Office of Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
EPA 500-R-06-002
September 2006
Measuring Revitalization
of Contaminated Properties in
America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future
Opportunities
INTERIM FINAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Land Revitalization Staff Office
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
This page intentionally left blank
-------
"...EPA's cleanup programs have set a national goal
for returning formerly contaminated sites to long-term,
sustainable, and productive uses. "
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan—Direction for the Future
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Acknowledgments
For more information or questions concerning this report, contact the project leader:
Guy Tomassoni
Land Revitalization Staff Office,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-1937
tomassoni.guy@epa.gov
The report would not have been possible without the contribution of the many individuals
listed below who participated in EPA's cross-program Land Revitalization Outcomes and
Benefits Workgroup. This workgroup was organized and chaired by EPA's Land Revitalization
Staff Office (Edward Chu, Acting Director) within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.
Jennnifer Bohman, OSWER, Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
Tricia Buzzell, OECA, Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement
Melissa Friedland, OSWER, Office of Superfund Remediation Technology Innovation
Deborah Goldblum, Region 3, RCRA Corrective Action
Tessa Hendrikson, OECA, Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement
Robin Jenkins, OPEI, National Center for Environmental Economics
Elizabeth Kopits, OPEI, National Center for Environmental Economics
Jennifer Lue, OGC, Office of General Counsel
Kelly Maguire, OPEI, National Center for Environmental Economics
Steven McNeely, OSWER, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Nat Miullo, Region 8, Revitalization Coordinator
David Nicholas, OSWER, Policy Analysis and Regulatory Management Staff
Sara Rasmussen, OSWER, Office of Solid Waste
Jeanne Schulze, RCRA Corrective Action Region 6
David Simpson, OPEI, National Center for Environmental Economics
Tracey Stewart, OSWER, Formerly with Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
Aimee Storm, OSWER, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
Stacy Swartwood, OSWER, Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
Guy Tomassoni, OSWER, Land Revitalization Staff Office (Workgroup Chair)
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by SRA International,
Inc., under Contract No. 68-W-01-048.
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Disclaimer
This report is a work product of the Land Revitalization Staff Office and the Land Revitalization
Outcomes and Benefits Workgroup. This report is intended to provide information to EPA
management, program staff, and other stakeholders for their consideration and to inform and
encourage discussion on the topic. 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.
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations iii
Executive Summary v
Section 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose of Report 2
1.2 Why Revitalization is Important 4
1.3 EPA's Role in Supporting the Productive Use of Contaminated Properties 10
1.4 The Importance of Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties 12
Section 2: Existing Approaches to Measure Revitalization 15
2.1 Overview of Key Terms and Tracking Revitalization in OSWER
Cleanup Programs 15
2.2 Measuring Revitalization in OSWER Cleanup Programs 17
2.3 Measuring Revitalization in Other (non-EPA) Cleanup Programs 33
Section 3: Opportunities for Enhancing OSWER Revitalization Measures 37
3.1 Challenges for Measuring Revitalization 37
3.2 Possible OSWER Cross-Program Measures 39
3.3 Overall Potential Benefits of Possible Cross-Program Measures 44
3.4 Implementation Considerations 44
Section 4: Next Steps 47
4.1 Long-Term Considerations 47
4.2 Other Initiatives 50
Appendix A: OSWER Organizational Chart and Selected Program Descriptions A-l
Appendix B: Cover Letter Requesting Review of Draft "Measuring Revitalization of
Contaminated Properties in America's Communitites Past Accomplishments
and Future Opportunities" Report B-l
Appendix C: Program Revitalization Definitions C-l
Appendix D: Non-Federal Facility Superfund Land Revitalization Data D-l
Appendix E: RCRALand Revitalization Data E-l
Appendix F: Brownfields Land Revitalization Data F-l
Appendix G: FFRRO Land Revitalization Data G-l
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACRES Assessment, Cleanup, & Redevelopment Exchange System
ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
DoD Department of Defense
DoE Department of Energy
ECOS Environmental Council of the States
El Environmental Indicators
EOY End of Year
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FFRRO Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
FRS Facility Registry System
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Site
FY Fiscal Year
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
ICMA International City/County Management Association
ICR Information Collection Request
ICs Institutional Controls
IHW Industrial and Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Program under the Texas
Commission of Environmental Quality
NCEE National Center for Environmental Economics
NFA No Further Action
NPL National Priorities List
NRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OBCR Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
OGC Office of General Counsel
OH EPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OSW Office of Solid Waste
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OUST Office of Underground Storage Tanks
PA DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
FARMS Policy and Regulatory Management Staff
PPA Prospective Purchaser Agreement
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RfR Ready for Reuse (Determination)
RLF Revolving Loan Fund
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
ROD Record of Decision
SAS Superfund Alternative Sites
SURE Superfund Redevelopment Database
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
UST Underground Storage Tanks
VAP Voluntary Action Program
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
IV
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Executive Summary
This report provides information on and possible approaches to measuring revitalization in
several cleanup programs within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)—specifically, the Brownfields, Federal
Facilities, RCRA Corrective Action, Superfund, and Underground Storage Tank (UST) cleanup
programs. This information is intended to help stakeholders—whether EPA and other federal,
state, and tribal agencies or non-governmental and private sector organizations—better
understand how these five OSWER cleanup programs are currently measuring revitalization, as
well as the opportunities that may be available to develop new or improved ways of capturing
cleanup and revitalization accomplishments. It is important to note that this report is intended
primarily for informational purposes to further the discussion of performance measurement in the
context of environmental cleanup programs.
The revitalization of contaminated properties in OSWER's cleanup programs, as well as EPAs
ability to capture such accomplishments, are increasingly important topics for EPA. The reason
for this is twofold. First, OSWER cleanup programs have made a commitment to support the
appropriate beneficial use or reuse of previously contaminated land (either actual or perceived),
and have made significant progress in accomplishing this goal. Second, federal programs need
systematic approaches to communicate outcomes achieved for resources spent. To identify
opportunities for improving how its cleanup programs measure and report revitalization
accomplishments, OSWER formed the Land Revitalization Outcomes and Benefits Workgroup
(the Workgroup) in 2004. This report is the culmination of the Workgroup's research and
analysis and it presents:
Q Why land revitalization is important and why measuring EPA's efforts in supporting
revitalization is important. Section 1 of this report describes some of the reasons why
land revitalization is important to communities and ecosystems. Real or perceived
contamination can prevent communities from using land to support commercial,
recreational, ecological, or other uses. This can contribute to urban sprawl and
subsequent resource and quality-of-life impacts. Revitalization can result in higher levels
of protection of human health and can support local land use planning trends. It can
also bring ecological habitat enhancements, as well as economic and other benefits to
communities. EPA is committed to supporting the productive use and reuse of previously
contaminated properties, and measuring the performance of these efforts will help provide
metrics for the Agency's programs in accomplishing revitalization goals and objectives.
Q How the OSWER cleanup programs are currently measuring their revitalization activities
and accomplishments. As Section 2 of this report demonstrates, EPA's cleanup programs
are making substantial progress in developing revitalization performance measures. For
example, the Brownfields, Superfund, and Federal Facilities programs are currently
collecting and reporting information under the Government Performance and Results
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Act (GPRA) on the number of properties and acres of properties1 that have land "ready
for reuse."2 While these programs have only recently begun to collect and report these
performance measures, the revitalization accomplishment data currently available serve as
an early indication of the possibilities that revitalization measures hold for communicating
EPA progress and accomplishments. For example, thousands of acres of land have
been assessed or cleaned up and are either continuing to be used or are now ready to be
reused. Hundreds of properties are being used productively for ecological, recreational,
commercial, residential, and other purposes.
Opportunites for new or enhanced approaches for measuring and characterizing
revitalization accomplishments across OSWER cleanup programs. Section 3 presents a
group of possible measures OSWER could use to better communicate revitalization-related
information across its programs. The possible measures include: 1) number and acres of
properties addressed by OSWER cleanup programs; 2) number and acres of properties
determined protective for current and reasonably aniticipated future uses; 3) status of use
(e.g., vacant, continued use, reused, or planned reuse); and 4) type of use (e.g., industrial,
commercial, greenspace, residential, and government). The purpose of presenting these
possible measures is to promote and guide discussions toward systematic and, ideally,
cross-programmatic approaches to capture OSWER's revitalization accomplishments.
Implementation of these measures could offer numerous benefits, including:
+ Demonstrating and more clearly linking revitalization accomplishments to protection
of human health and the environment;
+ Helping promote consistent performance measures across cleanup programs;
+ Creating the potential for EPA to express cleanup and assessment accomplishments
in terms of acres and number of properties, providing for more flexible and
understandable performance reporting;
+ Providing greater transparency and meeting the need to demonstrate outcome-
oriented EPA program accomplishments to the Administration, Congress, and the
general public; and
+ Providing the foundation for an "extent of contaminated lands" environmental
indicator in support of EPA's Report on the Environment (ROE).3
'The terms "property" or "properties" are used in this report in a generic sense to succinctly capture the various ways in which
OSWER programs describe geographic areas—potentially including land, surface water, and groundwater features—subject to
assessment and/or cleanup (e.g., RCRA Facility, Superfund Site, Brownfields Property, etc.).
2More detailed discussion and a definition of the term "ready for reuse" are presented in section 2.2 of this report.
Tor more information on ROE, see http://www.epa.gov/indicators/abouteii.htm.
VI
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Q Possible next steps for the successful development and implementation of new or
enhanced revitalization measures. Section 4 of this report presents several activities that
may be considered the "next steps" for exploring the viability of developing new and
improved ways of measuring revitalization outcomes, including:
+ Conducting Pilot(s) to evaluate the viability of new/enhanced revitalization measures;
+ Assessing the state of contaminated lands in America's communities;
+ Considering using revitalization measures to support development of an
environmental indicator for the usability of contaminated land;
+ Exploring the opportunities and challenges of measuring the socio-economic Impacts
resulting from the revitalization of properties; and
+ Exploring opportunities to engage the private sector in the development and
implementation of revitalization measures.
Land is a finite resource that directly affects the health and vitality of America's communities.
With some estimates suggesting that there are several hundred thousand properties representing
millions of acres of contaminated (or potentially contaminated) land in these communities, the
need for increased efforts to consider the protective, sustainable, and beneficial uses and reuses
of land is significant. EPA's cleanup programs play an important role in revitalizing land by
ensuring protectiveness through its site assessment and cleanup processes, as well as pursuing
other activities that collectively promote protective, productive, and sustainable use or reuse of
property. Measuring outcomes of these successes provides EPA and its partners an opportunity
to demonstrate the progress that cleanup programs are making towards returning potentially
contaminated or contaminated lands to America's communities.
VII
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
This page intentionally left blank.
VIM
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
1. Introduction
The revitalization of properties that are known or believed
to be contaminated has been occurring for many years, but
more recently these properties have received significant
attention from government policy makers, special interest
groups, private companies (including developers, financial
institutions, insurance providers), and affected communities.
There are many explanations for this increased interest, such
as new federal and state brownfields laws and resources, new
financial and risk management tools available in the market,
desire to preserve greenspace, and cleanup programs with an
expanding track record of proven revitalization successes.
We are witnessing a growing trend in the revitalization of
properties with real or perceived contamination and the
positive impacts on communities and other stakeholders.
Ensuring sites are cleaned up to protect human health and the
environment remains the primary objective of EPA's cleanup
programs. However, EPA believes it also needs to consider
revitalization to help ensure that the land remains protective
of continued use/reuse of properties over the long term.
EPA is one of many stakeholders who have a role and an
interest in the sustainable and beneficial use, continued use, or reuse of contaminated properties.
Ensuring that once-contaminated properties are protective for continued use or reuse often is a
primary accomplishment of EPA cleanup programs. Consistent with its statuatory and regulatory
authorities, EPA also takes proactive steps to consider protective use or reuse of previously
contaminated properties.4 To date, thousands of acres of land have been assessed and/or cleaned
and determined protective for current and reasonably anticipated future uses, and hundreds of
communities have reclaimed properties for ecological, recreational, commercial, residential and
other productive purposes. Revitalizing these properties can provide numerous positive impacts
for communities, such as removing blight, satisfying the growing demand for land, helping limit
urban sprawl, fostering ecological habitat enhancements, enabling economic development, and
maintaining or improving quality of life. With the emergence of revitalization as an important
objective and outcome of the assessment and cleanup process, the need for cleanup programs to
measure their performance and report accomplishments in terms related to the use or reuse of
land is increasingly important.
"Revitalization"
In its broadest sense, "revitalization"
means to impart new life, energy,
or activity to something. In
the context of contaminated or
potentially contaminated properties,
revitalization refers to actions taken
to promote protective, productive,
and sustainable use, continued
use, or reuse of property. These
revitalization actions can help
to impart new life to properties,
resulting in enhancements to
America's communities and
ecosystems.
Examples of actions that support
land revitalization include: site
assessment cleanup, identification of
possible future uses at idle properties,
stakeholder involvement processes,
actual construction associated with
new or enhanced uses, and addressing
liability concerns.
4For purposes of this report, considering "protective use of property" refers to ensuring that a property does not pose unacceptable
risks to human health or the environment through either an investigation or cleanup action, including, where necessary, ongoing
operating and maintenance of engineering and/or institutional controls.
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
In 2004, OSWER's Land Revitalization Staff Office formed a workgroup of Headquarters and
Regional staff across OSWER's cleanup programs, including the Brownfields, Superfund, RCRA
Corrective Action, Underground Storage Tanks, and Federal Facilities programs.5 The objective
of the Outcomes and Benefits Workgroup was to examine the opportunities and challenges
that EPA faces in measuring and reporting revitalization accomplishments across these five
OSWER cleanup programs. The Workgroup identified the various approaches that OSWER's
cleanup programs currently use to measure their performance in supporting the revitalization of
properties, and explored opportunities for developing new methods of measuring their impact on
revitalization.
1.1 Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to present:
Q EPA's efforts in measuring revitalization accomplishments (see Section 2);
Q Opportunities for new or enhanced approaches for measuring and characterizing
revitalization-related accomplishments across OSWER cleanup programs (see Section 3);
and
Q Possible next steps for planning and implementing new or enhanced revitalization
measures (see Section 4).6
This report is intended to help stakeholders—whether from EPA and other federal, state, and
tribal agencies, or non-governmental and private sector organizations—better understand how
OSWER's cleanup programs are currently measuring revitalization, and the opportunities that
may be available to develop new or improved ways of capturing revitalization accomplishments.
