and cleanup: investigation; remedy selected and/or implemented; construction
complete; and RCRA complete/Superfund delisted or partial delisting. It was envisioned that if reuse
could be correlated with certain cleanup goals, the national program could use this information to
highlight the benefit of achieving certain cleanup targets which support use and reuse. For vacant
land areas, Region 3 intends to use cleanup status to assist in developing strategies for facilitating
reuse.
1.4.4 Aaencv Effort to Facilitate Use/Reuse
For all sites, project managers reported on the tools used to facilitate the continued use and reuse
of the property such as: comfort letters; coordination with a state Voluntary Cleanup Program
(VCP); Ready for Reuse Determinations; prospective purchaser agreements (PPAs); meetings; and
conference calls, etc. Project managers also reported if there was no Agency effort beyond cleanup.
This data element gives the programs information on the type and frequency of tools which project
managers use to facilitate use/reuse. The expectation was that this information would enable the
Region to qualitatively assess the level of involvement associated with facilitating the reuse of
cleanup sites.
1.4.5 Economic and Environmental Benefits
For sites in use, project managers reported, to the extent practical, information on the local
economic impact and ecological benefits associated with land in use or reuse. Project managers
reported any information about benefits known to them at the time. Information was not solicited.
Project managers also had the option of indicating on the form that "no information is available at
this time." The form was designed so that project managers could indicate whether benefits existed
("Yes/No" format) and the actual quantifiable (numerical) data about those benefits. For example,
project managers were asked whether jobs were leveraged at the site and to report the exact number
of those jobs leveraged, if known.
Region 3 based the data elements on those already being used by EPA's Brownfields Program
to measure the benefits of brownfields redevelopment. The type of information collected included:
permanent jobs added locally, changes in property value from before and after the development, and
number of houses built, etc. In addition, the Region attempted to track any sustainable reuse
elements occurring at sites (e.g., green building design or native landscaping). To ensure that the
data provided was a reasonable estimate, project managers were instructed to only record benefits
that accrued when the design phase of the use/reuse project was complete, to note on the form if the
information was preliminarily based on the Planned Reuse of the site, and to provide the source of
the information. Refer to the Hazardous Sites Use/Reuse Assessment Form in Appendix A for a
description of each benefits category.
March 2006
8
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
1.4.6 Ready for Reuse
Consistent with the EPA guidance memorandum, Guidance for Documenting and Reporting the
Superfund Revitalization Performance Measures, (OSWER 9202.1-26, November 5, 2004),
Superfund project managers also recorded acres of land at the site that are Ready for Reuse and
whether the areas are suitable for either residential or non-residential reuse. Acres considered Ready
for Reuse include land areas currently being used (i.e., recorded as either Continued Use or Reused);
where investigation occurred and response actions were deemed unnecessary; or where cleanup
goals for the land have been attained. Ready for Reuse information is already available in CERCLIS.
At the time of publication, this reporting requirement did not apply to RCRA sites.
March 2006
9
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
2. Data Analysis
2.1 Data Analysis Approach
Prior to starting the data analysis, the data entered on the assessment forms was proofed to
confirm its accuracy. Data input and quality assurance took approximately two months to finalize.
Contractor support, provided by OSWER, was used to compile the results of the information
collected. A graduate student intern working in Region 3's Land Revitalization program conducted
additional analysis. Results of the data analysis are provided in Chapter 3 of this report. More
detailed discussion of how certain parts of the analysis were performed can be found in Appendix
C.
Land use information was collected on a total of 511 properties. The full data set was broken into
three groups for analysis:
• Superfund NPL sites (non-Federal Facilities) -174 sites
• RCRA Corrective Action facilities (non-Federal Facilities) - 280 sites
• Federal Facilities - 57 sites
Of the 57 Federal Facilities, nine are being addressed by the RCRA Corrective Action program
and the rest through the Superfund program. Federal Facilities were analyzed separately because
they have unique use/reuse aspects and are larger in size which tends to bias the results of data
analysis. For example, most are active military installations which are thousands of acres in size.
Therefore, the acreage of a single large Federal Facility could exceed the total acreage of all the non-
military facilities in the RCRA Corrective Action or Superfund programs. The Federal Facility
category includes Federally-owned installations, including those on the NPL and non-NPL which
are being addressed under Superfund or RCRA authority. For this analysis, the Superfund NPL data
set specifically excludes any Federally-owned facility, even though some Federal Facilities may also
be on the NPL. The RCRA Corrective Action data set also excludes any Federal Facilities, even
though some of these sites are part of the Region's 2008 GPRA baseline. See Figure 2-1
representing the three data sets analyzed and Appendix B for site location maps.
March 2006
10
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Figure 2-1: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Site Distribution by Program
Number of Acres = 230,494
Number of Sites = 511
~ Federal Facilities (145,965 Acres)
¦ RCRA (67,823 Acres)
¦ Superfund (16,706 Acres)
~ Federal Facilities (57 Sites)
¦ RCRA (280 Sites)
¦ Superfund (174 Sites)
2.2 Data Factors Analyzed
Region 3 focused on the following key aspects of the data collected for analysis.
2.2.1 Current Land Use
The data for Current Land Use was analyzed both by number of sites occurring in each Current
Land Use category and by total acres occurring in each category. For analysis purposes, sites with
more than one land use occurring on the property (e.g., some acres reused and some acres vacant)
were listed as "multiple uses" to avoid double counting when reporting information by number of
sites. This multiple use category captures 117 sites that reported more than one Current Land Use
occurring at the site.
One objective for this comprehensive land use assessment was to identify the sites or portions
of sites which have no current use/vacant. The vacant land data was analyzed to provide information
on how much land is potentially available for reuse—either now or in the future—and where these
areas are located. In addition, project managers identified any vacant areas that are not
recommended for reuse because the remedy does not support reuse or reuse may damage the
remedy. From this assessment, Region 3 compiled a list of all hazardous waste sites that are vacant
or have vacant parcels. For these parcels, the Region has information on: the size of the vacant
areas; the acres of the property which managed waste (e.g., former landfills); whether the vacant
areas are not recommended for reuse and why; and the site cleanup status. Appendix B contains
maps showing the geographic location and relative size of the vacant areas.
March 2006 11
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
2.2.2 Type of Use
Because many sites had more than one Type ofUse, this data was only analyzed by total number
of acres, not by site. Types ofUse was analyzed for two groups of sites. One group included all sites
in use (e.g., Continued Use and Reused) or with a plan for use. The other group included just the
Reused and Planned Reuse sites. By comparing the two groups, the Region gained information on
trends in how sites are being converted to new uses.
Region 3 further identified those sites reporting acres of enhanced ecological use (i.e., property
where proactive measures were implemented to create, restore, protect, or enhance a habitat).
Region 3 is interested in identifying the extent to which environmental enhancements are occurring
on cleanup sites. In addition, Region 3's Superfiind program is exploring the development of
environmental indicators, such as wetlands or habitat created at Superfund sites.
2.2.3 Cleanup and Reuse Connection
Cleanup status was recorded to evaluate the relationship between the cleanup process and
property reuse. More specifically, the workgroup wanted to answer two questions. First, whether
there were phases in the cleanup process where a plan for reuse was more likely to be initiated.
Second, whether site reuse is typically integrated into the investigation and cleanup as opposed to
being initiated after site-wide final cleanup goals are met. To achieve this objective, the Region
analyzed the current cleanup status for the Planned Reuse sites, because this category of sites
provides the best estimate of the cleanup status at the time when reuse was initiated. Although this
subset of sites is not expected to represent the entire population of sites undergoing reuse, adequate
information was available to draw some preliminary conclusions on the relationship between site-
wide cleanup activities and reuse.
2.2.4 Aaencv Effort Bevond Cleanup to Facilitate Use/Reuse
Agency effort was only analyzed by site, not by acres, because this information was not collected
for parcels. Region 3 analyzed the number of sites in which project managers were involved in
facilitating reuse. The Region also summarized the tools used to facilitate reuse and the frequency
in which particular tools were used within each cleanup program.
2.2.5 Economic and Environmental Benefits
Benefits information was analyzed by site, not by acres. Region 3 analyzed both the total
number of sites reporting benefits information and summed up any quantifiable data provided.
March 2006
12
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
3. Data Results
The following sections contain the results and findings for the data factors discussed above for
both the combined program data set and for each of the three program specific data sets. One of the
goals of the hazardous sites assessment was to establish a regional baseline of current land use, by
number of sites and acres, enabling the Agency to track changes over time. Table 3-1 below shows
the baseline information for each program.
Table 3-1: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Sites and Acres for each Program
Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Full Data Set
Superfund NPL
Federal Facilities
RCRA
Sites*
Acres
Sites*
Acres
Sites*
Acres
Sites*
Acres
Total
511
230,494
174
16,706
57
145,965
280
67,823
Continued Use
320
186,360
66
7,395
45
126,704
209
52,261
Reused
109
15,981
42
941
23
10,154
44
4,886
Planned Reuse
70
11,010
27
2,484
19
2,622
24
5,904
No Use/Vacant
166
17,143
101
5,886
10
6,485
55
4,772
*Sites on this table include entire sites and portions of a site. Consequently, the number of sites will add up
to more than the total number of sites surveyed.
3.1 Combined Program Results
Current Land Use
F igure 3-1 shows the distribution of Current Land Use for the three cleanup programs combined.
The assessment results show that in Region 3 the overwhelming majority of land (93% of all acres)
in these programs is being used or has a plan for use. This large percentage is due to the fact that the
majority of land area is associated with Federal Facilities, which are primarily active military bases.
Of the land being used, 81 percent continues to operate in the same general manner as when the site
was contaminated (e.g., industrial facilities, military sites). However, a growing number of cleanup
sites have new uses. Across the programs 15,981 acres (7% of the total land) at cleanup sites have
been reused and an additional 11,010 acres (5% of the total land) have a plan for use.
March 2006
13
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Figure 3-1: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Current Land Use
Number of Acres = 230,494
Number of Sites = 511
~ Reused (15,981 Acres)
¦ Planned Reuse (11J010 Acres)
~ No Current UseWacant (17,143 Acres)
~ Not Recommended for Reuse (2,680 Acres)
~ Continued Use (241 Sites)
~ Reused (40 Sites)
I Planned Reuse (15 Sites)
~ No Current UseA/acant (98 Sites)
H Multiple Uses* (117 Sites)
* Sites with more than one current land use.
In a general sense, we can also assume that the reuse of contaminated sites may help to reduce
development pressure on nearby undeveloped areas. In 1997 through a grant provided by EPA,
George Washington University conducted a study to look at whether the redevelopment of
brownfields reduces developmental pressures on surrounding greenfields (undeveloped areas). This
study showed that, on average, for every acre of brownfield property redeveloped a minimum of 4.5
acres would have been required had the same project been located in a greenfield area. Considering
that close to 16,000 acres of land has been reused at hazardous waste cleanup sites in Region 3, we
can estimate that 72,000 acres (about 112 square miles) of greenfield areas have been preserved in
the Region. This estimate does not take into consideration the amount of new greenspace actually
created or preserved on Region 3's cleanup sites as part of their reuse or continued use.
The assessment identified 98 sites that are completely vacant and another 68 sites where portions
of the site are vacant. This equates to 17,143 acres of underutilized property that may be available
for reuse. However, not all of the property may be suitable for reuse. Some of the property is not
recommended for use (2,680 acres or 16%) and some of the property may have limitations in the
kinds of use which would be safe because it is being used to manage waste (e.g., landfill). For
example, of the 230,494 acres being addressed by the cleanup programs, 8,673 acres (about 13
square miles) were reported as inactive waste disposal areas. This land will have reuse limitations
0 Continued Use (186,360 Acres)
March 2006
14
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
and will likely need additional engineered and/or institutional controls to ensure long-term
protection consistent with reuse. For a more detailed analysis of sites with No Current Use/Vacant,
see Appendix C.
There are many other factors unrelated to contamination issues that influence whether a site
remains vacant or is reused, such as property ownership, local zoning, location, third party liability
concerns, etc. However, a fundamental consideration in the use of cleanup sites is the fact that land
use and reuse is, not an EPA or state decision but rather a local agency and property owner decision.
Types of Uses Occurring
Evaluating the combined results for Type of Use was not very informative because some specific
types of land uses are more directly associated with some of the cleanup programs. For example,
most operating industrial facilities are addressed by RCRA Corrective Action and most military
facilities by the Federal Facility program. Consequently, it is not appropriate to evaluate the Types
of Use results collectively. Therefore, they are discussed in the program specific results sections.
Cleanup and Reuse Connection
Figure 3-2 below shows the current cleanup status for sites that were identified as planned reuse.
The analysis was limited to the planned reuse sites because they provide the best estimate for
assessing the cleanup status for the timeframe when reuse was initiated. The data suggest that reuse
is occurring at all stages of the investigation and cleanup, and that property transactions are
occurring while sites are under RCRA or Superfund authority. Only 11 percent of the planned reuse
sites show completion/delisting of their cleanup obligations. This indicates that a state-wide
environmental investigation and cleanup may occur concurrently with site reuse. Cleanup status was
difficult to evaluate because of the broad cleanup status categories used by the programs and because
of the way cleanup is tracked in certain programs. For example, all of RCRA's cleanup goals are
site-wide measures. Therefore, a parcel of land at a facility may be cleaned up and have a plan for
reuse, but the cleanup status reported for the site would be investigation if there is still an ongoing
investigation at other portions of the site. Table 3-2 shows the program specific results for cleanup
status for the planned reuse sites.
Table 3-2: Cleanup Status for Planned Reuse Sites by Program
Program
Superfund
Federal Facility
RCRA
Total
Investigation
7
9
17
33
Remedy Selection
9
9
1
19
Construction Complete
7
0
3
10
Complete/Delisted
4
1
3
8
Total
27
19
24
70
March 2006
15
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Agency Effort to Facilitate Use/Reuse
Figure 3-3 shows the number of sites in all programs where EPA staff reported activities in
support of reuse. At 81 percent of the cleanup sites where reuse has occurred or is planned to occur,
EPA or the state has been an active participant; and in all programs, the Region seems to be making
a similar level of effort to support reuse.
Fig ure 3-3: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Agency Involvement-Reused & Planned Reuse Sites
Number of Sites = 145
~ With Agency Involvement (118 Sites)
¦ Without Agency Involvement (27 Sites)
March 2006
16
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Economic and Environmental Benefits
Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show the frequency and types of benefits associated with land use reported
for all three programs. About one-third of the sites reported that benefits occurred, but quantifiable
data was only reported for a few sites. However, the limited amount of quantifiable data
demonstrates significant benefits occurring at these sites. For example:
• 13 sites reported reuse investment totaling close to $4 billion in projected redevelopment
investment
38 sites reported jobs leveraged or retained totaling 24,986 local jobs
• 23 sites reported open space or sustainable reuse on the site
7 sites reported houses built totaling 189 new homes
For more detailed results on the economic benefit resulting from reuse, see Appendix C.
Figure 3-4: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Benefits Associated with Use/Reuse-Sites Reporting Benefits
Federal Facilities RCRA Superfund
March 2006
17
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
120
Figure 3-5: Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Frequency of Benefits Reported
Sites Reporting Benefits
19
Q
U
fj!
HI
~ NPL (Non-Federal Facilities) - 54 Sites
¦ RCRA Sites - 65 Sites
SFederal Facilities - 29 Sites
mm
17
7 [
B
9
Jol>s Open Space Piopeity Taxes Reuse Invest Pottnets Sust<~inility Housing
Value
3.2 Superfund NPL (non-Federal Facility) Results
Current Land Use
Figure 3-6 shows the Current Land Use as reported for Superfund sites. There are 174 sites in
the Superfund NPL data set. Two-thirds (65%) of Superfund NPL site acres in some kind of use or
have a planned use. From this information, it is clear that in Region 3, Superfund sites are being
reused, but there is opportunity for more reuse.
One hundred and one sites (101) or 5 8 percent of Superfund sites indicate that some or all of the
site is not being used (58 sites are totally vacant and 43 sites are partially vacant). On these 101 sites
there are 5,886 vacant acres, which is 35 percent of the total Superfund land area. Of the 5,886
vacant acres, 2,119 acres or roughly one-third are not recommended for reuse. This leaves close to
3,800 acres on Superfund NPL sites that may have potential for reuse. See Appendix B for a map
of Superfund vacant land in Region 3.
Figure 3-7 shows the amount of acres reported as inactive waste disposal areas both in reuse and
not in reuse on Superfund sites. About 14 percent (2,300 acres) of land at Superfund sites was
reported as inactive waste disposal areas. Approximately 30 percent of the inactive waste disposal
areas are in reuse which helps support the premise that sometimes former waste dumps can be safely
reused for other purposes.
March 2006
18
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Figure 3-6: Region 3 Superfund Sites
Current Land Use
Number of Acres = 16,706
~ Continued Use (7,395 Acres)
~ Reused (941 Acres)
B Planned Reuse (2,484 Acres)
~
No Current Use/Vacant (5,886 Acres)
~ Not Recommended for Reuse (2,119 Acres)
Number of Sites = 174
~ Continued Use (36 Sites)
~ Reused (17 Sites)
¦ Planned Reuse (9 Sites)
~ No Current UseA/acant (58 Sites)
B Multiple Uses* (54 Sites)
* Sites with more than one current land use
Figure 3-7: Region 3 Superfund Sites
Inactive Waste Disposal Areas
Number of Acres = 16,706 (174 Sites)
Inactive Waste Disposal Area
Not in Use -1,594 Acres
10%
Inactive Waste Disposal Area
In Use -705 Acres
4%
Total Inactive Waste Disposal Acres = 2,299
March 2006
19
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Types of Uses Occurring
Figure 3-8 shows the Types of Uses reported on Superfund sites. One chart shows the Types of
Uses occurring on all sites in use (i.e., continued use and reused) or with a plan for use, while the
second chart shows just the Types of Uses reported for reused and planned reused sites, indicating
trends in how sites are being converted to new uses.
Figure 3-8: Region 3 Superfund Sites
Type of Use
Continued Use, Reused &
Planned Reuse
Numhei of Acres = 10320 (116 Sites)
Reused & Planned Reuse
Numhei of Acies = 3.425 (60 Sites)
~ Agricultural (237 toes) 0 Mixed Use (4,655 Acnes?
~ C om m ercial (959 Acres) | Other F ederal (0 Acres)
~ E nhanced E co (723 Acres) D P ubli c S ervioes (87 Acres)
~ Industrial (2,267 Acres) (Recreational (1,364 Acres)
~Military (0 Acres) (Residential (528 Acres)
*4,400 acres is from one Sipertind site.
~Agricultural (4 Acres)
~Commercial (631 Ares)
He nhanced Eco (600 Acres)
~Industrial (641 Acres)
~Military (0 Acres)
0 Mixed Use (185 Acres)
Bother F ederal (0 Acres)
QPublic Services (71 Acres)
¦Recreational (1,244 Acres)
(Residential (49 Acres)
The most frequently reported type of land use occurring on Superfund sites is mixed use. Project
managers selected this category when they did not have sufficient information to report the specific
types of use in acres or when different types of use occur in a vertical fashion, such as a high rise
building with commercial use on the first floor and residential use on the upper floors. In the
Superfund data set, one large site dominates the mixed use category, contributing more than 4,400
acres. If we factor out this site from the data set, the most prominent uses occurring at Superfund
sites are industrial, recreational, and commercial use, respectively. See Appendix C for more
detailed information on Superfund sites with enhanced ecological use.
March 2006
20
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
There are 60 Superfund sites with either reuse or planned reuse occurring on them. More than
half of the acres (54%) of all reuse and planned reuse occurring on Region 3 Superfund sites is for
greenspace (reported as either recreational or enhanced ecological uses). Sixteen sites reported
enhanced ecological use with a total of 723 acres or 4 percent of the total Superfund land area. In
addition, 12 other Superfund sites reported open space or sustainable reuse was occurring on the site.