For example, this report may be informative for managers and staff in environmental cleanup
programs—including those programs represented in this report, other Agency "cleanup"
programs (e.g., solid waste management, water, toxics and pesticides programs, etc.), and other
federal and state cleanup programs—who are considering developing or enhancing their own
revitalization performance measures.
The summary of activities in this report acknowledges the tremendous effort and contributions of
EPA's programs, while recognizing that measuring revitalization accomplishments is relatively
new and still evolving. For some programs, the development of revitalization performance
measures has only recently been undertaken, and revitalization accomplishment data are only
now being compiled. For other programs, revitalization measures are being considered, but have
not yet been fully developed or implemented.
Descriptions of these cleanup programs, along with an OSWER organizational chart, is provided in Appendix A.
6Appendix B provides the cover letter to the August draft of this report. The cover letter conveyed management's expectation for
at least one cross-program revitalization measure to be implemented in FY2007.
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
This report also provides possible approaches for the development of new or enhanced measures
that would capture a broader array of OSWER's revitalization accomplishments. Specifically,
this report presents an analysis of cross-program measures that would capture information to help
OSWER communicate its revitalization-related accomplishments. By opening a dialogue on
new measures, this report presents an opportunity for OSWER programs to consider new ways of
expressing program outcomes that integrate cleanup and revitalization.
Though its focus is revitalization, this report recognizes that land, water, and air resources
are interconnected and that revitalization of a geographic area often requires assessment and
cleanup of more than just soil (e.g., groundwater, surface water, sediment). The report notes that
revitalization can occur where land is cleaned up, as well as where site assessment indicates that
land can be used for a designated purpose without cleanup. It also notes that revitalization can
occur where land is vacant prior to assessment and cleanup, and where land continues to be used
throughout the cleanup process.
The report recognizes that assessment and cleanup (where necessary) by themselves provide
revitalization benefits (e.g., reducing uncertainty); whereas in other situations, assessment and
cleanup are just the first of many steps toward revitalization. For land where no new use is
planned, revitalization is accomplished when site assessment confirms that the land is protective
for its current use or cleanup helps ensure that the land will remain protective of its current use
over the long-term. Where land is to be redeveloped or reused, assessment and cleanup may
confirm the land to be protective for use, but may be only the first of many steps in returning
the land to productive use. Other actions, including for example, actions by the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) to address prospective purchaser liability, build
on the potential created by site assessment and cleanup. The report defines revitalization in a way
that addresses not only the revitalization outcomes achieved through site assessment and cleanup,
but also those achieved through considering new land uses.
It is important to note that the Workgroup does not intend to be prescriptive in presenting
opportunities for new or improved performance measures; rather, it hopes to provide OSWER
program managers (and other federal and state cleanup program managers) with information to
consider and use in exploring whether and how such measures could be used in the context of
their programs.
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
1.2 Why Revitalization is Important
The following provides a few of the notable reasons why revitalization of contaminated (actual
or perceived) properties is important, and why EPA is committed to supporting revitalization as
an outcome of the assessment and cleanup process.
Q Revitalization can help reduce the amount of land that has not been returned to
protective, productive uses. Given the vastness of the U.S., we often fail to recognize
that land is a valuable and finite resource, which may lead to the perception that
contaminated land may be undervalued as there is always an opportunity to develop clean
or undeveloped land. However, when one considers the magnitude of actual or perceived
contaminated properties—both in terms of the total area of land and their locations—one
quickly realizes the opportunity to reclaim properties that might otherwise end up being
fenced off and abandoned. For example, although highly accurate data on the number
and size of contaminated properties in the U.S. is not currently available, some estimates
suggest that there are hundreds of thousands of properties representing millions of acres
of contaminated or potentially contaminated land, the equivalent of a medium-sized state.
This potentially contaminated land may currently be vacant, or there may be industrial
activities that continue to operate. This is land that communities often need to continue
to use, or may need to support new commercial, recreational, ecological, or other needs.
Moreover, in situations where barriers exist for continued use or reuse, developers turn
to open space, which has contributed to urban sprawl, resource demands for expanded
infrastructure, and a variety of quality-of-life and environmental impacts.
To illustrate the number of properties and the fact that they are located in communities
across the U.S., Exhibit 1-1 provides a national map of priority hazardous waste sites, and
Exhibits 1-2 and 1-3 provide maps of two localities that show the abundance of properties
that are too numerous to present on the national level map.7 In addition, Exhibit 1-4
graphically presents estimates of the number of properties nationwide considered by the
Brownfields, RCRA, UST, Superfund, and Federal Facilities programs.8 These estimates
are intended to provide an overall sense of the scale of the number of contaminated or
potentially contaminated properties in the U.S., and the possible opportunities that exist
for revitalizing this land. To further understand the magnitude of contaminated properties
(real or perceived), Section 4 of this report identifies additional activities that could be
undertaken to systematically develop a robust baseline of the amount of contaminated land
in the United States.
7These maps include sites that either are still contaminated or were contaminated but have been cleaned up and in some instances
reused. Thus, these maps should not be interpreted to represent the total number of contaminated sites existing today.
8The data presented in Exhibit 1-4 are general estimates based on available data about contaminated properties; EPA recognizes
that various data quality and accuracy issues may exist.
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit 1-1 - National Map of Priority Hazardous Waste Sitess
£^;:^7rT;'>v
* •/' k * *. 1 • i ••* f *if. v.]
Nationwide Priority
Hazardous Waste Sites
Includes 1,557 CERCLIS NPL Sites and 1,714 Priority Facilities on the RCRA Cleanup Baseline.
Sites in American Samoa (1), Palau (1), Guam (4), and Northern Mariana Islands (1) not pictured.
'Data obtained from CERCLIS and RCRAinfo, January 26, 2005. Sites on this map include EPA priority hazardous waste sites that EPA and/or state partners
have already addressed or are in the process of addressing.
5
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit 1-2 - Sites in Morris County New Jersey
10
Legend
* State Cleanup Sites
• LUST Sites
Exhibit 1-3 - Sites in Seattle, Washington11
Legend
* Independent Cleanup
• LUST Facility
* State Cleanup Site
n Voluntary Cleanup Sites
10Map includes 508 state cleanup sites and 236 LUST sites. Data obtained from the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection website (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/gis/stateshp.htmWKCSL2001), March 25,2005.
"Map includes 83 independent cleanup sites, 2 LUST sites, 195 state cleanup sites, and 243 voluntary cleanup sites. Data
obtained from the Washington Department of Ecology website (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/data/data.htm), March 25,
2005.
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit 1-4 - Universe of Contaminated or Potentially Contaminated Properties Related
to OSWER Programs12
-450,000 + Brownficlds
-100,000-200,000
LUSTs (abandoned)
-2,000 Corrective
Action GPRA Sites
-6,500 RCRA Sites
-1,500 NPL Sites
-40,000 CERCLIS Sites
Q Revitalization can result in higher levels of protection. When potential new uses of a
property are identified (e.g., when contaminated properties are included, not overlooked,
in community planning decisions), landowners may take measures to attain more stringent
cleanup levels that support its future use (and result in a more marketable property).
Similarly, landowners may undertake additional measures that may further reduce the
risk of exposure to contaminants, such as making a cover system thicker to support a
building foundation or adding a layer of asphalt for a parking lot. Furthermore, because
there is typically increased presence on properties in use, the monitoring and maintenance
of a remedy may also improve, and situations at vacant properties where trespassers can
damage a remedy (e.g., riding all-terrain vehicles on a protective cap), or illegally dump
new waste may be avoided.
Q Revitalization (especially associated with property reuse) can increase the pace of
assessment and cleanup related activities. Initiating and completing assessments and
cleanups at contaminated properties can take years or even decades. The slow pace is
caused by many factors including, for example, limited resources by federal and state
cleanup programs (often resulting in less attention to lower-risk properties), high costs
12The diagram is intended to display the EPA estimated universe of contaminated or potentially contaminated properties. A
larger universe of non-EPA contaminated or potentially contaminated lands (e.g., abandoned mine lands on Bureau of Lands
Management lands, etc.) is not represented in this diagram. The diagram also illustrates how some OSWER properties may be
addressed by more than one OSWER program. For example, the LUST properties may be part of the larger brownfields universe.
Additionally, out of the estimated 450,000 brownfields sites, EPA's focus has been on approximately 502 grants that have been
awarded through the Brownfields program.
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
for investigation and cleanup activities, limited resources of parties responsible for the
contamination, and legal disputes. Experiences around the country have shown that
private, and public interest in reusing contaminated properties provides resources for
making assessment and cleanup happen faster than would likely have occurred without
such reuse interest, without compromising protectiveness.
Revitalization can bring economic and other benefits, including ecological habitat
enhancements, to communities. Vacant properties that have been investigated and/or
cleaned up, and those that remain in use throughout the investigation and/or cleanup
process, provide many benefits to the communities affected by those properties.
Communities benefit from the positive economic impacts that result from the new or
continued industrial or commercial operations that occur at many of the properties,
through new employment opportunities or by avoiding the movement of jobs to other
communities. Communities also enjoy economic, social, and environmental benefits from
the variety of new uses, such as recreational, ecological habitat enhancement, residential,
public service, and agricultural purposes. Whether through new or continued use of
formerly contaminated properties, revitalization can result in an increase in employment
opportunities, income and spending, tax revenues, and property values on both the
property and surrounding properties. Revitalization of properties may reduce or eliminate
many of the negative impacts of abandoned properties, such as blight and crime, and in
many cases, serve as a catalyst for the revitalization of the surrounding area. Exhibits 1-5
through 1-8 provide examples of revitalized properties that are now bringing benefits to
surrounding communities.
Revitalization can support local land use planning trends. Communities today are
seeking alternative approaches to their development and growth to limit urban sprawl and
improve their quality of life. Continuing to use properties or reusing vacant properties
represents infill development, which may reduce additional greenfield development at the
urban periphery and takes advantage of existing infrastructure. Such land use trends can
also have a positive impact on environmental quality, such as reducing carbon dioxide
emissions due to less traffic and shorter commutes, and greater carbon sequestration
from preserved trees and vegetation. Capturing the potential benefits resulting from
revitalization is one of several next steps identified in Section 4 of this report.
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit 1-5
Cape Charles, VA - A 25-acre, former junkyard is now
the center of a new 200-acre eco-industrial park.13 The
park includes a building with a solar electric roof system,
and surrounding wetlands to serve as a natural landscaping
enhancement. Nearly one-half of the land in the park is set
aside as natural habitat, including a 30-acre Coastal Dune
Natural Area Preserve and approximately 60 acres of other
natural areas.
Exhibit 1-6
Industri-Plex Site - Woburn, MA - Cleanup and
redevelopment of the Industrial-Plex Superfund Site have
resulted in a regional transportation center, major retail
space, open space and wetlands.14 Redevelopment of the
site is expected to result in as many as 4,300 permanent
jobs, approximately $147 million in annual income, more
than $13 million in state income and sales tax associated
with spending and more than $1.5 million in state retail
sales taxes annually.
Exhibit 1-7
Salt Lake City, UT - Railroad lines once webbed across
contaminated brownfields, but revitalization of a 30-acre
portion of Salt Lake City's neglected west side is expected
to generate $20 million annually in retail sales and taxes,
contribute $5 million to Salt Lake City's revenue and
leverage approximately 7,300 new jobs.15 The master
plan for the redevelopment of the Gateway District
includes 10,000 new residential units, cultural facilities,
commercial developments, and a transportation hub that
will link bus, light rail, and commuter rail systems.
13For more information go to http://wwwepa.gov/reg3hwmdMs/success/VA-cape_charles-dec.hmi
14For more information go to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/success/casestud/iplexcsi.htm.
15For more information go to http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/success/saltlake.pdf
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit 1-8
Boston, MA - The former Watertown Arsenal (just 5
miles west of Boston, MA), was home to small amis
storage, ammunition production, weapons testing, and
nuclear research prior to base closure in 1995. 16 The site
was added to the NPL in 1994. Redevelopment of the site
includes athletic fields, an ice rink, childcare facilities,
restaurants, retail, and walking and biking trails. Cleanup
and reuse of the site has generated approximately 2,000
new jobs for the area. Great care was taken to preserve
the historic architecture of the brick buildings while
modernizing them with features such as fiber optic cable
for Internet access.
1.3 EPA's Role in Supporting the Productive Use of Contaminated Properties
EPA recognized many years ago the important role it plays in helping communities to reclaim
contaminated properties. As such, EPA has worked with the Brownfields, Superfund, RCRA
Corrective Action, UST, and Federal Facilities programs, along with the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, to specifically support the revitalization of properties following,
or in conjunction with, their assessment or cleanup. Prior to EPA's more formal programs and
initiatives that actively support revitalization, continued use and reuse of contaminated properties
occurred on a case-by-case basis. By the early 1990s, EPA began to understand the role it could
play in supporting revitalization and began taking proactive steps on a programmatic level to
help communities return underutilized contaminated properties to productive use. Exhibit 1-9
provides an historic timeline of key highlights in EPA's support of revitalization. Note that this
timeline is intended to provide an overview and is not inclusive of all milestones
Once an environmental concern is identified with a property, EPA or a state cleanup program
may become involved in assessing the property to determine whether, and to what extent,
the property is contaminated and to ensure cleanups are implemented as necessary to protect
human health and the environment. Assessments are important for addressing the stigma often
associated with contaminated property (real or perceived), which can arise due to the lack of
accurate information about property conditions. Stigma about a property is often in itself a
major obstacle to revitalization. With improved information about the environmental condition
of a property, developers and others can make informed real estate decisions. At properties with
known contamination, EPA and/or state programs may conduct, oversee, or otherwise support
cleanup activities. The quality and efficiency of a cleanup has a direct impact on whether and
how a property can be used in the future. Increasingly, EPA has seen the benefit of considering
reasonably anticipated future land use (which may include local land use plans) into the cleanup
decision making, planning, and implementation process.