See Appendix C for more detailed information on Superfund sites with enhanced ecological use.
Agency Effort to Facilitate Use/Reuse
Figure 3-9 shows the percentage of Superfund sites where EPA staff reported taking action to
facilitate reuse of the site. Figure 3-10 shows the types of tools staff reported using to facilitate
reuse. Of the 60 Superfund sites in either reuse or with a plan for reuse, EPA took actions to support
that reuse 83 percent of the time. The data demonstrates that Region 3 is actively involved with
supporting reuse on Superfund sites. The most common tools reported being used by site managers
were participating in phone calls and meetings and coordinating with other agencies.
Figure 3-9: Region 3 Superfund Sites
Agency Involvement-Reused & Planned
Reuse
Number of Sites = 60
I With Agency Involvement (50 Sites)
I Without Agency Involvement (10 Sites)
March 2006
21
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Figure 3-10: Region 3 Superfund Sites
Tools Used to Support Reuse & Planned Reuse
Number of Sites = 60
Economic and Environmental Benefits
Roughly one-third (54 sites) of Region 3 Superfund sites reported benefits associated with that
land use. The most reported benefit was jobs created (26 sites). But only 12 of these sites reported
an actual number of jobs. Total jobs reported for the 12 sites are 618. The second most reported
benefit was open space created. Site managers also reported a total of $141.5 million in reuse
investment across four sites.
3.3 Federal Facility Results
Current Land Use
There are 57 sites in the Federal Facilities data set, 48 being cleaned up under the Superfund
program and nine being cleaned up under the RCRA program. For those sites being cleaned up
under CERCLA authority, reported acres only reflect those acres that EPA addressed through its
authority under the NPL and may not represent the whole Federal Facility.
Figure 3-11 shows the Current Land Use as reported for the Federal Facilities data set. As
expected, the vast majority of land at Federal Facilities is in continued use, as most are operating
military bases. For Federal Facilities, 96 percent of all land is in use or has a plan for reuse.
March 2006
22
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Figure 3-11: Region 3 Federal Facilities Sites
Current Land Use
Number of Acres = 145,965
2%
Number of Sites = 57
4%
0 Continued Use (126,704 Acres)
~ Reused (10,154 Acres)
¦ Planned Reuse (2,622 Acres)
~ No Current Use/Vacant (6,485 Acres)
£]Not Recommended for Reuse (490 Acres)
~ Continued Use (21 Sites)
~ Reused (6 Sites)
I Planned Reuse (2 Sites)
~ No Current Use/Vacant (2 Sites)
El Multiple Uses* (26 Sites)
* Sites vith more than one current land use.
It is interesting to note that there are close to 6,500 acres of vacant land on 10 Federal Facility
sites (two fully vacant and eight partially vacant) that may have the potential for future reuse.
These vacant acres represent about 4 percent of the total Federal Facility land area. Of the 6,485
vacant acres, 490 or 8 percent are not recommended for reuse. This leaves close to 6,000 acres
on Federal Facilities that may have potential for reuse. See Appendix B for a map of vacant land
at Federal Facilities.
Types of Uses Occurring
Figure 3-12 shows the Types of Uses reported on Federal Facility sites. One chart shows the
Types of Uses occurring on all sites in use (i.e., continued use and reused) or with a plan for use,
while the second chart shows just the Types of Uses reported for reused and planned reused sites,
indicating trends in how sites are being converted to new uses. Not surprisingly, the predominant
reported types of land use occurring on Federal Facilities are mixed use and military use. Some
project managers reported land at military bases as mixed use where commercial, residential or other
uses also reside on the base because they had insufficient information to provide acreage on each
category. Other project managers were able to report the various uses in acres.
March 2006
23
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Figure 3-12: Region 3 Federal Facility Sites Type of Use
Reused & Planned Reuse
Continued Use. Reused &
Planned Reuse
Nuinhei of Acies =139480 455 Sites)
Numhei of Acies = 12.776 (31 Sites)
1%
~ Agricultural (196 Acres) g Mixed Use (80,191 Acres)
~C om m era al (13,187 Acre s) I Oth er F ederal (1,686 Acre s)
~Enhanced Eco (5,139 Acres) []Public Services(695 Acres)
~Industrial (2,863 Acres) BRecreational (2,222 Acres)
~Military (30,269 Acres) |Residential (3,032 Acres)
~Agricultural (0 Acres)
~Commercial (2,142 Acres)
~E nhanced E co (909 Acres)
~I ndustrial (1,362 Acres)
qM ilitary (188 Acres)
[Jvlixed Use (4,093 Acres)
Bother Federal (777 Acres)
~Public Services (514 Acres)
BRecreational (877 Acres)
^Residential (1,914 Acres)
Thirty-one Federal Facilities have been reused or have a plan for reuse. The types of reuses
occurring are primarily a combination of commercial, residential, and mixed uses. Thirteen Federal
Facilities reported enhanced ecological use with a total of 5,139 acres or 4 percent of the total
Federal Facility land area. In addition, six other Federal Facilities reported open space or sustainable
reuse was occurring on the site. See Appendix C for more detailed information on Federal Facilities
with enhanced ecological use.
Agency Effort to Facilitate Use/Reuse
Figure 3-13 shows the percentage of Federal Facilities where EPA staff reported taking action
to facilitate reuse of the site. Figure 3-14 shows the types of tools staff reported using to facilitate
reuse. The data show that Region 3 is extensively involved in supporting reuse at Federal Facilities.
Of the 31 Federal Facilities either reused or with a plan for reuse, EPA took actions to support that
reuse 97 percent of the time. The most common tools reported being used by Federal Facility project
managers were coordinating with other agencies, expediting cleanup to meet reuse needs and
attending phone calls and meetings.
March 2006
24
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Figure 3-13: Region 3 Federal Facility
Sites Agency Involvement-Reused &
Planned Reuse
Number of Sites = 31 3%
~ With Agency Involvement (30 Sites)
¦ Without Agency Involvement (1 Site)
Figure 3-14: Region 3 Federal Facility Sites
Tools Used To Support Reuse & Planned Reuse
Number of Sites = 31
March 2006
25
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Economic and Environmental Benefits
About half (29 sites) of all Federal Facilities reported benefits associated with that land use. The
most frequently reported benefit was the leveraging of jobs (16 sites). However, only four of these
sites reported an actual number of jobs. Total jobs leveraged for the four sites was reported as 1,888.
The second most reported benefit was increases in property value associated with reuse, but no
quantifiable information was provided. Site managers also reported a total of $328 million in reuse
investment across three sites.
3.4 RCRA Corrective Action(non-Federal Facility) Results
Current Land Use
There are 280 sites in the RCRA Corrective Action data set. Figure 3-15 shows the Current Land
Use reported in the RCRA data set. Sixty-six percent (184 sites) of RCRA facilities are in continued
use, with the land being used in the same general manner as when the facility became part of the
RCRA program in the 1980s, as most are operating facilities. The majority of the remaining land
is either reused or has a plan for reuse. Nineteen percent (53 sites) of RCRA facilities consisting of
21 sites and 32 portions of sites, have been reused or have a plan for reuse. This demonstrates that
a significant amount of reuse at RCRA facilities is occurring in Region 3 and that a majority of the
reuse takes place on parcels, rather than site-wide.
Figure 3-15: Region 3 RCRA Sites
Current Land Use
Number of Acres = 67,823
g Continued Use (52,261 Acres)
~ Reused (4,886 Acres)
I Planned Reuse (5,904 Acres)
~ No Current UseA/acant (4,772 Acres)
P Not Recommended for Reuse (71 Acres)
Number of Sites = 280
1%
I Continued Use (184 Sites)
~ Reused (17 Sites)
¦ Planned Reuse (4 Sites)
~ No Current UseA/acant (38 Sites)
H Multiple Uses* (37 Sites)
* Sites with more than one current land use
March 2006 26
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
In addition, the results show that 4,772 acres (7% of the RCRA land) remains vacant. This
equates to 38 vacant facilities and an additional 17 facilities with vacant parcels which may have
reuse potential. Of the 4,772 vacant acres, 71 acres (1%) are not recommended for reuse, leaving
close to 4,700 acres on RCRA facilities that may have potential for reuse. See Appendix B for a map
of vacant acres on RCRA sites.
Types of Uses Occurring
Figure 3-16 shows the Types of Uses reported on RCRA sites. One chart shows the Types of
Uses occurring on all sites in use (i.e., continued use and reused) or with a plan for use, while the
second chart shows just the Types of Uses reported for reused and planned reused sites, indicating
trends in how sites are being converted to new uses. The predominant type of land use occurring on
RCRA facilities is industrial use (78%) ofthe acres. No other type of use is even significantly close
to the industrial use category. However when the Type of Use for reused and planned reused sites
is examined, it shows that only (50%) of the land is being reused for industrial purposes. The next
most frequently reported T ypes of Uses for this data set are commercial and mixed use. These results
show that as more RCRA sites are reused, the program will see a broader range of uses occurring
on RCRA sites.
Figure 3-16: Region 3 RCRA Sites
Type of Use
Continued Use, Reused & Reused & Planned Reuse
Planned Reuse
Number of Acres = 63,051 (242 Sites) Number of Acres = 10,790 (54 Sites)
~ Agncultural (4,339 Acres)
~Commercial (1,684 Acres)
~Enhanced Eco (994 Acres)
~ Industrial (49,525 Acres)
~ Military (0 Acres)
| Mixed Use (3,832 Acres)
¦ Other Federal (0 Acres)
~Public Services (1,584 Acres)
I Recreational (556 Acres)
(Residential (537 Acres)
~Agricultural (11 Acres)
~Commercial (1,676 Acres)
~Enhanced Eco (946 Acres)
~ Industrial (5,369 Acres)
~ Military (0 Acres)
| Mixed Use (1,201 Acres)
Bother Federal (0 Acres)
~Public Services (573 Acres)
¦ Recreational (477 Acres)
¦ Residential (537 Acres)
March 2006
27
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Given the industrial nature of most RCRA sites, only 11 sites reported enhanced ecological use
with a total of 994 acres or one percent of the total RCRA land area. In addition, five other RCRA
facilities reported open space or sustainable reuse occurring on the site. See Appendix C for more
detailed information on RCRA Corrective Action sites with enhanced ecological use.
Agency Effort to Facilitate Use/Reuse
Figure 3-17 shows the percentage of RCRA sites where staff reported taking action to facilitate
reuse of the site. Figure 3-18 shows the types of tools staff reported using to facilitate reuse. Of the
54 RCRA facilities either reused or with a plan for reuse, EPA took actions to support that reuse 70
percent of the time. The most commonly used tool—coordination with another regulatory
program—was reported at 29 sites. At 10 of those sites, the coordination was between
Pennsylvania's Voluntary Cleanup Program (Act 2) and EPA's RCRA Corrective Action program.
Act 2 has a Memorandum of Agreement with EPA which establishes, among other things, the
relationship between the Act 2 program and EPA's RCRA Corrective Action program. The next
three most frequently reported tools to facilitate reuse at RCRA sites were meetings, phone calls,
and expedited cleanups. The meetings and phone calls suggest that clear communication between
all parties is integral to facilitating the reuse of property, and the reporting of expedited cleanups
shows that reuse leads to faster cleanups.
Figure 3-17: Region 3 RCRA Sites
Agency Involvement -Reused & Planned Reuse
S With Agency Involvement (38 Sites)
¦ Without Agency Involvement (16 Sites)
March 2006
28
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Fig ure 3-18: Region 3 RCRA Sites
Tools Used To Support Reuse & Planned Reuse
Number of Sites = 54
35
30
Economic and Environmental Benefits
About one fourth (65 sites) of the RCRA facilities reported benefits associated with that land
use. The most frequently reported benefit was the retention or leveraging of jobs, with 22 sites
reporting actual numbers. Jobs reported for the 22 sites totaled 21,980. The second most reported
benefit was increased tax revenue associated with reuse and change in property value. For increased
tax revenue, 33 sites reported this benefit, but only one site provided quantifiable information on tax
dollars. Site managers also reported more than $3.5 billion in total reuse investment across five sites.
March 2006
29
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
4. Lessons Learned
As a pilot project, Region 3's land use/reuse assessment incurred several challenges and lessons
learned as the process evolved and data was collected and analyzed. Below are some of the lessons
learned from both the data collection process and implementation of the land use assessment, as well
as those associated with the results of the data collected. Considering all the challenges encountered
during the project development, data collection process, and data analysis, Region 3 met the overall
goals initially outlined for this land use assessment. The Region was successful in collecting
quantifiable cross-program information to establish a baseline for measuring progress in returning
cleanup sites to use and to communicate revitalization accomplishments for its cleanup programs.
4.1 Data Collection Lessons
A One Cleanup approach to collecting site information on reuse is possible.
Designing a common assessment form under the One Cleanup Program3 approach provided the
first challenge. Although the Superfund and RCRA programs have different approaches and
regulatory constraints, generalizations among programs can be applied. For example, the RCRA
program for the most part deals with operating facilities, which adhere to property boundaries
defined through ownership, while Superfund deals with property where contamination occurs
independent of property ownership and boundaries. Differences in the programs' approaches to
determining Total Property Acres were also observed in the Federal Facilities data set. Generally
speaking, RCRA determined total acres as the whole Federal Facility property since the entire
facility is subject to RCRA Corrective Action and evaluated, while many Superfund project
managers counted only the acres at the Federal Facility that were investigated or cleaned up.
Another program difference occurred in the evaluation of Current Land Use. The Superfund
program included a "restored reuse" classification derived from the SURE database. However, the
RCRA and Federal Facilities programs did not include this option as a Current Land Use category
because it has no applicability to these sites. Regardless of these and other minor differences, the
assessment was successful in demonstrating that cleanup programs can collaborate to collect similar
data across programs and can create a cross-program baseline while still catering to the uniqueness
of each program. While inherent differences within the programs exist, cross-program
generalizations are possible.
3The One Cleanup Program (http://www.epa.qov/oswer/onecleanupproararn/) promotescoordination among EPA programs,
state, tribal, local and other federal agency programs, and stakeholders. These efforts are designed to lead to more consistent and
efficient cleanups, clearer and more accessible information about cleanups, and better cross-program performance measures.
March 2006
30
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
An accurate inventory of sites needs to be identified prior to data collection.
All sites included in the data collection effort should be identified by program and EPA
identification number prior to initiating data collection. Significant time was spent resolving site
names, identification numbers, and program lead for filling out the form. Also, data analysis should
not begin until all data are collected and verified through a comprehensive quality assurance process.
Data collection requires minimal time commitment.
Most project managers felt the form was fairly easy to use and self-explanatory. On average,
staff reported that the form took 10-45 minutes to fill out per site. Project managers reported that the
first form took the longest, because they had to review the definitions, and that the subsequent forms
went more quickly. Those sites with more than one land use took more time to complete than sites
with only one use. In addition, some forms took more time because project managers were recently
assigned due to routine staff turnover. However, in general, the vast majority of project managers
met the deadline for completing the forms.
Training is necessary to collect uniform results across programs.
Although training sessions were held for the project managers, some either missed the training
session or interpreted the instructions differently due to the subjective nature of the form, creating
difficulties in interpreting the information for data analysis. As a result of the different
interpretations, significant time was spent verifying information with project managers, and
correcting data as needed. For example, questions arose about different potential use scenarios.
Issues involved how to classify research and development operations and areas dedicated to long
term remedy implementation, such as pump houses. Some staff felt landfills should be considered
a specific type of use since they serve a valuable function for the long term management of waste.
Another training gap identified was that instructions were provided on the Assessment Form for how
to establish total site acres for both RCRA sites and Superfund sites, but not specifically for Federal
Facilities. This led to varying interpretations by Federal Facilities project managers on how to
calculate total acres for the site. As a result of these issues, potential uncertainties exist in the data
sets.
Electronic reporting would be faster and reduce errors.
It would have been preferable to enter the information directly into a database. At the start of
the project, Region 3 did not have the resources to develop an electronic format for reporting the
information. Region 3 opted to use handwritten assessment forms and a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
to compile the data so that it would be housed in one location for cross-program analysis. Once the
project managers filled out the forms, the information then had to be transferred to the spreadsheet
increasing the risk of transcription errors (typos). The spreadsheet is large, cumbersome to use, data
analysis was time-consuming, and reports were difficult to generate. Given the complexity of the
spreadsheet, project managers cannot confirm or update their site specific information in the
spreadsheet. If this information continues to be collected on a long term basis, it will be easier to
manage the information in a database format. This would allow project managers to enter the data
directly into the database and a database is more amenable to analysis. However, it would require
significant time and resources to develop and maintain such a database. For the Superfund program,
March 2006
31
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
it may be possible and more expedient to use CERCLIS which already contains some information
on site reuse, but then the ability to analyze results on a cross-programmatic basis would be lost.
Improvements to the Reuse Assessment Form.
The following suggestions have been made to improve the Land Use/Reuse Assessment Form:
Section A General Information
• Add RCRA Federal Facility as a Type of Site option to better define the data sets.
Section B Contact Information
• No suggestions.
Section C Current Land Use and Type of Use
• Provide instructions on how to determine total site acres for Federal Facilities.
Add a box under No Current Use/Vacant to account for acres unavailable due to remedy
implementation.
• Develop a way to classify wetlands because there was no clear way to report their status as
a Type of Use.
• Add Open Space or Green Space as a Type of Use and provide a definition.
• Clarify research and development as Industrial Use in the definition.
• Eliminate Cleanup Status except for No Current Use/Vacant parcels because the cleanup
status of property in use is not critical information and because it is difficult to correlate the
programmatic cleanup measures to reuse.
• Resolve relationship between Current Land Use and the Superfund Ready for Reuse GPRA
measure.
Section D Tools Used to Support Use/Reuse
• Connect "Tools Used to Facilitate Use" (Section D) to each "Current Land Use" (Section
C) row. Tools were reported as a site-wide measure. Therefore, when a site had more than
one Current Land Use, we could not distinguish which tools applied to a specific parcel. For
example, if a 100-acre site reported 50 acres Reused and 50 acres Vacant, and the Tools
Section reported the use of a comfort letter, it was not possible to discern whether the
comfort letter applied to the reused portion, the vacant portion, or both.
Section E Benefits of Use/Reuse
• Only collect benefits information for sites in reuse and not continued use.
March 2006
32
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
4.2 Data Results Lessons
Reuse benefits are not easily reported under current program structures.
The assessment approach was designed to comply with the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act. While it may seem obvious that site owners would be the best source of information
on the reuse of their property, project managers were advised not to seek information directly from
the property owners in response to the form. Project managers were instructed to complete the form
based on their knowledge, any readily available information in Agency files, and publicly available
information. As a result, only a limited amount of quantifiable information on the benefits of reuse
(e.g., jobs leveraged, tax dollars generated) was reported. For example, several project managers
knew there were jobs leveraged at sites and checked that benefit on the form, but many did not know
how many jobs were leveraged. Project managers do not routinely collect this type of information
because it is not relevant to the cleanup. Other methods or independent research are necessary to
obtain comprehensive economic and environmental benefits associated with site reuse.
The assessment form requested project managers to report benefits information for sites in
use/reuse, which included sites that are in continued use. Once the data was collected and analyzed,
we realized that benefits reported for continued use sites were very sporadic and not very
informative. In the future, we recommend collecting benefits information only for sites that are in
reuse.
Information on Superfund Ready for Reuse GPRA Reporting Measures was not
successfully integrated into Region 3's assessment.
Another challenge was integrating the land use assessment with the Superfund Ready for Reuse
Government Performance and Results Act measure. A separate section of the form was dedicated
to reporting Ready for Reuse, based on EPA's Guidance for Documenting and Reporting the
Superfund Revitalization Performance Measures, (OSWER 9202.1-26, November 5, 2004). This
section was included to verify the information already in the CERCLIS database.