6For more information, reference http://www.epa.gov/NE/pr/2005/oct/sr051011.html
10
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit 1-9: EPA Land Revitalization Highlights
1993 - First Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot awarded
- BRAC legislative action
1994 - First formal agreement with DoD, ensuring EPA participation in cleanup and reuse of
- BRAC properties
- FFRRO established to manage cleanup and promote the reuse of contaminated federal properties
1995 - Brownfields Action Agenda announced
- CERCLA Land Use guidance and CERCLA Prospective Purchaser guidance issued
- First National Brownfields Conference
- BRAC legislative action
1996 - Brownfields Federal Interagency Working Group formed
- The "Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996" is enacted
- Comfort Letter guidance issued
- FFRRO Fast Track Guidance set up BRAC Cleanup Teams (consisting of DoD, EPA, and state/tribe) to
facilitate faster cleanup, transfer, and ultimate reuse of property
1997 - First 24 Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilots awarded
- Bro wnfields National Partnership Action Agenda announced
- Taxpayer Relief Act signed, creating the Federal Brownfields Tax Incentive
1998 - The Brownfields National Partnership names 16 Brownfields Showcase Communities
- First 11 Brownfields Job Training Pilots awarded
- RCRA Brownfields workgroup formed to address RCRA issues at brownfields
- Supplemental environmental projects used to facilitate brownfields redevelopment
- LTWIR media rule promotes revitalization by speeding up cleanups
- FFRRO begins providing annual grant money to ICMA to conduct research on the impacts of base closures
on local governments
1999 - Superfund Redevelopment Initiative announced
- First SRI reuse planning pilots awarded
- Partnership agreement with U.S. Soccer Foundation supporting recreational reuse at Superfund sites
2000 - Regional Superfund Reuse Coordinators designated
- First four RCRA Brownfield Prevention Pilots awarded
- Comfort/status letters for RCRA Brownfields Properties developed
- First USTfield pilot grants awarded to 10 State UST programs
- Environmental Justice Action Agenda published
2001 - Directive on Reuse Assessments published
- First round of RCRA Targeted Site Efforts awarded
2002 - New federal Brownfields legislation signed into law
- MOU with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers launches Urban River Restoration Initiative
- EPA Region 6/Oklahoma DEQ issue the first in the nation Ready for Reuse Determination (RCRA
Corrective Action)
2003 - Guidance on implementing, monitoring, and enforcing institutional controls issued
- Land Revitalization Agenda and Accomplishments announced
- Land Revitalization Initiative launched
- Interim Common Elements guidance explaining landowner exemptions liability protections released
- EPA Region 6 finalizes its Ready for Reuse Program Implementation Guidance
- First Superfund Ready for Reuse Determination signed for the Tex-Tin site in Texas
- RCRA Completion guidance, RCRA Prospective Purchaser Agreement guidance released
- OUST releases "Partnership Initiative For Reusing Petroleum Brownfields"
- Privatization of cleanup at BRAC sites pilot projects
- Environmental Justice Revitalization Pilots selected
- Proposed rule setting all appropriate inquiry standards for Superfund liability relief published
2004 - Superfund Ready for Reuse Determination guidance published
- Superfund Return to Use (RTU) Initiative and RTU demonstration sites announced
- Multi-program Ready for Reuse Guiding Principles issued
- Guidance for Documenting and Reporting the Superfund Revitalization Measures issued
2005 - Fifth round of BRAC legislative action
- EPA releases smart growth and base reuse planning guidebook, "Turning Bases into Great Places: New Life for Closed
Military Facilities"
2006 - Superfund Site-Wide Ready for Reuse Guidance Issued
- Interm Guidance forEPA's BRAC Program issued, updating the 1996 EPA BRAC policy
11
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
OSWER supports property revitalization, consistent with EPA's statuatory and regulatory
authorities, in a variety of ways, including: (1) promoting land revitalization by ensuring that
reuse options are considered explicitly in the cleanup process; (2) committing the necessary
resources to address revitalization as an important consideration in cleanup decisions; (3)
developing new comprehensive policies and programs to address unintended cross-jurisdiction
and cross-program barriers to the protective use and reuse of previously contaminated properties;
(4) considering protective, long-term use and reuse of properties; (5) considering sustainable
use and reuse to prevent re-contamination and indirect environmental problems that may result
from some reuse (sustainable reuses include greenspaces, energy efficient buildings, smart
growth community developments, and wildlife habitats); (6) developing and promoting a land
revitalization research agenda that improves our understanding of and ability to use and reuse
contaminated or potentially contaminated properties; (7) building partnerships to leverage
knowledge, expertise, and resources in the revitalization of properties (including government-to-
government partnerships at the local, state, tribal, and federal levels, as well as partnerships with
non-government, private, and community organizations); (8) expanding community capabilities
through improved public involvement tools and information systems on contamination, cleanup,
and long-term stewardship; (9) expanding and promoting educational and training programs that
encourage and provide needed tools to achieve land revitalization; and (10) promoting various
approaches to measure and report the status and impacts of our collective efforts to revitalize.
Building on the accomplishments of EPA's cleanup programs, EPA embarked on an OSWER-
wide initiative to revitalize land by ensuring contaminated and potentially contaminated
properties are protective for use and reuse. The Land Revitalization Initiative emphasizes
that cleanup and revitalization generally are mutually supportive goals and consideration of a
property's use or anticipated reuse should be an integral part of cleanup decisions. In 2003, EPA
created the Land Revitalization Agenda to integrate revitalization into EPA's cleanup programs,
establish partnerships, and help make land revitalization part of EPA's organizational culture. By
2004, EPA had established the Land Revitalization Staff Office to work with and across EPA's
cleanup programs and external partners to implement this initiative.
1.4 The Importance of Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties
"To plan strategically, to adjust our approaches and activities to improve results,
and to be able to report to the American people on our progress, EPA must
routinely assess its performance and accomplishments. "17
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan—Direction for the Future
As EPA's Strategic Plan states, routinely measuring EPA's performance and accomplishments
serves two fundamental purposes: (1) to report program progress and accomplishments to the
public and other interested stakeholders; and (2) to evaluate program performance to improve
planning and implementation. Specifically measuring revitalization accomplishements in EPA's
cleanup programs can play an important part in fulfilling these objectives.
17See 2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan-Direction for the Future, available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf.
12
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Measuring revitalization presents new opportunities for OSWER cleanup programs to capture a
broader array of the accomplishments resulting from the assessment and cleanup of properties,
and may also improve how they report on environmental progress. Through the assessment and/
or cleanup of properties under OSWER's cleanup programs, land is being revitalized, and can
once again be used by communities and ecosystems in a sustainable, protective, and productive
way. This measure of accomplishment for OSWER's cleanup programs is not currently being
captured and reported to the public in a consistent or systematic way.
Moreover, as Section 3 of this report shows, measuring revitalization may provide a mechanism
for presenting cleanup accomplishments in terms of properties and acres of land determined
protective for current and reasonably anticipated uses. Much like the EPA water program's
current use of "fishable, swimmable" waters, such a measure would convey that contamination
concerns have been addressed and that the land can be used, while remaining protective of
human health and the environment. This will present cleanup accomplishments in a way that is
more meaningful to the public than simply reporting the number of properties cleaned up.
There is also the opportunity to use such
outcome-oriented measures across all of
OSWER's cleanup programs to present
accomplishments in a comprehensive
and consistent manner. Statements about
land determined protective for use could
be further bolstered when a property
continues to be used or where there is a
new use, further demonstrating EPA's (or a
state's) accomplishments in improving the
environmental condition of the property.
Additional information about a property
being used or reused could communicate
the impact that cleanup has had on the
community, such as its socio-economic
impacts (including jobs, taxes, and
property values).
In terms of the program evaluation
objective, measuring status and type of
land use would enable EPA's cleanup
programs to better understand whether
and how land is being used during or
after it is assessed and cleaned up. Such
measures could help EPA evaluate the
A Call for Improved Performance Measures
A recently issued report by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) examines the
performance measures used by the Brownfields
program. According to GAO, EPA needs
to measure progress toward cleaning and
redeveloping properties and to assess the extent to
which the program achieves key outcomes, such
as reducing environmental risks. Similarly, EPA's
Inspector General found that the Brownfields
performance measures do not demonstrate
the program's contribution to reducing or
controlling health and environmental risks. The
report suggests the need for EPA to improve
its performance measures to capture both the
environmental and revitalization accomplishments
of its cleanup programs. The Brownfields program
has since developed a "ready for reuse" measure
and is currently exploring other revitalization
measures. (See Brownfield Redevelopment:
Stakeholders Report—"EPA's Program Helps to
Redevelop Sites, but Additional Measures Could
Complement Agency Efforts" at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0594.pdf)
13
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
impacts of revitalization efforts on cleanup performance (e.g., whether inegrating revitalization
concepts in the cleanup process helps encourage investment in redevelopment and speeds the
pace of cleanup). Performance measures enable EPA to adjust its processes and activities so
that it can reach its objectives. In doing so, measuring its performance allows EPA to plan and
carry out its cleanup activities more strategically. For example, measuring revitalization could
help the Agency to track and subsequently enhance the tools that it uses to support revitalization
at properties. By establishing revitalization-related measures, EPA could also demonstrate the
importance of revitalization and provide the necessary incentives to help make revitalization
happen.
14
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
2. Existing Approaches to Measure Revitalization
"...Agency cleanup programs are developing ways to measure the number of
sites ready for reuse and the area of land now in use or ready for reuse. Once
in place, such measures of effectiveness can supplement or replace objectives,
sub-objectives, and targets in future EPA strategic plans. "
2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan—Direction for the Future
For over a decade, OSWER's cleanup programs have been collecting revitalization-related
data either systematically or anecdotally. The type, quality, and consistency of the data
collected depends on the cleanup program collecting it and its specific needs or characteristics.
More recently, OSWER's cleanup programs are making substantial progress in developing
revitalization-related performance measures. While these programs have only recently begun to
implement these measures, the revitalization accomplishment data currently available serve as an
early indication of the possibilities that revitalization-related measures hold for communicating
the progress and accomplishments of EPA, as well as other federal and state, cleanup programs.
This section provides an overview of terms and efforts to track revitalization, followed by
summaries of revitalization-related data for each OSWER program. This section concludes with
examples of how several other federal and state agencies measure revitalization in the context of
their programs.
2.1 Overview of Key Terms and Tracking Revitalization in OSWER Cleanup Programs
EPA and other federal and state cleanup programs may use the terms "reuse," "redevelopment,"
and "revitalization" to refer to the use of a property during and after an investigation and/
or cleanup.18 However, there is a growing preference within OSWER to use the term
"revitalization" because it captures accomplishments associated with properties regardless of
how the property is being used (e.g., revitalization of an operating industrial facility in continued
use can include improvements to ecologic habitats, recreational amenities, etc).
To date, most cleanup programs within OSWER have collected anecdotal information on
sites that have been returned to use to inform stakeholders about the efforts being made and
the possibilities and benefits of revitalization. The Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action,
UST, Brownfields, and Federal Facilities programs each post property-specific revitalization
success stories on their respective Web sites. Efforts to capture EPA's success in returning
once contaminated land to productive use are evolving, and include more robust and systematic
approaches to collecting land revitalization data. Several programs have been systematically
collecting a range of land revitalization information for several years; these programs have
18For EPA's Brownfields program, "redevelopment" may include non-commercial uses (e.g.. parks, wildlife refuges, nature trails,
green spaces, or a non-profit community health care facility), as well as commercial or industrial uses (e.g., the expansion or
remodeling of an existing manufacturing facility, or the construction of a new retail space) and residential and public purpose
uses (e.g., a courthouse or public health clinic). Appendix C provides specific definitions of these revitalization-related terms
used by the Superfund and Brownfields programs, as well as those used by Region 3 as part of their use/reuse Assessment Pilot
project.
15
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
also developed systematic processes to report this data to Congress and the public. Now that
returning contaminated properties to environmental and economic vitality has become one
of EPA's top priorities, it is becoming clear that tracking revitalization-related information is
critical to measuring accomplishments. As a result, other programs within OSWER are currently
considering approaches for capturing revitalization accomplishments.
Ready for Reuse: Tracking the Number of Sites and Acres of Land
"Ready for reuse" is a relatively new revitalization measure that is increasingly being used
by some of OSWER's cleanup programs. As of FY 2005, EPA's Superfund and Brownfields
programs were tracking ready for reuse GPRA performance measures.19 These performance
measures generally capture the number of sites and number of acres that have either been
investigated and require no further action or that have been cleaned up to meet site-specific
cleanup goals.
Ready for Reuse Performance Measures vs. Ready for Reuse Determinations20
It is important to note the distinction between ready for reuse performance measures and Ready for Reuse (RfR)
Determinations.
Several EPA programs have established ready for reuse performance measures to capture an estimate of the
number of sites and acres that have been evaluated and considered ready for reuse. The performance measures
are an internal reporting mechanism that typically only require basic supporting documentation. Site-specific
performance measure information is not typically provided to the public; rather, performance measure
information is provided in the form of aggregate numbers of sites and acres that are ready for reuse.
On the other hand, an RfR Determination is a site-specific technical determination that allows EPA (or a
State or Tribe) to inform stakeholders interested in reuse that a specific site or portion of a site is protective
for a particular type of use. An RfR Determination provides potential users of sites with information on the
environmental conditions of a site and EPA's (or a State's or Tribe's) determination that all or a portion of a site
is protective of specified types of uses. An RfR Determination requires detailed information on the geographic
boundaries of the site or portion of the site that is ready for reuse, the environmental conditions, the types of
uses mat can be supported, and specific use restrictions and limitations. RfR Determinations have been issued at
many Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, UST, Federal Facility, Voluntary Cleanup Program, and Brownfields
sites.21
Given this distinction, a site that has received an RfR Determination would qualify as a site that has land ready
for reuse, and could be counted in a ready for reuse performance measure. However, not all sites that are
counted in the ready for reuse measures have received RfR Determinations, as these Determinations are site-
specific documents intended to inform potential users of sites about environmental conditions and protectiveness
levels.
19To hold federal agencies systematically accountable for achieving results from their programs, Congress passed the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993. The Act requires EPA and other federal agencies to develop strategic plans covering at
least five years and submit them to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. GPRA also requires agencies to set
annual performance goals related to the goals and objectives stated in the strategic plan and to prepare annual reports comparing
actual performance with annual goals. As part of this process, agencies may need to establish baseline data, as well as study the
feasibility of establishing goals prior to setting goals.
20 The term "Ready for Reuse" may be used in other programs outside of the EPA Land Revitalization Office.
21As of November, 2005, a total of 33 RfR Determinations have been issued by EPA. Twelve RfR Determinations have been
issued at Superfund sites, including: Southern Maryland Wood Treating, MD; Arlington Blending & Packaging, TN; Southpoint,
OH; H.O.D Landfill, IL; Tex-Tin OU1 and OU2, TX; and Sharon Steel, UT EPA Region 6 has issued 3 RfR Determinations
at RCRA Corrective Action sites, including: Sheffield Steel Corporation, OK; Shell Motiva, LA; and Remington Arms Co.,
AR. Four Federal facilities in Region 6 were issued RfR Determinations, including: Brooks City - Base, TX; Ft. Chaffee,
AR; Sheppard AFB, TX; and England AFB, LA. RfR Determinations were issued for three Voluntary Cleanup Program sites,
including: Emerson Motors, AR; University of Arkansas, AR; and ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Plastics Plant, LA. Additionally,
two RfR Determinations were issued for UST sites, including: Sayre, OK (19 sites); and ExxonMobil, LA (5 sites). One
Brownfields property, Heifer Projects International, AR, and one Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) site, General Services
Administration, TX, were also issued RfR Determinations.