After reviewing the data reported on the forms, it was apparent that the information did not
correlate with the CERCLIS information. Several reasons that might explain the differences
include: 1) Superfund's Ready for Reuse measure is intended to evaluate a level of protectiveness
for the land use and requires the issuance of certain decision documents before a project manager
can deem land "Ready." In contrast, Region 3' s land use/reuse assessment only dealt with the actual
use or planned use at the site. The Region chose to focus the assessment on actual land use, because
the cleanup programs already have measures to track cleanup progress and agency oversight at
cleanup sites ensures that any uses, and reuses, are protective; 2) On Region 3's Land Use/Reuse
Assessment Form, the instructions for the Ready for Reuse section were contained on another page
of the form and were not sufficiently detailed to accurately capture the intent of Superfund's GPRA
measure; 3) Training for the Superfund project managers did not focus on fully explaining the
documentation requirements for the Superfund Ready for Reuse GPRA measure.
March 2006
33
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
The data collected is not perfect
After completion of the data collection, program managers briefly reviewed the site specific
information contained in the spreadsheets. Minor errors and inaccuracies in some of the data were
noted, primarily for total site acres. However, the Region determined that the errors were minimal
compared to the broader information collected. It was decided not to update or correct the site
specific errors at this time. These errors will be corrected during subsequent assessments, if
conducted. The information contained in this report is indicative of the current status of land use at
Region 3 cleanup sites, but is not necessarily 100 percent accurate for every site.
March 2006
34
-------
EPA Region 3
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
5. Recommendations and
Potential Future Directions
5.1 Recommended Uses for the Information
5.1.1 Developing Cross-Program Revitalization Measures
One objective of this land use/reuse assessment was to determine whether Regions can collect
information to assist in the development of national cross-program revitalization measures. Region
3's land use assessment contributed to and enhanced the national dialogue on cross-program
revitalization measures. The information collected is consistent with OSWER's proposed framework
for possible cross-program revitalization measures described in the draft report, Measuring
Revitalization ofContaminated Sites in America's Communities: Past Accomplishments and Future
Opportunities (July 27, 2005).
That document proposes the following framework for consideration:
• Number and acres of properties addressed by OSWER cleanup programs
• Status of use (e.g., vacant, continued use, new use, or planned new use)
• Type of use (e.g., industrial, commercial, green space, residential, or municipal)
• Number and acres of properties confirmed protective for current and future uses
Region 3 established a cross-program baseline for: number of acres and sites addressed by
cleanup program; Current Land Use; and Type of Use. With this baseline, the Region has the ability
to develop an outcome measure to track changes in use and revitalization accomplishments into the
future. Region 3's approach to collecting revitalization information provides a means to
quantitatively demonstrate its success in reusing contaminated property; provides data to support
the Agency's revitalization objectives; provides information that is feasible to collect across arange
of programs; and provides information to integrate into strategic planning.
5.1.2 Facilitating Reuse of Underutilized Sites
A principle result of Region 3's land use/reuse assessment was the identification of vacant sites
with potential for reuse of our efforts to Superfund. This information will enhance the Region's
efforts to support reuse where appropriate. Additionally, Region 3 can plot vacant sites to identify
clusters of sites within communities or specific geographic areas (watersheds, environmental justice
areas, etc.). Potential options for facilitating reuse at vacant sites include:
• Outreach to affected communities regarding redevelopment resources
• Working with property owners to facilitate reuse
• Providing site specific information to facilitate reuse, such as Site Reuse Profiles or Ready
for Reuse Determinations, as requested
March 2006
35
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
5.1.3 Tracking the Benefits of Reuse
Region 3 hoped to be able to use the information collected about benefits associated with land
uses to report on the collective impact of the revitalization of contaminated sites. The Region
believes it is important to have such information for the creation of success stories, fact sheets, new
articles, etc. It was discovered that this information is not typically collected by project managers.
The benefits were significant even though the Region was not able to gather information from all
available sources. However, the limited amount of information available does not provide a
representative sample to allow programmatic impacts of the revitalization of contaminated sites to
be analyzed.
5.2 Expand the Assessment to Other Types of Cleanup
Sites
To achieve a more comprehensive cross-program measure, Region 3 is exploring the possibilities
of expanding the collection of reuse information to other types of contaminated sites, including:
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites; Superfund removal response actions; and RCRA
Corrective Action medium and low priority sites. There are different complications with collecting
reuse information for these kinds of sites. In general, much less site specific information is
available. Consequently, any information collected will be more limited in scope than that collected
using the existing Land Use/Reuse Assessment Form.
LUST sites: Because the LUST program is state-delegated, EPA generally does not receive site
specific information about LUST sites. In a pilot effort to collect reuse information about LUST
sites, EPA Region 3 has partnered with the State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control to collect reuse information about LUST sites in the Wilmington, Delaware
area. This project is currently underway and will test the feasibility and accuracy of using publicly
available information from county and local tax records to determine current land use status and site
size along with GIS mapping to establish an inventory of LUST brownfield properties. The initial
focus of the reuse data collection effort is on LUST sites that have been cleaned up and are no longer
registered as operating dispensing systems. If successful, this project could serve as a model for
other states to facilitate reuse at LUST properties by establishing an inventory of cleaned up LUST
sites.
RCRA Medium and Low Priority facilities: The RCRA Corrective Action Program is
currently tracking cleanup measures on the universe of sites which are deemed high priority as a
result of screening using the National Corrective Action Prioritization System (NCAPs). While the
program continues to move forward with cleanup goals for the high priority facilities, it is also
developing a plan to address the low and medium ranked sites. It is estimated that there are about
300 low and medium priority sites to address in Region 3. The Region has tasked the regional library
to perform a desk top analysis of these sites to determine the acres, current land use, type of use, and
population density. The program will use this information to help prioritize which of the 300 low
and medium sites should be addressed through investigation and cleanup first.
March 2006
36
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Superfund Removal Response Actions: Although EPA is closely involved with activities at
removal sites during the assessment and cleanup phase, EPA staff generally are not involved with
activities at a site once the removal action is complete. As a result, information on land use is
generally not readily available for completed removal actions. Occasionally, EPA does get involved
with prospective purchasers to resolve liability and financial issues on sites where removal actions
have already occurred. Under these circumstances, EPA may have access to information about
property use and reuse. The Region is currently developing a plan to attempt to collect land use
information at removal response action sites.
Brownfield sites: While it may be possible to collect limited information about the current use
at brownfield sites funded with EPA Brownfields Program grant dollars, such an effort would
require surveying former grantees which would necessitate approval of an information collection
request through OMB. Region 3 is not considering any options to survey brownfield sites at this
time. For all current and new brownfield grantees, reuse information is captured as it occurs during
the period of performance under the grant on the Property Profile Form which is then entered into
the Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES).
5.3 Develop a Database for Long Term Maintenance of the
Information
For the Region to continue to collect this level of land use information, a streamlined electronic
format is necessary. Ideally, site managers will input the information directly into the system. For
RCRA any database developed needs to be designed to allow states to directly input information into
the database. The Region could then pull either cross-program or single program reports from the
database. Alternatively, it may be possible to adapt existing national databases, such as CERCLlS,
to house the information. However there are several challenges to using existing national databases:
modifying these databases will probably take much longer to implement; the Region would lose
some of its ability to customize the data collected; these systems are designed for reporting rather
than strategic planning; and it would not allow for cross-program analysis, since there is no one
national data system for both Superfund and RCRA sites. The decision on how to proceed with
future data collection and the long term maintenance of land use information will be highly
dependent upon decisions made at the national level with respect to national measures and
information management.
March 2006
37
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Appendix A - Survey Form and Examples of
How to Complete the Form
March 2006
38
-------
EPA Region 3
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Land Use/Reuse Assessment Form
Instructions: EPA project managers or state agencies overseeing hazardous site cleanups should complete this form at least annually,
or whenever a new use occurs or is anticipated to occur at the site using information readily available4.
A. General Information
1. Site name:
2. Type of Site:
~ RCRA Corrective Action ~ Superfund NPL ~ Superfund Removal ~ Non NPL Federal Facility
~ Superfund Alternative Site ~ BRAC ~ Superfund NPL/Federal Facility
3. EPA Site ID#:
4. Site location (city, state):
5. Types of Historical Uses at the site:
(e.g., chemical manufacturing, landfill, steel mill, military training base, shipyard, metal plating facility, illegal dumping, etc.)
6. Has contaminated groundwater migrated off the property? oYes QNo If yes, those areas off the property should not be
included in total property acres.
B. Contact Information
1. Remedial Project Manager Name:
2. Phone Number:
3. Today's Date:
C. Current Land Use and Types of Use -
On the following table, please indicate all types of surficial land use occurring on the property, in acres, if known. If exact acres are not
available, use best professional judgement in estimating acres. For RCRA sites, Total Property Acres is based on the land portion of the
facility subject to corrective action. For Superfund sites, Total Property Acres should include acres of all parcels on which investigation
or cleanup occurred, but not areas where contaminated groundwater has migrated off those property parcel(s). The sum of acres provided
in the Current Land Use column should equal the Total Property Acres. In the Inactive Waste Disposal column, the acres are a subset of
the acres recorded under Current Land Use. Please refer to additional instructions and definitions provided at the end of this form. When
determining the Type of Use, the predominant activity, function or likely exposures scenario should apply. For example, a privately-owned
golf course should be listed as recreational, not commercial, because the predominant activity is recreational.
4 To ensure that the requirements for OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act do not apply to this form, please provide your
responses to this form based on your knowledge, the knowledge of individuals in your agency, information made available to your agency in the
course of implementing site cleanup, or publically available information (e.g. websites). To prevent potential problems with the Paperwork Reduction
Act, EPA project managers and state agencies should not seek specific information from private entities in direct response to this form.
March 2006 39
-------
Total Property Acres (
)
Inactive
Current
Cleanup Status5
Waste
Land Use
Type of Use
(Check one box only for
Disposal
Describe the
(acres)
(acres)
each Type of Use)
Area6
Current Use
(acres)
Continued
( ) Agricultural
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( )
Use
( ) Commercial
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Enhanced Ecological
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( )
( ) Industrial
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Military
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
~ Restored
( ) Other Federal
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
Reuse
( ) Public Services
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
(Superfund
( ) Recreational
~ IN
~ RS
n cc
~ C/D
sites only)
( ) Residential
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Mixed Use (Check uses that apply)
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
~Agr oCom nEco nlnd nPub nRec oRes
Reused
( ) Agricultural
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( )
( ) Commercial
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( )
( ) Enhanced Ecological
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Industrial
~ IN
~ RS
a cc
~ C/D
( ) Military
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Other Federal
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Public Services
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Recreational
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Residential
~ IN
~ RS
n cc
~ C/D
( ) Mixed Use (Check uses that apply)
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
~Agr ~Com nEco nlnd nPub DRec nRes
Planned
( ) Agricultural
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( )
Reuse
( ) Commercial
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Enhanced Ecological
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( )
( ) Industrial
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Military
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Other Federal
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Public Services
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Recreational
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Residential
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
( ) Mixed Use (Check uses that apply)
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC
~ C/D
~Agr nCom nEco nlnd QPub nRecORes
No
~ IN
~ RS
~ CC ~ C/D
( )
Interest in site
Current
Use/
Vacant
( )
~Reuse not recommended7
Provide acres ( ) & reason
reuse?
~ Yes ~ No
Comments:
Unit Conversions:
1 square foot = 0.000023 acre; 1 square meter = 0.0002471 acre; Or to convert to acres go to: www.digitaldutch.com/unitconverter/
Cleanup status: Investigation (IN): Remedy Selected and/or Remedy Implemented (RS); Construction Complete (CC);RCRA Complete or Superfund
delisted or partial delisting (C/D).
^Portion of the site which was historically used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
indicate ifreuse is not recommended or prohibited by the remedy. Forexample, reuse of a former landfill may not be recommended to ensure long-term
protectiveness, or a remedy involving containment of low level radioactive contamination may specifically exclude reuse.
March 2006 40
-------
D. Suoerfund Readv for Reuse
Data will be entered in CERCLIS for tracking Superfund Revitalization performance measures.
( )
acres at site with land ready for residential use
( )
acres at site with land ready for non-residential use
E.
Tools Used to SuDDort Use/Reuse
Check all that apply
EPA/State Activity
Comments
~
No Agency Involvement
~
Expedited cleanud on all or a portion of the site
~
Provided site information for reuse (e.g. FOIA, e-mails)
To whom?
~
Participated in telephone calls to discuss reuse
How many? With whom?
~
Participated in meetings to discuss reuse
How many? With whom?
~
Coordinated with another regulatory program (e.g. State)
Identify the program(s).
~
Integrated reuse plans into cleanup design
~
Issued Comfort Letter to facilitate reuse
~
Issued a Finding of Suitability to Lease or Transfer
~
Issued Prospective Purchaser Agreement (PPA) or (PLA)
~
Issued Ready for Reuse (RfR) determination
~
Provided facilitation services to help community plan reuse
~
Resolved a lien issue
~
Provided grant funding (e.g. TAG, Brownfields)
~
Re-evaluated site restrictions or institutional controls
~
Other: (e.g modified order)
F. Benefits of Use/Reuse
Check any known benefits associated with the use/reuse of the property and provide the source of that information.
Benefit of Use/Reuse
Description/Source of Information
~
No information available at this time
~
Permanent (new or retained) jobs on the site
# jobs, if known ( )
~
Housing or residential units built
# housing units, if known ( )
~
Reuse investment (redevelopment costs)
$
~
Change in property value due to reuse
$
~
Tax dollars generated from use or reuse
$
~
Partnership(s) formed (federal, state, local, private, etc.)
March 2006 41
-------
~
Creation or preservation of open space
~
Sustainable reuse component:
~ Green building design
~ Energy efficient systems or alternative energy sources
~ Native landscaping
~ Historic preservation/reuse of infrastructure
~
Other (e.g construction jobs)
Definitions for Section C - Current Land Use and Types of Use
Continued Use - A site or portion of a site which is currently being used in the same general manner as it was when the site
became contaminated. For example, continued use would be an appropriate description for a property where industrial
operations resulted in the contamination and the property is still used as an operating industrial facility. The RCRA Program
will count all acres of an active RCRA industrial facility as Continued Use, except for parcels specifically designated as Reused
or Planned Reuse.
Restored Reuse (Superfund sites only) - Please indicate if the use of a property was temporarily halted during cleanup and the
same use was resumed after the site was cleaned up. Check the Restored Reuse box.
Reused - A site or portion of a site where a new use, or uses, is occurring such that there has been a change in the type of use
(e.g. industrial to commercial) or the property was vacant and now supports a specific use. This means that the developed site,
or portion of the site, is "open" or actually being used by customers, visitors, employees, residents, etc.
Planned Reuse - A site or portion of a site where a plan for new use is in place. This could include conceptual plans, a contract
with a developer, secured financing, approval by the local government, or the initiation of site redevelopment.
No Current Use - A site or portion of a site that is currently vacant or not being used in any identifiable manner. This could
be because site investigation and cleanup are on-going, operations ceased or owner is in bankruptcy, or cleanup is complete
but the site remains vacant.
Agricultural Use - Property used for agricultural purposes such as farmland for growing crops and pasture for livestock.
Agricultural use can also encompass other activities such as orchards, agricultural research and development, and irrigating
existing farmland.
Commercial Use - Property used for retail shops, grocery stores, offices, restaurants, and other businesses.
Enhanced Ecological Use - Property where proactive measures, including a conservation easement, have been implemented
to create, restore, protect or enhance a habitat for terrestrial and/or aquatic plants and animals, such as wildlife sanctuaries,
nature preserves, meadows, and wetlands.
Industrial Use - Property used for traditional light and heavy industrial uses such as processing and manufacturing products
from raw materials, as well as fabrication, assembly, treatment, and packaging of finished products. Examples of industrial
reuse sites include factories, power plants, warehouses, waste disposal sites, landfill operations, and salvage yards.
Military Use - Property used for training, operations, research & development, weapons testing, range activities, logistical
support, and/or provision of services to support military or national security purposes.
Mixed Use - Property where the multiple uses cannot be differentiated on the basis of acres. For example a condominium with
retail shops on the ground floor and residential use on the upper floors would fall into this category. When selecting Mixed
Use, indicate the different types of uses in the mixed use.
Other Federal Use - Property used to support the federal government in federal agency operations, training, research, and/or
provision of services for purposes other than national security or military.
March 2006
42
-------
Public Service Use - Property which is being utilized by a local or state government agency or a non-profit group to serve
citizens' needs. This can include transportation services such as rail lines and bus depots, libraries and schools, government
offices, public infrastructure such as roads, bridges, utilities, or other services for the general public.
Recreational Use - Property which is being used for recreational activities such as sports facilities, golfcourses,ballfields,open
space for hiking and picnicking, and other opportunities for indoor and outdoor leisure activities.
Residential Use - Property which is being used for residential purposes including single-family homes, apartment complexes,
and condominiums.
Instructions for Section D - Ready for Reuse (Suoerfund sites only)
Indicate, in acres, any land portion of the site that is Ready for Reuse and whether the area is suitable for either residential or
non-residential reuse. Acres considered Ready for Reuse include land areas currently being used (i.e., Continued Use or
Reused); where investigation occurred and response actions were deemed unnecessary; or where cleanup goals for the land have
been attained. Refer to "Guidance for Documenting and Reporting the Superfund Revitalization Performance Measures"
[OSWER 9202.1-26] for additional information on reporting Ready for Reuse.
Examples for Section F - Documenting The Benefits of Use/Reuse
To the extent practical, please provide any information that you are aware of on the local economic impact and/or ecological
benefits associated with the use/reuse of the site. Below are additional clarifications and examples of how benefits information
should be recorded on the Reuse Assessment Form. To assure that the data provided is accurate, please record benefits that
accrue when the design phase of the use/reuse project is complete. If the information is preliminary based on the Planned Reuse
of the site, please note that on the form.
No information available at this time: Select if the site has No Current Use, or if you have no reliable information to provide
on the benefits of reuse.
Permanent (new or retained) jobs on the site: Count only actual permanent on-site jobs associated with continued use or
reuse of the site. Jobs of a temporary nature, for example construction jobs during the redevelopment of the site, or job
projections should not be counted. However, you may choose to put information about temporary or projected jobs in the Other
category in this section. When recording job numbers, please provide the source of the number; we aren't looking for guesses
or estimates. If possible, in the comments section, please provide the types of jobs created or retained: industrial, commercial,
office, government, etc.
Housing or residential units built: Provide the total count for all individual housing units built on the site.
Reuse investment (redevelopment costs): If known, please provide the construction costs associated with redeveloping the
site. For example, costs to install infrastructure (water, sewer, electric, roads), demolition and/or construction of buildings,
parking lots, trails, ball fields, etc. Also, if known, indicate if any federal or state grants were used in the redevelopment of
the site (e.g., brownfield grants, funds from other federal agencies, such as Housing & Urban Development or Economic
Development Agency, congressional earmarks etc.) In the comments field, please indicate if the reuse investment was
publically or privately funded, or both.
Change in property value due to reuse: The purpose of this information is to estimate whether site cleanup and reuse can be
associated with increases in property value. Did an identifiable increase in property value occur in conjunction with cleanup
and reuse of the site? If known, please estimate the change in the value of the property (tax assessed or sales price) that
occurred after the site was cleaned-up and put back to reuse. This category is for sites that are Reused only and does not apply
to the Continued Use or Planned Reuse categories.
Tax dollars generated from use or reuse: In this section, we are looking for data that may demonstrate how a previously
contaminated site was put back on the local tax rolls. If known, provide the increase in local property taxes paid on the site
from prior to reuse to after reuse.
Partnership(s) formed (federal, state, local, private, etc.)'. Please note whether partnerships were critical to the reuse or
planned reuse of the site. Please name the partners.
March 2006 43
-------
Creation or preservation of open space: Is open space part of the use/reuse? Open space may be parks, greenways,
recreational areas, wetlands, or areas specifically preserved for the purpose of open space or wildlife, for example, perhaps
through a conservation easement. If possible, please tell us how many acres?