16
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
The UST and RCRA Corrective Action programs—primarily implemented by states—do not
currently track acreage and sites ready for reuse information at the national level, nor do they
have revitalization-specific performance measures.22 However, some Regions (Regions 1, 3, 5,
6 and 9) have conducted or are planning to compile revitalization information, and some States
(e.g., Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma) actively collect data on RCRA sites, including
whether they have received a Ready for Reuse (RfR) Determination.
Other Revitalization Measures
In addition to the number of acres and sites that are ready for reuse, OSWER cleanup programs
(i.e., Brownfields, Superfund, RCRA, UST, and Federal Facilities) collect a limited amount of
other revitalization-related data, which may illustrate whether the site is in continued or new use
and the type of use, if any, occurring, as well as available information on jobs and other local
impacts resulting from revitalization. Much of this information is being collected and reported
anecdotally through case studies and fact sheets on properties in use, while some is tracked in
databases developed by the individual programs at Headquarters and in the Regions.
2.2 Measuring Revitalization in OSWER Cleanup Programs
Each of the five OSWER cleanup programs addressed in this document measure land
revitalization activities in different ways. While some current land revitalization reporting
mechanisms are more comprehensive than others, the goal of reporting accurate information
remains universal. In addition to the efforts of the Headquarters' offices, several Regions
(Regions 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9) have conducted or are planning to conduct revitalization information
collection efforts. EPA Region 3 conducted a Pilot project to collect information related to the
surficial use or reuse of land at RCRA Corrective Action GPRA facilities, Federal Facilities and
non-Federal Facility Superfund sites, and is maintaining the information in a comprehensive
spreadsheet.23 Collecting and reporting revitalization information in EPAs cleanup programs is
central to improving the dissemination of land revitalization information.
2.2.1 Superfund Sites (Federal and Non-Federal Facility)
Beginning in FY 2007, EPAs Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
(OSRTI), in coordination with the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO),
will implement a new performance measure to report the Superfund Program's accomplishments
in making land ready for reuse. This measure is included in the Strategic Plan and is a targeted
measure.
22Region 6 currently tracks basic information on RfR Determinations using RCRAInfo.
23See "Response Selection and Enforcement Approach for Superfund Alternative Sites Guidance" (the "SAS Guidance"), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, June 24, 2002, available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/
superfund/sas-enf-02 .pdf.
17
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
The new "Sitewide Ready-for Reuse" Superfund performance measure is denned as:
The number of final and deleted construction complete National Priorities List (NPL) sites
where, for the entire site:
(1) All cleanup goals in the Record(s) of Decision or other remedy decision
document(s) have been achieved for media that may affect current and reasonably
anticipated future land uses of the site, so that there are no unacceptable risks; and
(2) All institutional or other controls required in the Record(s) of Decision or
other remedy decision document(s) have been put in place.
This performance measure was developed to comply with, and fulfill in part, the Agency's
responsibility for reporting accomplishments under GPRA. The measure applies to all private,
non-Federal, and Federal Facility sites proposed for, or listed on, the NPL, Superfund Alternative
Sites (SAS),22 and NPL and non-NPL sites where non-time-critical removal actions have been
conducted. FFRRO will also use this measure for Federal Facility NPL sites.
The measure requires that any controls (engineered as well as institutional) used as part of the
justification for considering that a site is ready for Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse should be in place.
In the case of deleted sites, they are counted only when required institutional controls are in
place. Depending on the type of institutional controls used at a site, the term "in place" could
include, for example: the enactment of ordinances (e.g., groundwater use restrictions), codes,
or regulations by local government; recording of legal instruments in the chain of title for a
property; issuance by a regulatory authority of enforcement tools or permit; agreements between
the regulatory authority and the property owners or facility operators; listing of property on a
state registry of contaminated sites; and recording of deed notices or hazard advisories in local
land records; and for active military bases, use of base master plan, instructions, orders, and dig
permit systems.
2.2.2 Non-Federal Facility Superfund Sites
T jj-i- ^ ^1 j r j -U j • c A- Foundationalquestion
In addition to the ready tor reuse measure described in Section , . , „l , ,
J jor national Superfund
2.2.1, the non-Federal Facility Superfund Program will continue
to implement the following two additional ready for reuse
measures it has tracked since FY 2004:24
revtialization measures:
How many Superfund National
Priorities List sites and acres
Number of Superfund sites with land that is ready for of land at these sites have been
i identified through assessment
reuse, anu ,, , , ,,
and/or cleanup as ready for reuse
or are currently in use?
Number or acres of land at Superfund sites that are ready
for reuse.
24See "Guidance for Documenting and Reporting the Superfund Revitalization Performance Measures," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, (OSWER 9202.1-26, September 2004), available at: http://intranet.epa.gov/oerrinet/topics/revitalize/index.
htm. Note: the Superfund Revitalization Performance Measures do not capture the number of Ready for Reuse Determinations
awarded at Superfund sites.
18
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
For these two additional ready for reuse measures, the Superfund program distinguishes the types
of uses for which the site is suitable by categorizing acres as being ready for either residential or
non-residential reuse, depending on the cleanup goals attained. The program specifically avoids
using the terms ready for unrestricted or restricted uses, which some states have adopted.25 The
important distinction is that some sites may be suitable for residential use, yet still have certain
restrictions on the site (e.g., no use of the groundwater). For this reason, the Superfund program
uses residential and non-residential categories to provide a more informative description of the
type of use for which a property would be suitable following cleanup.
Regions will continue reporting both sites with land ready for reuse and associated ready for
reuse acreage. (Included in these performance measures are those sites and acres where EPA
determines, at the conclusion of a remedial investigation, that a portion of the land does not
require cleanup.) The original implementing guidance for these measures will be updated to
include Federal Facilities, revise criteria for meeting institutional controls, and address the new
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse measure described in 2.2.1. The Sites with Land Ready for Reuse
and Acres Ready for Reuse measures will not be part of the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse GPRA
measure and will not have targets.
At this time, the Non-Federal Facility Superfund ready for reuse measures apply only to the land
portion of the site. The measures do not apply to sites where the only media being addressed
is groundwater. However, land over contaminated groundwater (e.g., a migrating plume)
is counted as ready for reuse when EPA has taken a response action on that land (e.g., soil
investigation and/or remediation). Regions can report on making land ready for reuse only when
EPA addresses the sources of contamination or performs other response activities on the land
portion of the site.
Land use data used to support the original two land revitalization performance measures ("Sites
with Land Ready for Reuse" and "Acres Ready for Reuse") have been stored in the CERCLIS
database. Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2 summarize this data. The data have been reported in the SCAP-
15 Report on Land Reuse in CERCLIS.26 This report provides both national summary and
regional site summary land reuse information. Appendix D provides Superfund land reuse data
for the two original measures that were available from the End of Year (EOY) FY04 SCAP-15
Report on Land Reuse.
25According to State Response Programs: Measuring Success, 2003, prepared by the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), four states (Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) track the number of sites
cleaned up and suitable for unrestricted or residential use. The report is available at http://www.astswmo.org/Working%20Folder
%20with%20Publications%20-%20Sept.%2026%202005/FINAL%20MEASURES%20DOC.pdf.
26The SCAP-15 Report on Land Reuse is a standard report in CERCLIS which provides ready for reuse data associated with
Superfund and Federal Facility sites.
19
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit 2-1: Non-Federal Facility
Superfund Ready for Reuse Data27
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
# of Non-Federal
Sites with Acres
Ready For
Reuse
26
37
78
55
93
37
34
24
57
31
Acres Ready
for Non-
Residential
Reuse
826
1,583
3,569
3,042
1 1 ,776
1,300
2,192
159,040
5,742
3,390
Acres Ready
for Residential
Reuse
518
87
554
605
603
215
18,648
28,048
2,111
242
Total Acres
Ready for
Reuse
1,344
1,670
4,123
3,647
12,379
1,515
20,840
187,088
7,853
3,632
# of Non-
Federal Sites in
Reuse
7
1
43
24
31
2
25
19
47
27
Total 472 192,460 51,631 244,090 226
Exhibit 2-2: Acres Ready for Reuse at 472 non-Federal
Facility Superfund Sites (Residential vs. Non-Residential)28
Residential 21%
(51,630 acres)
Non-Residential 79%
(192,460 acres)
27Data obtained from CERCLIS EOY 04 SCAP-15 Report on Land Reuse. Ready for reuse data applies to Superfund sites
proposed for, or listed on, the NPL, SAS sites, and NPL and non-NPL sites where non-time-critical removals have been
conducted. The number of sites in reuse may include sites in continued use. The EOY 2004 SCAP-15 report pulled both Federal
and Non-Federal Facilities sites to generate this report. However, at the time (EOY 2004), this data was not complete. The
numbers in the chart are not inclusive of all Federal Facilities (NPL and non-NPL) sites.
28Data obtained from CERCLIS EOY 04 SCAP-15 Report on Land Reuse. Forty-eight sites currently have zero acres entered in
for acres ready for reuse. These sites are included in the number of sites with land ready for reuse.
20
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
For sites that have been identified as being "in use" in CERCLIS, Headquarters has conducted
additional inquiries into how Superfund sites are being used. The Superfund Redevelopment
program has informally tracked Superfund sites in reuse, continued use, restored use, and
planned reuse since 1999, leading to the development of the Superfund Redevelopment (SURE)
database29 in December 2003 to catalogue this information. The SURE database, which is
populated with data collected through the EPA Regions, local governments, and the private
sector, stores a variety of site-specific information, including status of use, former use, types of
use, and local economic impacts (e.g., jobs, total annual income, tax revenues) for those sites at
which information is available.30 SURE is also populated with a limited amount of information
from CERCLIS, including site detail, contaminants of concern, site remediation, institutional
controls, and ready for reuse data including reuse type and reuse status.
Exhibit 2-3: Types of Reuse at Non-Federal Facility
Superfund Sites31
6%
17%
• 35% Commercial
n 23% Industrial
D17% Nixed
n 7% Recreational
n 6% Public
• 6% Ecological
D4% Residential
D 2% Agricultural
23%
Information related to the revitalization of Superfund sites is also tracked anecdotally in a series
of success stories, site summaries, and case studies posted on EPA's Web site. The Web pages,
including the Superfund program's Web page and the Superfund Redevelopment program's Web
page, currently contain land use information on 171 sites, and generally describe site cleanup
and revitalization processes.32 When it is available, the web pages provide local economic
impact data. New success stories, site summaries, and case studies are added to these Web pages
periodically.
29Access to SURE database is provided only to OSRH staff, Regional staff, and their contractors.
'"Definitions contained in SURE and used by the Superfund Program can be found in Appendix C. Land use data extracted from
SURE can be found in Appendix D.
31Data obtained from the SURE database. SURE has information on 189 out of 226 sites flagged as in use in CERCLIS. 33 sites
are mixed use sites and 156 sites have only one reuse type. These figures do not represent a subset of data presented in Exhibit
2-2. Reuse type data does not correspond to the number of acres of land ready for reuse.
32Visit Superfund Redevelopment Program's Web page at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/index.htm for
information related to the revitalization of Superfund sites.
21
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
In addition to EPA's national efforts to collect Superfund revitalization information, EPA's
Regional offices are undertaking separate efforts to track information related to revitalization.
Region 3 has conducted a pilot project with support from EPA Headquarters' Land Revitalization
Office to collect information related to the surficial use or reuse of land at RCRA Corrective
Action GPRA facilities, Federal Facilities and Superfund sites, and is maintaining the
information in a comprehensive spreadsheet.33 Region 3 intends to use the results of this pilot
project to:
Q Establish a regional baseline on current land use enabling EPA to track over time
the number of sites and acres that are either in continued use, have been reused, have a
planned use, or have no current use;
Q Determine the types of use occuring at cleanup sites in order to identify interested
stakeholder groups with whom EPA and states can develop partnerships in order to
promote the beneficial use of contaminated lands;
Q Track and subsequently enhance EPA and state tools used to facilitate revitalization;
Q Collect information to demonstrate the positive local impacts (economic and ecological)
resulting from revitalization;
Q Provide a better understanding of the relationship between the status of cleanups and use;
and
Q Identify challenges in collecting this kind of information prior to developing and
promoting broader national measures.
Additionally, Region 6 has created WISDOM,34 a
database in the early stages of development that currently
includes land use information on 126 sites.
Exhibits 2-4 and 2-5 show data collected in Region 3's
pilot project focusing on the surficial use and reuse of
land at Region 3's Superfund sites.35
Foundotional question for Region 3
approach to measuring revitaliiatian at
Superfund sites:
What is the status and type of use at Region
3's sites on the National Priorities List?
"A copy of the Region 3 report is available at http://www.epa.gov/region/region03/revitalization/.
"Limited reuse information from the Region 6 WISDOM database can be found in Appendix D.
35Data Current as of March 2005
22
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit 2-4: Region 3 Non-Federal Facility Superfund Sites
Current Land Use
15%
6%
Total Number of Sites = 174
16,706 Acres
10%
5%
fj Continued Use (7,395 Acres)
D Reused (941 Acres)
• Planned Reuse (2,484 Acres)
D No Current Use/Vacant (5,886 Acres)
D Continued Use (36 sites)
D Reused (17 sites)
• Planned Reuse (9 sites)
D No Current Use/Vacant (58 sites)
• Multiple Uses (54 sites)
Exhibit 2-5: Types of Reuse at Region 3 Non-Federal
Facility Continued Use, Reused, and Planned Reuse
Superfund Sites
5% 2% 1%
21%
Total Number of Acres = 10,820
D Agricultural (237 Acres)
D Commercial (959 Acres)
D Enhanced Eco (723 Acres)
D Industrial (2,268 Acres)
D Military (0 Acres)
• Mixed Use (4,655 Acres)*
•Other Federal (0 Acres)
D Public Services (87 Acres)
D Recreational (1,364 Acres)
• Residential (528 Acres)
*4400 acres is from the Palmertown Zinc Pile site.
23
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
2.2.3 Superfund Federal Facilities Response Program
As part of the GPRA performance measure for Superfund revitalization, FFRRO is beginning to
track "ready for reuse" site and acreage information for the Federal Facility sites which are on
the NPL. For this effort, FFRRO's companion guidance to the Superfund program's "Guidance
for Documenting and Reporting the Superfund Revitalization Performance Measures" (in effect
November 2004) will be incorporated into OSRTI's forthcoming revision (referred to on page
17) in order to ensure "ready for reuse" data are appropriately collected in the Federal Facilities
program.
While the GPRA measure reflects "ready
for reuse" for NPL sites only, the scope of
the Federal Facilities Response program
is more broad. The Federal Facilities
program is also often involved in cleanup
and/or property transfer activities at
certain non-NPL Federal Facility sites;
the majority of that involvement is
accomplished at those Department of
Defense (DoD) Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) facilities that are not listed on the NPL.
Ensuring that property is environmentally suitable for transfer or lease out of federal government
control is one of the main objectives of the BRAC program. Therefore, documentation for
BRAC NPL and non-NPL sites includes information about acreage available for reuse via
property transfer or lease. Since 1997, FFRRO has used CERCLIS to track information at
BRAC properties where EPA was involved in the site cleanup. FFRRO is able to calculate (i.e.,
measure) the number of acres "ready for reuse" for the BRAC property subset of all potential
sites managed under the Federal Facilities program.
Appendix G provides available information on the revitalization data already collected as part of
these measures. Exhibits 2-6 and 2-7 present the Federal Facility ready for reuse information
graphically.
Foundational question for measuring revitalization at
Federal Facilities:
How many Superfund Federal facilities, both those on the
NPL and non-NPL BPvAC sites where EPA is involved,
have acres of land that has been identified through
assessment and/or cleanup as ready for reuse?
24
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit 2-6: Number of Acres of Land Ready for Reuse at
NPL and Non-NPL Federal Facility Sites (1992-2004)36
140,000n
120,000-
100,000-
80,000-
60,000-
40,000-
20,000-
0
5 6
Region
10
l Inception (1992) to end of FY 2003 n Current Fiscal Year (2004)
Exhibit 2-7: Federal Facility
Acres of Land Ready for Reuse37
Inception (1992)
to end of FY 2003
328,081 acres
97%
(112 Sites)
Current fiscal year
(2004)
9,930 acres
3%
(16 Sites))
36Data obtained from CERCLIS EOY 04 SCAP-15 Report on Land Reuse. Note: This represents EPA data and does not include
the data reported by DoD, DOE, or other federal agencies.
"Data obtained from CERCLIS EOY 04 SCAP-15 Report on Land Reuse. Note: This represents EPA data and does not include
DoD. DOE. or other civilian federal agency data.
25
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
2.2A RCRA Corrective Action
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is currently in the process of developing revitalization
measures, although there will be a number of issues to address. For example, the measures will
need to consider that many RCRA sites are in continued use and how that may impact criteria to
be used in defining whether such properties are protective of current conditions and reasonably
anticipated uses. OSW also faces the challenge of implementing revitalization performance
measures in the context of a primarily state-run program within which most states assume
the burden of collecting and maintaining site-specific data. Furthermore, most states do not
systematically collect reuse data, and those states that may collect this kind of information do not
currently send it to EPA for national compilation.
Despite not having a formal revitalization measure in place, EPA has collected land use data on
RCRA Corrective Action facilities anecdotally, and several Regions have undertaken a more
systematic collection of revitalization data. For example, OSW has developed fact sheets on
RCRABrownfields Pilots for 2000 and 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/rcrabf/success.
htm), and RCRA Cleanup Reform Success Stories to highlight facility-specific revitalization
accomplishments. Several Regions (e.g., Region 3 - http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/bf_
facilities.htm) have developed success stories on RCRA facility cleanup and revitalization.
Additionally, Regions 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9 have collected information pertaining to the actual or
expected status of use or reuse of RCRA facilities and are tracking the data in either databases or
fact sheets. Appendix E presents revitalization data that have been collected or maintained for
the RCRA program, including information for
RCRA corrective action at Federal Facilities.
Foundational question for Region 1 approach to
measuring revitalization at RCRA facilities:
Specifically, Region 1 maintains basic land „,, , . . , , . ,
. . . ° . . What was the original use, current use, and potential
revitalization information on its RCRA foture use of RCRA corrective Action Facilities on the
2005 GPRA baseline?
Corrective Action facilities that includes
acreage, as well as the original use (that
caused the facility to enter the RCRA
Corrective Action universe), the current use and potential future uses.
Region 3's pilot project, with support from EPA Headquarter's Land Revitalization Office, has
collected numerous data related to the surficial use or reuse of land at RCRA Corrective Action
GPRA facilities and Superfund sites.
Foundational question for Region 3 approach to
measuring revitalization at RCRA facilities:
What is die use status and type of use occurring
at GPRA RCRA Corrective Action Facilities on
the 2008 GPRA baseline?
Exhibits 2-8 and 2-9 show preliminary data from
the Region 3 pilot on current land use status and
type of use for RCRA corrective action facilities
as of March 2005. These data were submitted by
site managers in Region 3 through the Use/Reuse
Assessment Forms which were created to collect land revitalization data at the 289 (2008 Region
3 Corrective Action GPRA high priority baseline) RCRA Corrective Action sites targeted by the
pilot.38
38Two Superfund Alternative sites are included in the 289 sites targeted by the Region 3 pilot.
26
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit 2-8: Current Land Use Status of
RCRA Sites in Region 339
Reused (14 sites) 5%
Planned Use (5 sites)
2%
Vacant (40 sites) 14%
15%
Multiple Uses
(more than one
land use status)
41 sites
Continued Use
(117 sites)
64%
Exhibit 2-9: Type of Use (by Acres) at Region 3 RCRA Sites
in Continued Use, Reuse, and Planned Reuse
1%
52%
32%
• Military (77,195 Acres)
D Industrial (47,697 Acres)
n Commercial (12,593 Acres)
D Agricultural (4,328 Acres)
• Mixed (3,887 Acres)
QBihanced Eco (992 Acres)
n Public Services (758 Acres)
D Recreational (545 Acres)
• Residential (537 Acres)
• Other Federal (243 Acres)
39This data corresponds to 277 out of the 289 sites targeted by the pilot. These data do not include nine Federal Facilities that are
part of the 2008 GPRA RCRA Corrective Action facility baseline.
27
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Foundational question for Region 5 approach
to measuring revitalization at RCRA facilities:
What do EPA project managers believe is the
reasonably expected use of high priority RCRA
Corrective Action facilities?
Region 5 conducted a survey in the spring of
2001 of EPA project managers assigned to 155
GPRA federal-lead RCRA facilities regarding
potential future use of the sites. As part of this
survey, Region 5 calculated the percentage with
"Reuse Potential" and "No Reuse Potential,"40 (see
Exhibit 2-10) and determined site reuse potential
by reuse type (see Exhibit 2-8). According to the results of the Region 5 survey, the following
number of potential future reuse options were identified for RCRA facilities:41
Q Habitat/Eco: 49 facilities
Q Industrial: 42
Q Recreational: 14
Q Commercial: 11
Q Other: 12
Q Residential: 3
Exhibit 2-10: Region 5 RCRA Federal Lead Sites with No
Reuse vs. Reuse Potential
Unknown
1%
No Reuse
46%
40According to Region 5, a facility has no reuse potential when the facility does not have vacant property that can be redeveloped.
including facilities in continued use. See fact sheet available at http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/rcrabf/pdf/surveyfs.
41Definitions of terms used in mis survey can be found in Appendix E.
28
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Region 6 has established a module in the
RCRAInfo database to capture basic information
on RCRA facilities where RfR Determinations
have been issued either by EPA or a state.42
Foundational question for Region 6 approach
to measuring revitalization at RCRA facilities:
For the subset of RCRA Corrective Action
GPRA sites that a Region has given an RfR
Determination to, how many have gone into a
new use?
2.2.5 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Authority to implement the UST program is delegated to most states and territories. There is no
national database of site specific information and only a very limited amount of information is
required to be reported by the states to EPA. On a semi-annual basis, states report the number
of active and closed UST systems, number of confirmed releases, number of cleanups initiated
and cleanups completed, and number of emergency responses. The number of cleanup actions
completed does not equate to the number of sites or acres available for use or returned to use.
The vast majority of sites with UST systems remain active fueling stations even when there has
been a release and a cleanup has been initiated. The number of releases does not necessarily
correlate to the same number of sites, as fueling stations typically have multiple tanks and
releases from any of them (and/or their connected piping) may be counted as separate releases
even though they are at the same site. These facets of the UST program complicate any efforts to
systematically track information related to revitalization.
The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) has been considering how to develop and
implement a performance measure that captures protective uses and reuses of sites; however,
there are many challenges to collecting reuse data. As a state-delegated program, it is up to
the states to identify how and when the sites are being used. In addition, there is currently no
mechanism for compelling state regulators to report any of this information to EPA. Others privy
to this information are site owners, including oil companies that may keep detailed inventories of
site use, but their confidential business practices and legal concerns typically preclude sharing of
this data. Other information on land use comes in the form of anecdotal information developed
by both Headquarters and Regions through case studies on sites that have been returned to use,
articles appearing in newsletters and local newspapers, and through marketing literature from
oil companies with sites available for purchase and service organizations (e.g., consultants,
developers, and financial entities) highlighting their interest/support of ongoing petroleum
revitalization projects.
Several years ago, the OUST program implemented a pilot program called USTfields.43
USTfields are defined as abandoned or underused industrial and commercial properties
where revitalization is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination from
42As of March 3,2005, three RCRA Corrective Action Ready for Reuse Determinations have been issued in Region 6, including:
the Sheffield Steel Corporation facility in Oklahoma, the Shell Motive facility in Louisiana, and the Remington Arms Co. facility
in Arkansas.
43Visit http://www.epa.gov/oust/rags/ustfield.htm for additional information on OUST's USTfields Initiative.
29
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
underground storage tanks. The purpose of the pilot program was to promote public-private
partnerships (e.g., coordination between various federal, state, tribal, local, and private partners),
highlight the role of the state as the primary implementing agency (e.g., overseeing most if not
all petroleum release sites), and focus attention on the ability to leverage public and private
funds to maximize cleanups (e.g., surmount activity and use restrictions associated with select
funds). OUST awarded 50 USTfields pilots with up to $100,000 each from the LUST Trust
Fund to assess, clean up, and make ready for reuse high-priority petroleum impacted sites. The
USTfields pilot program was successful in returning contaminated sites to use and identifying
implementation opportunities and impediments. With the 2002 passage of the Brownfields
Law and the associated 25 percent statutory requirements to address relatively low-risk priority
petroleum, OUST does not plan to award additional USTfields pilots.
During the initial USTfields pilots, an attempt was made to identify and secure performance
data from participating state regulatory programs. State regulators immediately described their
inability to provide the recommended data for the performance measures and acknowledged that
other parties would be in a better position to supply the requested information. As mentioned
previously, obtaining revitalization data would most likely require developing public-private
partnerships with those stakeholders interested in the revitalization of underground storage tank
and other regulated petroleum sites. Neither OUST nor the state, tribal, or local governments
are likely to have the necessary resources to identify sites that are available for use or in new
use; therefore, private entities such as site owners or prospective purchasers and developers
would be key to collecting and maintaining this data. As part of the Region 3 pilot project
involving the collection of land use/reuse data at Superfund and RCRA sites, the Region and EPA
Headquarter's Land Revitalization Office are working with Delaware to explore the possibility of
collecting county land use data at non-operating UST facilities where an investigation or cleanup
has been completed. If feasible, this pilot project may provide an approach that could be used in
other states where counties or localities maintain such data.
The lack of a more comprehensive national database further impeded the development of the
above-referenced service station revitalization partnerships. An alternative course of action taken
by OUST to secure relevant data involved encouraging state UST regulatory programs and other
eligible grant recipients to apply for available petroleum Brownfields grants (e.g., assessment,
cleanup, and revolving loan funds). EPA's Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
(OBCR) also received a clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
collect required grantee reporting information via the Brownfields Property Profile Form.44 If
eligible petroleum Brownfields grants recipients coordinated with their respective State or Tribal
Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCP) to provide this data, that information could
be used to fulfill aspects of the land revitalization performance measures information needs.
To date, approximately five state UST regulatory programs have secured available petroleum
Brownfields funds and a number of eligible grant recipients have secured available petroleum
Brownfields resources (e.g., refer to the FY 2003 and FY 2004 Petroleum Brownfields Grant
Recipients). Outreach efforts to encourage more eligible petroleum Brownfields grant recipients
(e.g., especially state UST programs) continue.
44See http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/iptforms.htm to access the Property Profile Form.
30
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
2.2.6 Brownfields
Since its inception as an initiative in
1995, EPA's Brownfields program has
promoted the sustainable revitalization
of brownfields. Initially, competitive
grants45 were offered using the authority
under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act(CERCLAorSuperfund). This
initiative or "Pilot" program provided
funding for brownfields assessments,
revolving loan funds (RLF) for cleanup
activities, and job training. Among the
performance measures that the "Pilots"
reported on, several captured revitalization
data including:46
Foundational questions for brownfields measures
(questions pertain only to Brownfields properties that
have been addressed or are being addressed by an EPA
Brownfields grant):
1) How many brownfields properties have redevelopment
underway?
2) What are some of the economic outcomes of
brownfields activities associated with these properties?
3) How many properties and acres at brownfields
properties been made ready for reuse?
4) How many acres of greenspace have been created at
brownfields properties?
Q Number of brownfield properties with redevelopment underway;
Q Number of cleanup/redevelopment jobs leveraged from brownfields activities; and
Q Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at brownfields properties.
On January 11, 2002, the President signed the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act (Pub. L. No. 107-118, 115 stat. 2356, "the Brownfields Law"). Among other
changes, the Brownfields Law amended CERCLA to allow the Brownfields program to fund
direct cleanup grants. In addition, following enactment of the Brownfields Law, the newly-
created OBCR began collecting data on additional performance measures related to revitalization
for grantees:
Q Number of brownfield properties made ready for reuse;
Q Number of brownfields property acres made ready for reuse; and
Q Number of brownfield property acres of green space created.
45Since enactment of the Brownfields Law, the term "competitive grants" refers to the Brownfields Law subtitle A (Assessment.
Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund, and Job Training) grants. The Brownfields program also provides grants for State and Tribal
Responses Programs.