Sustainable reuse component: Is the reuse or planned reuse designed to minimize pollution and/or reduce resource
consumption through the use of low-impact, green or sustainable design? Please select any applicable sustainable reuse
categories that are being implemented as part of the reuse.
Other: Please explain any other economic or ecological benefits that occur because of reuse or planned reuse of the site.
March 2006
44
-------
Examples for How to Complete the
EPA Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land
Use/Reuse Assessment Form
/. Industrial site in an Urban Area becomes Public Service and future Residential - Two acres of this three acre
site are now being used by the municipality for offices, recreation and transportation. The other acre has approval
by the municipality for residential development. In filling out the Reuse Form, the Total Site Acres would be 3,
Reused are 2 acres and those same 2 acres also recorded in Public Services since that is the predominant use. After
checking off CC for Construction Complete the RPM would write in municipal building, recreation and
transportation in the last column. Then 1 acre would be put under Planned Reuse and also in the Residential Type
of Use category. The RPM would again check off CC under Cleanup Status.
2. Landfill in an Urban/Suburban Area becomes Recreational - After the cleanup this 32 acre site was developed
into a large sports complex including a restaurant. The 32 acres would be put in for the Total Site Acres, under
Reused, next to Recreational since that is the primary use of the site and in the Inactive waste Disposal column.
Then the RPM would check off CC for Construction Complete and write in large sports complex in the last column.
3. Industrial site in a Rural Area continues operating - This seven acre site continued operating their commercial
lumber yard business during the cleanup on three acres. The groundwater contamination had migrated off site but
those acres were not included in the total site acres(the RPM would have checked the Yes box for question 6 on the
first page of the form). In completing the Reuse form the Total Site Acres would be 7 and 3 acres would be put
under Continued Use and in the Commercial use type. Construction Complete (CC) would be checked next and then
lumber yard written in the last column. The other 4 acres would be put under No Current Use and Inactive Waste
Disposal for the old surface impoundments. CC would be checked again along with the Reuse not recommended
box.
4. Industrial site in a Rural Area becomes Agricultural and Federal Use - This eleven acre site was a pesticide
plant that now supports dairy farming and federal government offices. After entering 11 for the Total Site Acres and
in the Reused category, the RPM would put 9 in the Agricultural slot and 2 in Other Federal slot under the Type of
Use column. Cleanup Status is CC - construction complete and then the RPM would write dairy farm and federal
government offices in the last column.
5. Landfill in a Rural Area becomes an Ecological Area - This 47 acre site was intentionally transformed into a
wildlife and wetland area. The RPM would enter 47 for the Total Site Acres, in the Reused category, next to
Enhanced Ecological in the Type of Use Column and again put 47 in the Inactive Waste Disposal Area column.
Then CC would be checked for Cleanup Status. In the last column the RPM would write in wildlife and wetlands
area.
6. Industrial site in a Rural Area becomes Restored Reuse - This 8 acre chemical plant stopped operations during
the cleanup and reopened its same operations after the cleanup of the site. The RPM would put 8 in the Total Site
Acres, under Continued Use and next to Industrial under Type of Use. The RPM would also check off the Restored
Reuse box under the Continued Use section and CC for the Cleanup Status. In the last column the RPM would write
chemical plant.
March 2006 45
-------
7. Industrial site in an Urban Area is Ready for Reuse - This 25 acre site was cleaned up to be compatible with its
potential future use but remains vacant. The RPM would put 25 under Total Site Acres and under No Current Use.
Then the CC box would be checked under Cleanup Status and 25 put in for acres ready for non-residential use. The
RPM knows that there is a lot of interest in this site and checks the Yes box in the last column.
8. Federal Facility in an Industrial Area continues Industrial and reuses area for Enhanced Ecological - EPA
only investigated 85 acres of this 800 acre NPL/Federal Facility, so the RPM would enter 85 for the Total Property
Acres. Portions of those 85 acres remain in military and industrial uses and 5 acres were restored wetlands. The
85 acres would be put under continued use with 5 in Enhanced Ecological, 10 in the Industrial slot and 70 in the
Military slot. The investigation box (IN) would be checked for the Industrial and Military acres and CC(construction
complete) for the 5 acres in Enhanced Ecological. Seventy(70) would also be put under Inactive Waste Disposal
Area since those acres were a former landfill. The RPM would then describe the industrial operations in the last
column. Then the RPM would record the 5 acres as restored wetlands in the last column.
9. Federal Facility in a Urban/Suburban Area is completely Reused - This 800 acre BRAC/NPL/Federal Facility
site in a Urban/Suburban area where land is valuable is being reused as a combination of commercial, residential
and open space. The Total Property Acres in this case would be the same as the total facility acres - 800. This same
800 figure would go in the Reused box with 12 acres next to Commercial, 538 for Recreational and 250 for
Residential. The Cleanup Status for all these uses is CC (construction complete). In the last column the RPM would
write Funeral Home, Retirement homes and open space.
10. Federal Facility in a Residential Area is completely Reused - This 164 acre BRAC/Non NPL Federal Facility
site continues to have it's ground water treated while the land is being reused(the RPM would have checked the Yes
box for question 6 on the first page of the form) for housing and a park. The Total Property Acres would be 164 and
that would also be put in the Reused box. Then 64 would be put next to Recreational and 100 next to Residential.
The Construction Complete(CC) box would be checked for both in the cleanup Status column. The RPM would then
write park and residential development in the last column.
11. Industrial site in an Urban Area becomes Mixed Use - This 3.5 acre site was a small paint manufacturer where
the building was condemned and demolished after EPA's cleanup. A new building was constructed that has shops
and business on the lower floors and apartments on the higher floors. The Total Property Acres would be 3.5 and
that same number would be put in the Reused column and next to Mixed Use in the Type of Use Column. The
Com(for Commercial) and Res(for Residential) boxes would be checked under Mixed Use. Construction
Complete(CC) would also be checked and then the RPM would write high rise building with multiple uses in the
last column.
March 2006 46
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Appendix B - Maps of Site Locations
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites- Site Locations
Humb»r pf frtf»
• Superfund NPL Site 174
~ Federal Facility 57
¦ RCRA Corrective 280
Action Facility
] State Boundary
Interstate
Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
US EP* Region 3 CIS Team 1/31/2006 M Frank C.EN175J Map 3050
Site Locations
March 2006
47
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites- Sites with No Current
Use/Vacant
• Superfund NPL Site
umbtr ot Sites
101
~ Federal Facility
10
¦ RCRA Corrective
55
Action Facility
[~r~] State Boundary
Interstate
Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Sites With
No Current Use / Vacant Acres
IIS FPA Reginn 1 CIS fe.im 1/31/2006 M Frank CEN1753 Map 3060
March 2006
48
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Superfund NPL No Current Use/Vacant
Acres Of Vacant Land
(101 Sites) *
. 1-10
• 10.1-50
• 50.1 -100
# 100.1-175
^ >175
; ' | Slate Boundary
Interstate
* size of graduated symbol does
not correlate to scale of map
Superfund NPL
No Current Use / Vacant Acres
Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
US f PA Region 1 CIS Te.im 1/31/2006 M Funk CEN1753 M«ip .5065
March 2006
49
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Federal Facilities No Current Use/Vacant
Acres Of Vacant Land
{10 Sites)'
« 4-10
A 10.1 - 100
~ 100.1-500
^ >500
l"' I State Boundary
Interstate
* size of graduated sxmbol does
not correlate to scale of map
Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Federal Facilities
.^i No Current Use / Vacant Acres
US EPA Region 3 CIS Team 12/21/2005 M Frank GEN1753 Map 3063
March 2006
50
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
RCRA Corrective Action Facilities No Current Use/Vacant
Acres 01 Vacant Land*
(55 Sites)
¦ 1 25
¦ 25.1-50
¦ 50.1 - 150
| > 150
r"1"! State Boundary
Interstate
* six ofgraduated symbol Joes
not correlate to scale of map
Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
RCRA Corrective Action Facilities
No Current Use / Vacant Acres
US Region 3 CIS Team 12/31/2005 M Frank GEN1774 Map 1000
March 2006
51
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Superfund NPL Current Land Use Proportions
Current Land Use
4^ Continued Use
Reused
Planned Reuse
CD No Current Use/Vacant
fH State Boundary
Interstate
I'S f PA Rpgi.ni i as Tf.im 1 31.2006 M Fmi>1> GENII 753 Mjp 3085
Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Superfund NPL
Current Land Use Proportions
March 2006
52
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Federal Facilities Current Land Use Proportions
Current Land Use ^
Continued Use
) Reused
Planned Reuse
/No Current Use/Vacant
rH State Boundary
Interstate
Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
Federal Facilities
Current Land Use Proportions
US ER^ Regicm 3 CIS TeJin 12/21."2005 M Fwnk CEN1753 Mjp 3084
March 2006
53
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
RCRA Corrective Action Current Land Use Proportions
Current Land Use ^
0^ Continued Use
Reused
C ) Planned Reuse
C ) No Current Use/Vacant
f"' j State Boundary
Interstate
Region 3 Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
RCRA Corrective Action
Current Land Use Proportions
1>S EPA Region 3 CIS T»am 12/21/2005 M Frank (
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Appendix C - Detailed Data Analyses
No Current Use/Vacant Land Detailed Results Reported in
Region 3's Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use &
Reuse Assessment
As part of Region 3's Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment, site
managers reported acres at sites with no current land use or vacant land. Additionally, site managers
reported any acres of the no current use/vacant areas where reuse was not recommended. Results
are as follows.
General Results
Of the 511 total sites surveyed, 166 sites (32%) of the sites surveyed indicated that some or the
all of the site is currently not being used. Ninety-eight sites are totally vacant and 68 sites are
partially vacant.
On these 166 sites, 17,143 acres (17%) of the total possible land area is vacant.
Of the 17,143 vacant acres, 2,680 (16%) are not recommended for reuse. Sixty percent of the
vacant land not recommended for reuse is inactive waste disposal areas (landfills). This leaves
14,463 vacant acres (84%) that have some potential for future reuse.