46As of FY2004, the Brownfields program reports the following measures under GPRA: "Brownfields Properties Assessed";
"Cleanup and Redevelopment Jobs Leveraged"; "Cleanup and Redevelopment Dollars Leveraged"; 'Tercentage of Trainees
Placed"; and "Acres Made Ready for Reuse."
31
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Although the performance measures are mandatory reporting requirements for the grantees, they
remain voluntary for the pilots.47 Therefore, OBCR does not have complete and consistent data
across all of the brownfields sites that have received funding from EPA.
Appendix C of this document provides summaries of the Brownfields program definitions
related to these revitalization performance measures. The full definitions are contained in the
form instructions attached to two OMB-approved forms, the Property Profile Form and the Job
Training Reporting Form, that the brownfields grant recipients must complete. After the passage
of the Brownfields Law, OBCR developed the Property Profile Form to standardize grantee
reporting. The Property Profile Form provides detailed information on each property addressed
by EPA grantees. OBCR began collecting information using these forms in FY 2004; therefore,
the data available from this new source are limited.
The Brownfields program developed and maintains the Assessment, Cleanup, & Redevelopment
Exchange System (ACRES) database at Headquarters to house data on brownfield properties
that have received EPA grant funding. Although ACRES was not designed as a revitalization
database, it nonetheless contains the above-referenced performance measures information to
help with program management at Headquarters and in the Regions. ACRES data are extracted
from Quarterly Reports and Property Profile Forms provided by EPA grantees. Therefore, the
revitalization measures cited above all are directly reported on by EPA grantees.
Appendix F provides revitalization-related data on properties that have received Brownfields
grants. In addition, both Headquarters and the Regions have prepared many revitalization
success stories. These often provide site descriptions and economic data, subject to the
information reported by grant recipients.
2.3 Measuring Revitalization in Other (non-EPA) Cleanup Programs
Many federal and state programs also capture information on land revitalization, although they
may use different terms. These terms may be defined in different ways and require different
levels of investigation and cleanup. For example, for some states, a No Further Action letter
(NFA) or Cleanup Complete letter is used as an indicator that the land is ready for reuse, while
for other states, a site-specific determination that land is ready for either unrestricted or restricted
use is made.
2.3.1 General Services Administration
As one of the services within the General Services Administration (GSA), the Public Buildings
Service (PBS) serves as the federal government's builder, developer, lessor, and manager of
government-owned and leased properties. Under PBS, the Office of Property Disposal serves
as the federal property disposal agent for the entire federal government; all Federal Land
Management agencies (i.e. DOE, USD A, DOT, DoD, etc) must involve GSA's Office of Property
Disposal and follow their procedures to transfer or lease land outside the federal government.
47Grantees refer to those entities who received EPA funding after the 2002 Act, while pilots are those that received funding before.
32
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Before land can be transferred or leased, GSA is required under CERCLA 120(h) to demonstrate
that environmental conditions have been assessed and contamination on the property has been
addressed. GSA periodically reports on federal property disposal.
The Office of Property Disposal aims to play an important role in revitalizing communities by
facilitating the most effective reuse of unneeded federal property. To facilitate revitalization,
this office has developed a searchable database of federal sites available for use that is available
online to the public. In addition, PBS has developed the Community Development Index (GDI)
to measure the potential economic and social benefits of federal land revitalization. The GDI is a
composite index made up from available data on community elements such as education, public
safety, home ownership, transportation, employment, and income.48 While not all the properties
included are contaminated, the GDI represents a significant effort to capture revitalization
accomplishments.
2.3.2 Department of Defense
DoD has been delegated property disposal authority from GSA for BRAG property transfers. As
such, DoD is also required under CERCLA 120(h) to demonstrate that environmental conditions
have been assessed and contamination on the property has been addressed. DoD tracks informa-
tion and metrics for BRAC property acreage environmentally suitable for transfer or lease. This
information is contained in "Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base Realignments
and Closures" reports produced by the Government Accountability Office.
2.3.3 State Cleanup Programs
Many state voluntary cleanup, brownfields, and other response action programs collect and
record information related to the revitalization of investigated or cleaned up properties.
Many state cleanup programs capture whether sites are ready or available for use through the
completion of cleanup activities, and quantify the associated acreage. The terms "ready for
reuse" and "available for reuse" are often used interchangeably and generally mean the same
thing, namely, that future revitalization activities can occur with no further cleanup of the land,
and that the land will be protective of human health and the environment for the uses specified.
In a few states, a specific ready for reuse determination is made, while in other states, NFA letters
or cleanup complete certifications serve as an indicator that a site is ready for reuse. According
to a report prepared by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO) on state efforts to measure success, approximately 25 State VCP and Brownfields
programs currently track sites considered ready or available for reuse (including those that track
NFAs or cleanups completed), seven states currently track the number of acres ready for reuse,
and four states track the number of sites cleaned up and suitable for unrestricted or residential
use.49 In most cases, the State VCP programs are non-RCRA programs.
4SFor more information on GSA's GDI, see the Office of Property Disposal Web site: http://www.propertydisposal.gsa.gov.
49The ASTSWMO report, State Response Programs: Measuring Success, 2003, is available at: http://www.astswmo.org/Working
%20Folder%20with%20Publications%20-%20Sept.%2026%202005/FINAL%20MEASURES%20DOC.pdf.
33
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Few states collect information related to the use of a site, such as types of use, jobs created or
retained, and tax revenue increases that may result. Typically, a state response program ceases
its involvement at a site prior to the completion of the development. Although developers can
provide estimates months or years before the development is complete, such developments
can change significantly, may not occur due to market conditions, or the actual data may differ
significantly from the estimates. Moreover, state response programs typically do not have the
resources to go back to these sites at a later date to confirm or verify the revitalization outcomes
and impacts. According to ASTSWMO, six states collect economic data on the number of jobs
created or retained due to the remediation process.50 A few states collect data on specific types
of use, although typically for different purposes. For example, California is able to track the
number of new public schools built on former waste sites because the State's Department of
Toxic Substances Control must review and approve all environmental documents for proposed
school sites that use state funds for construction.
States that collect revitalization data do so primarily as a way to promote or facilitate land
revitalization. While much of the collected information is included in annual reports and can be
utilized to measure the success of the state in promoting land revitalization, it should be noted
that it is not usually intended to serve as a measure of program performance. By compiling data
on completed cleanups or redevelopment projects, their principle objective is to provide data
for those interested in potential redevelopment and facilitate land revitalization. In addition,
these databases allow states to demonstrate that revitalization is occurring to the public and other
interested stakeholders.
Efforts to develop revitalization-related measures vary by state. While some states have yet to
capture their accomplishments, several states have made significant progress towards promoting
the revitalization of contaminated sites and have established comprehensive mechanisms for
collecting and reporting revitalization-related information. Examples of state-run programs that
have comprehensive revitalization data collection and reporting mechanisms include:
Q Pennsylvania's Land Recycling Program. Since its inception in 1995, Pennsylvania's
Land Recycling Program, also known as Act 2, is a leader in the area of promoting and
tracking land revitalization. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PA DEP) collects and tracks a variety of revitalization data. Each site manager is
required to submit a Final Report Summary (FRS)M which includes the size of the site
in acres; information about existing institutional controls; cleanup costs; jobs saved or
created as a result of remediation; revitalization contact information; pictures of the site;
and a narrative that describes the site assessment and remediation process as well as the
proposed future property use. Pennsylvania's revitalization data are merged into the
eFacts database, which is accessible to the public online.52 In addition, PA DEP created
50Ibid.
51A sample FRS is available at: https://www.dep.state.pa.us/wm_apps/finakeportsummary/landrecycling/Example.htin.
52http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/efacts/
34
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
a publicly-accessible, online search utility based on this data along with data collected
through the Brownfield Inventory Grant program called the PA SiteFinder53 as a "one-
stop shop" for potential brownfields buyers and sellers. PA SiteFinder has received many
awards for its efforts to compile information, as well as the resources it offers to promote
land revitalization.
Q Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEOV In the past few years, the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (formerly the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission) has taken several steps to promote and track land
revitalization. In May 2003, the Texas Industrial and Hazardous Waste (IHW) Corrective
Action program (which includes the RCRA CA and VCP cleanup programs) implemented
a new performance measure known as Ready for Reuse. The TCEQ's Ready for Reuse
Determination54 may be issued when a site has achieved final cleanup, or when the remedy
standard is not yet achieved but the property is remediated to the extent that it is safe for
redevelopment based on the current or planned use. The TCEQ has also established a
VCP which provides incentives and administrative support to encourage the cleanup of
contaminated sites. Sites that are cleaned up receive a final Certificate of Completion.55
The VCP has developed a database that includes information from all sites enrolled in the
program. Tracked site information includes: site acreage; the existence of institutional
controls; and other general information pertaining to site conditions. The database is
publicly available online.56
Q Ohio EPA. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OH EPA) has also established a
Voluntary Action Program (VAP) to promote cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated
lands. This is taken to include all sorts of contaminated properties, including urban
and rural sites. The program allows for privately-funded cleanups and redevelopment
programs with OH EPA oversight and approval. When a state-certified professional
believes that a site has been investigated and, if necessary, cleaned up to the standards
contained in the program rules, he or she can prepare a No Further Action Letter.57 The
issuance of such a letter is taken to indicate that the site is ready for use. The VAP
catalogues information related to revitalization, including the number of sites ready for
reuse; acreage ready for reuse; anticipated land use to which the property has been cleaned
up; number of jobs created; and information relating to the presence of contaminants or
existing institutional controls. This information is available online along with several land
revitalization success stories and links to the necessary contact information and forms
necessary to become involved in the VAP.58
53http://www.pasitefinder.state.pa.us/
54Please visit the TCEQ's Ready for Reuse Program web site at www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/pemiitting/remed/coract/rfr_main.html for
additional information on the Ready for Reuse Determinations.
55A sample Certificate of Completion is available at: http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/remed/vcp/finvcp.pdf
56http://ww\v.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/remed/vcp/
"Cleanup standards described in Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-300
5Shttp://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/volunt/volunt.html
35
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
This page intentionally left blank.
36
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
3. Opportunities for Enhancing OSWER Revitalization
Measures
As Section 2 demonstrates, OSWER's cleanup programs have been collecting information
to more fully express revitalization accomplishments. Nonetheless, significant opportunities
remain for OSWER cleanup programs to express revitalization accomplishments, more fully
communicate these accomplishments, promote greater public understanding, and garner
increased support for these important programs.
This section describes possible measures that could be used to capture revitalization-related
information across OSWER programs. The purpose of presenting these measures is to promote
and guide discussions related to systematic and, ideally, cross-programmatic approaches to
capture OSWER's revitalization accomplishments.
This section describes the need for enhanced revitalization measures, elements of the possible
measures, potential benefits of the measures, and implementation considerations. Future
activities that could be pursued to refine and implement the cross-program measures are
discussed in Section 4.
3.1 Challenges for Measuring Revitalization
Good performance measures have the following characteristics:59
Q Quality over quantity: Measures should be relevant to the core mission of the program
and to the outcomes that the program is intended to achieve. Quality of measures is more
important than quantity.
Q Importance to budget decisions: Measures should provide information that helps the
program make budget decisions.
Q Public clarity: Measures should be understandable to interested stakeholders.
Q Feasibility: Measures should be feasible, but not the path of least resistance. Measures
should be chosen based on the relevancy of the information.
The following additional two characteristics are important for measures that would be applied
across programs:
Q Compatibility: Outcomes measured by program-specific performance measures should
align with and support the outcome measured by the cross-program measure, and data
should be presented in units that can be compiled across programs.
59Adapted from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies, June 18, 2003.
37
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Q Consistency: Implementation of program-specific performance measures should
produce data of sufficiently consistent quality and reliability to enable compilation across
programs and support cross-program decision-making.
The existing revitalization measures described in Section 2 embody these characteristics to a
certain degree, but face several challenges and opportunities, including:
Q One of the principal criticisms of many of the existing revitalization performance measures
has been that they do not express outcomes that are aligned with EPA's key mission—
protection of human health and the environment. As discussed in Section 1, GAO and
other commentators have suggested that EPA's revitalization measures do not address
key outcomes, such as reducing environmental risk. In addition, OMB has consistently
encouraged EPA cleanup programs to develop more outcome-oriented cleanup measures.
Q In 2003, EPA launched the One Cleanup Program (OCP - see http://epa.gov/oswer/
onecleanupprogram/index.htm) so that the activities, resources, and results of EPA's
cleanup programs are effectively coordinated and communicated to the public. A key
initiative under the OCP is the development of performance measures that demonstrate
the overall effectiveness and benefit of the nation's combined cleanup efforts. Many
of the revitalization measures discussed in Section 2 provide different programs with
similar information; however, there is no current mechanism for combining results across
programs.
Q There are or may be concerns with the public's perception of the revitalization data
collected by EPA. In certain situations, EPA may not have access to all revitalization data
and therefore may not be able to accurately convey overall revitalization activities for the
site. For example, at Federal Facility NPL sites, EPA/FFRRO is not the federal agency
responsible for cleanup. The responsible federal agency (DoD, DOE, etc.) is designated as
the federal lead. As such, EPA may not see or have access to the full amount of reuse data
(i.e., economic data) about the site.
Q In 2003, EPA issued the first Draft ROE, which reports on the status of and trends in
environmental conditions and their impacts on human health and the nation's natural
resources. With regard to the state of the nation's land, the 2003 Draft ROE examines
land use, chemicals in the landscape, waste generation and management, and extent of
contaminated lands. The report identifies the lack of national-level indicators of the extent
of contaminated lands as a key data gap.
The possible measures outlined below would help address these challenges and opportunities and
could help create overarching, cross-program measures that are consistent with the characteristics
described by OMB.
38
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
3.2 Possible OSWER Cross-Program Measures
To meet these challenges and opportunities, the Workgroup recommends for discussion purposes
that the following performance measure and indicators could be used across OSWER cleanup
programs:
Q Performance Measure: Number of properties and acres determined protective (based on
assessment and cleanup accomplishments) for current and reasonably anticipated future
uses.60
Q Indicators:
• Universe Indicator: Number and acres of actually or potentially contaminated properties
addressed by OSWER cleanup programs (provides denominator, gives context to
numerator);61
• Status of Use Indicator: Number and acres of properties in continued use, reused, planned
reuse, and vacant (provides useful progress and planning information, especially when
overlapped with the land protectiveness measure); and
• Type of Use Indicator: Number and acres of properties in commercial, industrial,
greenspace, residential, and government use (provides more detailed use information that
can help in facilitating partnerships and conducting impacts/benefits analyses).
The possible cross-program measures are illustrated in Exhibit 3-1 and are highlighted below.
3.2.1 OSWER Cleanup Programs Universe Indicator
The possible measures propose that programs track
Foundational question for universe indicator:
both the number and acreage of properties being
j j j en ^ri j 1 j 1 1 1 j 11 How many contaminated and potentially
addressed.6- These data Could be tabulated across all contaminated properties and acres of properties
programs to Communicate the Overall SCOpe and Scale are addressed by OSWER cleanup programs?
of the properties being addressed by OSWER cleanup
programs. This indicator would provide important
context, or a national baseline, for interpretation of
the measures of status and type of land use and properties confirmed protective for current and
reasonably anticipated future uses. For example, information associated with other possible
measures would be more meaningful when described in the context of a national baseline.
60Identification of reasonably anticipated future uses for the purpose of this measure would reflect cleanup decision-making for
the property, which involves evaluation of best available information (e.g., input from the property owner and other interested
stakeholders, master plans, local land use trends) and professional judgment. For sites not cleaned up to residential levels, this
measure would be counted only if appropriate engineering and institutional controls are being maintained and followed.
61The acreage metric used for these measures is land surface area.
62For example, the universe of sites "addressed" by the Superfund program could be defined as just NPL sites or all sites that are
subject to the requirements of federal or state programs developed to implement CERCLA's provisions. Each program can define
the universe of sites included in this measure, and the cross-program measure will articulate and account for individual program
definitions. See Section 3.4, Implementation Considerations.
39
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
In addition to providing context, a key benefit of the measure would be that it could eventually
form the basis for a measure of the extent of the nation's contaminated lands. The universe
indicator could also be linked to the land protectiveness performance measure, such that changes
in the acreage of contaminated and potentially contaminated properties over time could be
explained in terms of site discovery and accomplishments in confirming that land is protective
for current and future uses.
3.2.2 Land Protectiveness Performance Measure
The land protectiveness performance measure is
intended to clearly draw the connection between
revitalization and cleanup. For land to be
considered protective, it should be able to support
the specific type of use or uses.63 To meet the ,. ,. . , . c. „
r J r reasonably anticipated future uses?
needs of individual programs, the possible measure
Foundational question for land protectiveness
performance measure:
How many properties and acres of properties
addressed by OSWER cleanup programs have
been determined protective for current and
would allow individual programs to rely on existing
cleanup-related performance measures when determining whether land will support current and
reasonably anticipated future uses and remain protective. These could include:
Q A determination that no remedial action is required based on site assessment alone;
Q A determination that there are no unacceptable human exposures to contamination above
levels of concern;
Q A determination that cleanup goals related to reasonably anticipated future uses have been
met; or
Q A determination that controls, if any are required for the remedy to be protective, are in
place and effective.
Potential benefits of the land protectiveness measure would include:
Q Expression of accomplishments of OSWER and related state cleanup programs in terms of
the revitalization outcomes that result from assessment and cleanup;
Q More complete expression of revitalization accomplishments across OSWER and related
state cleanup programs;
Q Integration of site assessment data in a way that would help programs identify assessment
outcomes, in terms of removing barriers to the future use of uncontaminated land;
63The land protectiveness performance measure incorporates the concepts of the Ready for Use Guiding Principles issued by
EPA in 2004, which state that a "ready for use" determination connotes that "the land can support a specific type of use or uses,
while being protective of human health and the environment." "Protective for current and future uses" is identified as a possible
measure in lieu of "ready for use" as a way to be more transparent with respect to perceptions of ambiguity associated with terms
"ready" and "use." http://www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/readyreuse/guidiiig_principles.htm
40
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Improved accessibility of cleanup and land use information that could promote interest in
revitalization and speed the pace of cleanup;
Clearer communication to Congress and OMB of the relationships between OSWER's
revitalization measures and EPA's core mission - protection of human health and the
environment; and
Provision of information to help explain trends in the extent of contaminated lands, which
could provide important input for the "contaminated lands" section of the ROE.
3.2.3 Type of Use Indicator
The type of use indicator could be divided into
five categories such as: industrial, commercial,
greenspace, residential, and government.64 An
overall benefit of this measure would be that it
would allow program managers to quantify how
properties that are being or have been addressed by
OSWER are being used. More specific benefits of
this measure could include:
Foundational question for possible type of use
indicator:
How many properties and acres of properties
addressed by OSWER cleanup programs are
being used for industrial, commercial, greenspace,
residential, and government purposes?
The ways in which properties are used during and following assessment and cleanup
would help further evaluate and communicate the impacts and benefits of revitalization,
including ecological habitat enhancements and economic and other community impacts.
Understanding and quantifying the type of use could help OSWER program managers
better understand the impacts of cleanup and property reuse and more effectively identify
and develop partnerships with key stakeholder groups. For example, better quantifying the
acreage of greenspace created through assessment, cleanup, and other revitalization actions
could help facilitate partnerships with national recreational associations or environmental
groups.
Understanding type of use would provide greater detail in support of the "status of use"
measure and would allow OSWER programs to communicate more tangible information
regarding program accomplishments to the Administration, Congress, and the general
public.
64While only five type of use categories are illustrated in Figure 3-1, some programs may find it helpful to use additional
categories such as enhanced ecological use, military, public service, recreational, and mixed.
41
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit 3-1: Possible OSWER Revitalization Measures
OSWER Cleanup Programs Universe Indicator:
Number of properties
and acres of land
addressed by OSWER
cleanup program^
•^
?rties ^^^^^
being ^ ^^V^
WER J X
o
Type of Use Indicator:
Number and acres of
properties in industrial
commercial,
greenspace,
residential and
government use.
ndustrial
Vacant
Government \
Residential
Greenspace
Planned
Reuse
Commercial
Continued
Use
Commercial
.Greenspace
Residential
Government
Reused
Greenspace
Industrial
Residential
Government
Land Protectiveness Performance Measure:
Number of
properties and acres
of land determined
protective for current
and reasonably
icipated future
ses
Government A V3C3
^Industrial
Commercial
Status of Use Indicate
Number of properties
and acres of land in
continued use, reused,
planned reuse, and
vacant
Important Note: The above representations of distributions is purely illustrative. It is intended to convey the concept of the
possible measures and does not represent actual data.
42
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
3.2.4 Status of Use Indicator
A possible status of use indicator could be
divided into four generalized land use status „ ,. , f ,
& How many properties and acres ot properties
categories: continued use, reused, planned
reuse, and vacant. Programs could categorize
whole properties according to land use type or
apply acreage estimates to distinguish between
different land uses on a single property.
Foundotionol question for possible status of use
indicator:
addressed by OSWER cleanup programs are currently
in continued use, planned reuse, reused, or vacant?
The acreage and number of properties could be summed across categories to provide total
number of properties or acreage being addressed by a single program or by all OSWER cleanup
programs combined.
Some of the benefits of the status of use indicator include:
Q Compiled "continued use" status data would allow program managers to describe national
trends in the number of properties that remain in operation during assessment and cleanup,
which can have positive economic impacts for the surrounding community (e.g., by
avoiding movement of jobs and by maintaining the tax base) and can reduce pressure on
greenfield development.
Q Tracking status of use would enable programs to better communicate interim
accomplishments. Most cleanup programs address both properties that remain in use
during cleanup as well as those that remain vacant until cleanup is complete. In addition,
it is often the case at larger properties that some part of the property remains in use while
another part is vacant during cleanup. The status of use measure would help provide
flexibility to account for and communicate interim accomplishments for part of a property
prior to completion of cleanup across the entire property.
Q The status of use categories would help address differences among cleanup programs
and facilitate a cross-program approach. The types of properties addressed by different
programs vary significantly. As discussed in Section 2, the past focus on the "ready for
reuse" measures has created a challenge to find a transparent approach for measuring
revitalization outcomes for programs where a significant proportion of properties remain
in continued use during cleanup and are anticipated to remain in the same use after cleanup
(e.g., RCRA Corrective Action).
43
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
3.3 Overall Potential Benefits of Possible Cross-Program Revitalization Measures
In addition to the measure-specific benefits described above, these measures could help guide
enhancement and development of revitalization measures in a coordinated way and facilitate
cross-program reporting, including defining the OSWER universe and agreeing upon a definition
for a land protectiveness performance measure. These possible measures have been conceived
to be flexible enough to achieve this while enabling individual programs to refine or develop
measures that meet their own program management and reporting needs.
In addition, the possible measures are conceptually feasible, though not all programs are able
to compile all needed national information at this point in time. Even with this limitation,
the possible measures could build on existing program-specific assessment, cleanup, and
revitalization measures. By using these existing measures to the maximum extent possible, the
possible measures would accomplish the goals of cross-program collaboration and outcome-
oriented reporting, while minimizing new data requirements.
Overall, the possible measures would promote greater understanding of EPA accomplishments
by the Administration, Congress, and the general public. Moreover, by embodying the
characteristics of a good performance measure—outcome-oriented, aligned with budget
decisions, clear, feasible, and collaborative—the possible measures would help EPA meet
the need to demonstrate outcome-oriented program accomplishments to OMB and the
Administration.
3.4 Implementation Considerations
Each cleanup program has its own set of challenges with enhancing or implementing new
program measures, reflecting the nature of different program authorities, operations, and data
collection processes. There are several, more general barriers to implementing the revitalization
measures that all programs share:
Q Data Availability. Each cleanup program could face certain difficulties in obtaining
information to support the performance measures. Some key data availability issues
include: 1) collecting information for EPA programs (e.g., RCRA Corrective Action
and UST Program) delegated to states that do not currently send to EPA (or in some
cases even collect) all information needed to support these measures; 2) identifying
when a site assessment alone determined that a specific land use would be protective;
3) collecting acreage data at the sub-site level (e.g., at facilities where multiple land use
status categories may apply); 4) tracking cleanup data; and 5) tracking changes in land use
status after assessment and/or cleanup. The impact of these issues on the feasibility of the
measures will differ depending on the nature of the different programs.
Q Resources. A significant concern for all cleanup programs is the resource requirement
needed to support development and maintenance of new measures. With growing
budgetary constraints, cleanup programs may have difficulty devoting significant resources
44
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
to the collection of new performance data. For some programs, including those that are
state-delegated, additional resources may be needed to negotiate and modify agreements,
change grant terms and conditions, develop Information Collection Requests, and perform
other activities to implement the measures.
Q Capturing Historical Data. Because several of EPA's cleanup programs have been
operating for many years, significant revitalization accomplishments have already
occurred, but have not all been captured. Thousands of sites have been assessed and/or
cleaned up resulting in land that is "protective for current and future uses." For many
programs, the ability to collect historical data either may be limited or a significant level of
resources would be needed to capture such data.
Q Maintaining Information. A key challenge facing each cleanup program, and one that
has profound implications on program resources, is the maintenance of revitalization
information. Because land use may change over time, EPA can decide whether and how
often to update the data. In some situations, ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M)
may be conducive to periodic data collection/updating. However, for other sites, EPA may
cease its involvement prior to the completion of the development, redevelopment, or reuse
of a property. Without authority to collect land use information following this cessation
point, the collection of data for these sites may pose a significant burden.
In addition, the compilation of data across programs would create the following challenges:
Q Interpreting site universe and revitalization accomplishments. Due to differences in the
nature and statutory authority of the OSWER cleanup programs, they "address" properties
under their purview in different ways. Development and interpretation of the universe
indicator and land protectiveness performance measures will need to articulate and account
for these differences. Additionally, OSWER would need to take steps to determine how to
avoid double counting acres when compiling cross-program information.
Q Aligning existing revitalization measures with cross-program measures. As discussed
in Section 2, several cleanup programs have begun to systematically collect and report
revitalization accomplishments (e.g., "ready for reuse" performance measures being
reported under GPRAby EPA's Superfund Program). The definition of these existing
measures may not align with the definitions or outcomes (e.g., protective for current and
future uses) expressed in the cross-program measures. This may require that definitions
within this report be refined, existing program-specific measures be refined, or existing
measures be cross-walked with the possible cross-program measures identified herein to
ensure that accomplishments are compiled and reported appropriately.
Q Standardizing definitions of land use type and land use status. Land use types are
described differently for different purposes (e.g., land use planning, zoning enforcement,
etc.). The implementation of the "type of use" measure will require the development of
45
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
a nationally standardized definition of land use type. In addition, implementation of a
"status of use" measure will require definition of land use status categories, clarifying, for
example, issues such as the difference between vacant sites and sites that have remained in
continued "ecological use."
These are some of the cross-cutting challenges that the OSWER cleanup programs would face,
individually and as part of a joint effort, in implementing revitalization measures. While they
are presented separately, these challenges are inter-related and affect one another. Section 4
discusses next steps that EPA could take to address these issues and continue to enhance and
develop OSWER revitalization measures.
46
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
4. Next Steps
This section of the report is presented to promote discussion and may be considered as part of a
strategy for moving forward, building on existing efforts, and addressing the unique challenges
of each of EPA's cleanup programs. According to the OSWER Assistant Administrator, the
implementation of a cross-program revitalization measure by FY 2007 is a top priority. The
development of a cross-OSWER revitalization measure will allow OSWER cleanup programs
to begin capturing and tracking revitalization accomplishments in a uniform manner and better
report land revitalization accomplishments.
The CPRM Workgroup was established to follow up on the work of the Land Revitalization
Outcomes and Benefits Workgroup, provide input on implementation issues, and help OSWER
meet its priority. The CPRM Workgroup has focused initial implementation efforts on the
proposed land protectiveness performance measure and the universe indicator. In addition, the
CPRM Workgroup has identified and addressed implementation issues and provided key input on
cross-OSWER revitalization measure and indicator definitions.
4.1 Long-term Considerations
Although initial efforts may focus on implementation of the OSWER universe indicator and land
protectiveness performance measure, future efforts could focus on implementing new revitaliza-
tion measures, such as the status of use and type of use indicators, integrating the revitalization
measures with EPA's ROE, thoroughly assessing the extent of contaminated land in the U.S.,
measuring socio-economic impacts of revitalization, and overcoming implementation barriers.
These long-term considerations are discussed below.