Vacant land is evenly divided among the programs with each program having approximately 1 /3
of the total vacant acres. However, since Superfund NPL accounts for only 7% of the total land
considered, its portion accounts for a larger percentage of vacant acres as compared to the other
programs. In addition, 36% of vacant land at Superfund NPL sites is not recommended for reuse.
Program Specific Results
Superfund NPL (Non-Federal Facilities): 61 % of the number of sites reporting vacant lands and
34% of the total vacant acres are at Superfund NPL sites.
Of the 174 Superfund NPL sites surveyed, 101 (58%) indicate that all or a portion of the site
is currently not being used. Fifty eight sites are totally vacant and 43 sites are partially
vacant.
• On these 101 sites, 5,886 acres (35%) of Superfund NPL land (2% of the total land
surveyed) is vacant.
• Of the 5,886 vacant acres, 2,119 (36%) are not recommended for reuse. This leaves 3,767
vacant acres (64%) that have some potential for future reuse.
March 2006
55
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Federal Facilities: 6% of the number of sites reporting vacant land and 38% of the total vacant
acres are at Federal Facilities.
• Of the 57 Federal Facilities surveyed, 10 (18%) indicate that all or a portion of the site is
currently not being used. Two sites are fully vacant and 8 are partially vacant.
• On these 10 sites, 6,485 acres (4%) of all federal land (3% of the total land surveyed) is
vacant.
• Of the 6,485 vacant acres, 490 (8%) was not recommended for reuse. This leaves 5,995
vacant acres (92%) that have some potential for future reuse.
RCRA Corrective Action (Non-Federal Facilities): 33% of the number of sites reporting vacant
lands and 28% of the total vacant acres are at RCRA sites.
• Of the 280 RCRA sites surveyed, 55 (20%) indicate that all or a portion of the site is
currently not being used. Thirty eight sites are completely vacant and 17 are partially
vacant.
• On these 55 sites, 4,772 acres (7%) of RCRA acres (2% of the total land surveyed) is vacant.
• Of the 4,772 vacant acres, 71(1%) are not recommended for reuse. This leaves 4,701 vacant
acres (99%) that have some potential for future reuse.
Vacant Land Data
Table 1: Vacant Land by Sites
Program
Sites
Surveyed
Sites w/
Vacant
Land
% of Sites w/ Vacant Land
Federal Facilities
57
10
18%
RCRA
280
55
20%
Superfund NPL
174
101
58%
¦¦ESEiHM
Table 2: Vacant Land by Acres
Total
Vacant
Acres Not
Acres w/
% of Vacant acres
Acres
Land
Recommended
Potential
with Potential
Program
Surveyed
(Acres)
for Reuse
for Reuse
Future Reuse
Federal Facilities
145,965
6,485
490
5,995
92%
RCRA
67,823
4,772
71
4,701
99%
Superfund NPL
16,706
5,886
2,119
3,767
64%
wmmm
March 2006
56
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Region 3 also considered the amount of vacant land that was associated with inactive waste
disposal areas and whether those areas were actively being reused or whether these areas were
recorded as "not recommended for reuse" because of complications with waste left in place on the
site.
The results vary significantly by program. In RCRA, all the vacant acres listed as not
recommended for reuse were inactive waste disposal areas. In the Superfund program, 65% of
vacant acres not recommended for reuse were associated with inactive waste disposal areas.
Table 3: Inactive Waste Disposal Areas on No Current Use/Vacant Land
Program
Total no current
use/vacant
acres
Vacant inactive
waste disposal
acres
% of inactive waste disposal
areas on vacant land
Federal Facilities
6,485
340
5%
RCRA
4,772
1,156
24%
Superfund NPL
5,886
1,594
27%
Table 4: Acres of Land with Inactive Waste Disposal Areas that are Not Recommended for Reuse
Program
Total vacant
acres not
recommended
for reuse
Vacant acres w/
inactive waste
disposal not
recommended for
reuse
% of land w/ inactive waste
disposal that is not
recommended for reuse
Federal Facilities
490
133
27%
RCRA
71
71
100%
Superfund NPL
2,110
1,393
65%
March 2006
57
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Economic Benefits Information Reported in Region 3's
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse
Assessment
The tables below outline both the general (yes/no) results and those reporting detailed data in
the Benefits of Use/Reuse, Section E on Region 3's Land Use/Reuse Assessment Form
. ¦ ¦ ¦¦ Jobs .. ¦ \
' i
> »" ¦ . !
7®te0 ©to
HSU
[IIP®
HUB
Federal Facilities
57
16
28%
4
7%
1,888
RCRA
280
60
21%
22
8%
21,980
Suoerfund NPL
174
26
15%
12
7%
642
Total
511
102
20%
38
7%
24,986
J Houses J
j > ¦ " - -f - - ." -"i , j. :: j
MB
IBS
|jj|H
Gte0@?
Dtteoflg©©
Federal Facilities
57
4
7%
0
0%
N/R
RCRA
280
4
1%
2
0.7%
150
Superfund NPL
174
5
3%
5
3%
19
Total
511
13
3%
7
1%
189
- v- ¦ •*.¦>> r-'j'-.f". ¦ •• „ ••• j
Reuse Investment
EEi
^3
Federal Facilities
57
9
16%
3
5%
$328 M
RCRA
280
17
6%
5
2%
$3.5B
Superfund NPL
174
7
4%
4
2%
$155M
Total
511 •
33
6%
12
3%
0
V ' ' V 1 ' 1
Change in Property Value
ism
||1
Mi
Federal Facilities
57
10
18%
0
0.0%
N/R*
RCRA
280
12
4%
1
0.4%
Superfund NPL
174
12
7%
4
2.3%
Total
511
34
7%
5
1%
HI
H9
Federal Facilities
57
7
13%
0
0%
N/R
RCRA
280
33
12%
1
0%
$2.2 M
Superfund NPL
174
12
7%
0
0%
N/R
Total
511
52
10%
1
0%
N/R
March 2006
58
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
IsHeHl
|||pH
Federal Facilities
57
9
16%
2
4%
RCRA
280
9
3%
9
3%
Superfund NPL
174
7
4%
4
2%
Total
511
25
5%
15
3%
*N/R = Not Reported
Enhanced Ecological Use Reported in Region 3's Hazardous
Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Region 3 collected information on areas where enhanced ecological use was occurring on
hazardous waste cleanup sites. For the purposes of this study, the definition of enhanced ecological
use is "property where proactive measures, including conservation easement, have been
implemented to create, restore, protect or enhance a habitat for terrestrial and /or aquatic plants and
animals, such as wildlife sanctuaries, nature preserves, meadows and wetlands."
General Results
Of the 511 total sites surveyed, 40 sites (8%) indicated that some or all of the site is currently
or is planned to be put into enhanced ecological use.
On these 40 sites, 6,856 acres (3%) of the total land area surveyed is enhanced ecological use.
Of the 40 sites reporting enhanced ecological areas, on average, approximately 20-40% of the
land area at each site is enhanced ecological, with four sites being completely reused as enhanced
eco areas.
In addition, 23 other sites have indicated that open space and/or sustainable reuse were a site
benefit.
Program Specific Results
Superfund NPL (non Federal Facilities): 11% of land in the enhanced ecological category
occurs on Superfund NPL sites
• Of the 174 Superfund NPL sites surveyed, 16 sites (9%) indicated that some or all of the site
is currently or is planned to be put into enhanced ecological use.
• On these 16 sites, 723 acres (4%) of the Superfund NPL land surveyed (< 1 % of the total land
surveyed) reported enhanced ecological use.
• Of those Superfund NPL sites with ecological enhancements, on average, approximately
42% of the land area at each site has been ecologically enhanced.
March 2006
59
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
• In addition, 12 other Superfiind NPL sites indicated that open space and/or sustainable reuse
were a site benefit.
Federal Facilities: 75% of land in the enhanced ecological category occurs on Federal Facilities
• Of the 57 Federal Facilities surveyed, 13 sites (23%) indicated that some or all of the site is
currently or is planned to be put into enhanced ecological use.
• On these 13 sites, 5,139 acres (4%) of all Federal Facilities land surveyed (2% of the total
land surveyed) is enhanced ecological use.
• Of those Federal Facilities with ecological enhancements, on average, approximately 33%
of the land area at each site has been ecologically enhanced.
• In addition, 6 other Federal Facilities indicated that open space and/or sustainable reuse were
a site benefit.
RCRA Corrective Action (non Federal Facilities): 14% of land in the enhanced ecological
category occurs on RCRA sites
• Of the 280 RCRA sites surveyed, 11 sites (4%) indicated that some or all of the site is
currently or is planned to be put into enhanced ecological use.
• On these 11 sites, 994 acres (1 %) of RCRA land surveyed (< 1 % of the total land surveyed)
is enhanced ecological use.
• Of those RCRA sites with ecological enhancements, approximately 22% of the land area at
each site has been ecologically enhanced.
• In addition, 5 other RCRA sites indicated that open space and/or sustainable reuse were a
site benefit.
Table 1: Enhanced Ecological Use - Results by Site
Total Sites
Surveyed
Sites w/ Enhanced
Ecological Acres
Sites also Reporting
Open Space or
Sustainable Use
Federal Facilities
57
13
23%
6
11%
RCRA
280
11
4%
5
2%
Superfund NPL
174
16
9%
12
7%
March 2006
60
-------
EPA Region 3 - Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment
Table 2: Enhanced Ecological Use - Results by Acres
Total Acres Survieyed
Total Ecologically
Enhanced Acres
Total
Continued
Use
Total
Reused
Total
Planned
Reuse
Federal Facilities
145,965
5,139
4%
4,230
802
107
RCRA
67,823
994
1%
48
600
346
Superfund NPL
16,706
723
4%
123
247
353
I6.1815&HIHI
Table 3: Average Portion of Land Area in Enhanced Ecological (EE) Use
Ave rage Acre s/Site
Average % of
Enhanced Eco Use
For Sites w/
Enhanced Eco Use
Federal Facilities
93
31%
RCRA
4
22%
Superfund NPL
4
42%
March 2006
61
------- |