4.1.1 Conduct Pilot(s) to Evaluate the Viability of New/Enhanced Revitalization
Measures
OSWER programs should consider implementing pilot projects to develop and evaluate the
viability of new revitalization measures across EPA's cleanup programs. Such pilots could
build upon the existing pilot effort occurring in Region 3 in which consistent revitalization
measure were developed for the RCRA, Federal Facility and Superfund programs. This effort
is exploring the collection of property revitalization data (acres and types of actual use) through
a survey instrument among the program site managers. Headquarters is supporting Region
3 and the results of the effort will be shared with the other cleanup programs to consider in
implementing the measures. FFRRO would also need to examine whether and how it could
work with other federal agencies to collect data on properties in use following the transfer or
lease of property at Federal Facilities. One alternative is to approach the development and
implementation of new use measures in a phased approach.
47
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
4.1.2 Assess the State of Contaminated Lands in America's Communities
Given the state of EPA's data collection mechanisms, any assessment of the state of contaminated
lands in America's communities will represent, at best, a rough estimate. There are significant
limitations and gaps in the data on the number of properties, as well as the number of acres
with real or perceived contamination at properties across the country. Gaps in the data are due
to characteristics of the programs themselves and how they collect information, as well as the
absence of a nationwide initiative to determine the state of contaminated land in America.
When it comes to collecting data, federal-led programs enjoy a distinct advantage over primarily
state-lead programs, such as RCRA, UST, and Brownfields. Federal-lead site data are collected
directly by the responsible program or agency, while state-lead programs can only catalogue data
provided by states, local communities, and other grant recipients. As a result, the quality of the
data collected by state-led programs varies and the quantity depends on the available resources
and willingness of the state to provide it to EPA. There is significant variation in the data
collection efforts of states. While some states and local communities collect an impressive array
of information, others have yet to develop the necessary mechanisms. Due to these variations
in the type, quality and quantity of data collected on the state of America's land, it is difficult to
provide anything more than a general estimate.
A thorough cataloging of the nation's contaminated lands and the area they encompass would
provide a valuable baseline for new revitalization measures. A baseline could be established for
practitioners to set goals, analyze trends, and gauge the progress of cleanup and revitalization.
This baseline and the approaches used to track land contamination trends would also address a
critical gap in EPA's ROE.
An assessment of the extent of the nation's contaminated lands will likely require a significant
research effort. As discussed above, the data are imperfect, fragmented, and in many cases
incompatible. Researchers will need to work with DoD, DOE, other civilian agencies, and
professional associations, as well as with various state programs. It may be necessary to work
with private-sector groups who possess an exhaustive understanding of local conditions. To
ensure that the data stay current, a mechanism for collecting these data will have to be crafted
based on the lessons learned throughout the initial effort. While such an undertaking would
likely require a substantial amount of time and resources, obtaining an accurate portrayal of the
state of America's land will provide practitioners with a yardstick to gauge the progress of their
efforts, as well as the utility of the measures they develop.
4.1.3 Consider Using Revitalization Measures to Support Development of an
Environmental Indicator for the Usability of Contaminated Land
Revitalization performance measures can help EPA track and communicate information regarding
the state of the environment and progress in returning actual or perceived contaminated land to use.
Revitalization performance measures could concisely communicate when the threshold condition
48
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
that land is protective of human health and the environment has been met. This information could
be coupled with information regarding the extent of contaminated lands (see Section 4.1.2) to help
explain changes in the extent of contaminated lands over time and explain how OSWER cleanup
programs contribute to these trends.
4.1.4 Explore the Opportunities and Challenges of Measuring the Socio-Economic
Impacts Resulting from the Revitalization of Properties
An additional area that EPA may wish to explore when tracking or reporting its revitalization
accomplishments covers the economic impacts and other types of benefits that result from the
revitalization of properties. While EPA is exploring the use of enhanced or new revitalization
measures, and the mechanisms for collecting data and implementing the measures, EPA should
continue to explore the opportunities to develop methods to measure the positive impacts of
revitalization, and to address the unintended negative consequences of reuse.
4.1.4.a Quantify the Economic Impacts and Other Benefits of Revitalization
Several efforts that have been undertaken or are currently underway seek to quantify the economic
impacts and other benefits of revitalization. The results may form the foundation for additional
efforts to refine and establish a standard method of capturing the outcomes of revitalization. For
example, OSWER is studying ways to quantify the benefits stemming from the ecological
revitalization of waste sites; OSRTI has developed a draft guide for quantifying the economic
impacts resulting from the industrial or commercial use of properties, and has examined the
economic impacts stemming from several recreational activities (e.g., soccer tournaments).
OSWER and the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) are also partnering
to develop a handbook that examines the benefits and impacts of land reuse using benefit-cost
analysis (BCA) and economic impact analysis. BCA calculates the total social benefits and total
social costs associated with a policy that measures the change in overall social welfare. Economic
impact analysis examines how the positive and negative economic impacts are distributed in
society. This handbook will explain the differences between these two types of analyses as they
are applied to revitalization. It will also explore in detail the different categories of social benefits
that are associated with revitalization, how the categories fit into the framework for BCA, and how
best to measure and value each category. The document will provide a comprehensive discussion
of the external effects of revitalization, including the potential impact on greenfield development
at the urban fringe.
4.1.4.b Consider the Examination of the Unintended, Potentially Negative
Impacts of Revitalization
Although the various benefits of revitalization have been discussed in this report, it should be
noted that there may be unintended, negative impacts associated with these efforts. In the report
titled Unintended Impacts of Redevelopment and Revitalization Efforts in Five Environmental
Justice Communities, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) argues that
49
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
EPA must "thoroughly and rigorously examine any and all unintended consequences of emerging
urban cleanup policies."6- The report points out that several urban redevelopment projects have
unintentionally exacerbated gentrification and displacement forces in low-income communities.
Given the complexity and difficulty associated with predicting revitalization impacts, EPA should
consider taking several steps as a part of its land revitalization initiatives. To begin with, a
coordinated, community involvement strategy should be considered; this strategy should provide
decision-makers with additional information, while giving communities an important role in the
revitalization of their neighborhoods. Increased public involvement should be supplemented by
useful, accurate assessments of community demographics, as well as the potential displacement
of residents and small, locally-owned businesses. As EPA promotes and supports land
revitalization across the country, it needs to address the potential for unintended impacts and
implement strategies that maximize the amount of information involved in the decision-making
process.
4.2 Other Initiatives
4.2.1 Explore Opportunities to Engage the Private Sector in the Development and
Implementation of Revitalization Measures
EPA cleanup programs may want to, or, in some cases, need to explore opportunities to work
with the private sector to obtain land use data and identify additional meaningful measures that
promote revitalization.
4.2.1.a Develop a Problem Definition/Site Assessment Progress Measure
EPAs cleanup programs define environmental contamination at properties through a site
assessment process that typically involves phases from an initial screening, to a more detailed
inspection, to a highly detailed investigation involving sampling. For the Brownfields program,
this typically involves Phase I and II environmental site assessments; for Superfund, this includes
site screening, preliminary assessments, site inspections, and remedial investigations; and for
the RCRA program, this involves RCRA facility assessments and facility investigations. To
develop a revitalization-related performance measure around the definition or clarification of
environmental conditions at a property, EPA's cleanup programs should determine the level of
information (i.e., the type of assessment) that the private sector can rely upon to make sound
real estate decisions. EPA programs should identify the appropriate stage or type of assessment
that EPA may conduct, oversee, or fund to ensure that the Agency relies upon the appropriate
assessment mechanism to demonstrate the connection between defining environmental
conditions to supporting property use/reuse. One approach may involve an analysis of the
private sector's use of the industry standard Phase I and n site assessment process developed by
i5December 21, 2004 Draft, Page 1.
50
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
ASTM International66 to find levels of equivalency among the programs. Otherwise, EPA should
consider working with private sector organizations (e.g., developers, lenders, and insurance
companies) to identify the appropriate level of information needed to proceed with decisions on
the use/reuse of a contaminated property.
4.2.1.b Explore the Use of Public-Private Partnerships to Obtain
Revitalization Data
There are a variety of stakeholders that may have access to revitalization-related information,
including the owners of properties, companies established to market and manage property
transactions, and lending and other financial institutions who manage property transactions and
seek credit under the Community Reinvestment Act. OUST is currently exploring the viability
and use of public-private partnerships to support revitalization, and identifying opportunities
where both sectors have a mutual interest in sharing information. For example, stakeholders
interested in obtaining RfR Determinations may be interested in providing revitalization-related
information as part of an agreement. Other cleanup programs have established partnerships with
organizations that may be able to support the systematic collection of land use data to support
EPA's revitalization measures, including the U.S. Soccer Foundation, Habitat for Humanity, and
the Wildlife Habitat Council. Using these possible information sources in conjunction with other
Agency data collection efforts may provide the needed data to support revitalization performance
measures. Specific opportunities for public-private partnerships ought to be explored on a pilot
basis to determine their viability and ability to provide the necessary data.
The implementation of a cross-OSWER revitalization measure and indicators, along with the
review of long-term considerations suggested in this section would help in the development and
enhancement of meaningful, revitalization-related measures across OSWER's cleanup programs
that reflect each program's circumstances and operating contexts. In doing so, EPA will be able
to fulfill the responsibilities identified in its strategic plan to adjust its approaches and activities
to improve results, and to be able to report to the American people on the performance and
accomplishments of the Agency and its partners in fostering the revitalization of contaminated
(actual or perceived) properties.
66See ASTM El 527-05, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Process," and ASTM E1903-97(2002), "Standard Guide for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment Process," ASTM International. For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website at www.astm.org.
51
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
This page intentionally left blank
52
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Appendix A: OSWER Organizational Chart and Selected
Program Descriptions
lnnov.l&l>n Partn
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
Susar Pa-Yer Eodire. AA
Barry N Bree'n PDAA
Sco't Sh8;r:ma'". Assoc AA
' & Data Ouallty SUIT
]l IMC*
Oftko
Po'ucy Analysis &
ficQulatory
MannncciKinl SblN
5U-|:,ir,i t, K '.'.If?- Ov
Tachnolo-gy Innovation
up A
Di.iC Llj.-J LVcciix
My .1 Ci.it*- , tVf. C.-
Oflicu OT Si3lll5 WiVd
Fi"j~ HoJu [>.r*>r.M"
*,!nr.i f-'a-.M VckniT, Dp?
Office of
-.!^,, DTK'.:.
Office of D
Land Revitalization Staff Office
As part of its mission to protect human health and the environment, EPA is undertaking an
Agency-wide initiative to revitalize land by restoring and reusing contaminated, and potentially
contaminated, sites. The Land Revitalization Staff Office, established September 2004, is
working with EPA programs and external partners to implement this initiative, with continued
emphasis on: developing land revitalization statistics, measures, and outcomes; conducting land
revitalization public outreach and providing training; promoting effective tools that address
barriers to land revitalization; enhancing government coordination to promote land revitalization;
and building strong land revitalization partnerships.
Office of Superfund Remediation & Technology Innovation
The Office of Superfund Remediation & Technology Innovation (also known as the Superfund
Office) oversees the federal government's program to clean up the nation's privately-owned
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the Superfund Program, abandoned, accidentally
spilled, or illegally dumped hazardous substances that pose a current or future threat to human
health or the environment are cleaned up. To accomplish its mission, EPA works closely with
communities, Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), scientists, researchers, contractors, and
state, local, tribal, and federal authorities. Together with these groups, EPA identifies sites
contaminated with hazardous substances, tests the conditions of the sites, formulates cleanup
plans, and cleans up the sites.
A-1
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
EPA's Superfund Redevelopment Program helps communities return some of the nation's
worst contaminated sites to safe and productive uses. While cleaning up these Superfund sites
and making them protective of human health and the environment, the Agency is working
with communities and other partners in considering future use opportunities and integrating
appropriate reuse options into the cleanup process. EPA's Superfund Redevelopment Program
is working to encourage communities at every cleanup site to consider anticipated future reuses
early so that cleanups can accommodate those uses, while maintaining standards that protect
human health and the environment.
Office of Brownfields Cleanup & Redevelopment
EPA's Office of Brownfields Cleanup & Redevelopment oversees the Brownfields Program
which is designed to empower states, communities, and other stakeholders in economic
redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and
sustainably reuse brownfields. Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment,
or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties takes
development pressures off of undeveloped, open land, and both improves and protects the
environment.
Office of Solid Waste
The Office of Solid Waste regulates all household, industrial, and commercial solid and
hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA's goals
are to: (1) Protect the public from the hazards of waste disposal; (2) conserve energy and natural
resources by recycling and recovery; (3) reduce or eliminate waste; and (4) clean up waste,
which may have spilled, leaked, or been improperly disposed. Accidents or other activities
at RCRA treatment, storage and disposal facilities have sometimes released pollutants into
soil, groundwater, surface water and air. The RCRA Corrective Action Program allows these
facilities to address the investigation and cleanup of these hazardous releases themselves. The
RCRA Corrective Action Program differs from Superfund in that it deals with sites that in most
instances have viable operators and on-going operations.
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) was created in 1985 to carry out a
Congressional mandate to develop and implement a regulatory program for underground
storage tank (UST) systems. OUST supports the cleanup and reuse of abandoned properties
contaminated with petroleum from underground storage tanks. Congress created the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund in 1986 by amending Subtitle I of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. The LUST Trust Fund has two purposes. First, it provides
money for overseeing and enforcing corrective action taken by a responsible party, who is the
owner or operator of the leaking UST. Second, the Trust Fund provides money for cleanups at
A-2
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
UST sites where the owner or operator is unknown, unwilling, or unable to respond, or which
require emergency action. To receive money from the Trust Fund, a state must enter into a
cooperative agreement with the federal government to spend the money for its intended purpose.
Trust Fund money is divided among EPA Regional offices based on a formula that uses state
data. States use Trust Fund money to oversee corrective action by a responsible party and to
clean up sites where no responsible party can be found.
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
The Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) works with other federal entities to
facilitate faster, more effective, and less costly cleanup and reuse of federal facilities, including
conducting cleanups pursuant to Superfund. By focusing on partnering and public involvement,
FFRRO, and its counterpart offices in EPA Regions, have made great strides in improving federal
facilities cleanup. FFRRO functions with the following specific goals in mind: protecting human
health and the environment at and near federal facilities; promoting reuse of federal properties
in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment; enhancing the cleanup
process; and ensuring effective stakeholder involvement at Federal Facilities. FFRRO's work
consists of two core components: the Superfund Federal Facility Response program and the Base
Realignment and Closure program. FFRRO works internally within EPA, as well as with the
Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and other federal agencies to find protective,
creative, and cost-effective cleanup solutions. Under FFRRO, EPA provides technical and
regulatory oversight at Federal Facilities on the National Priority List (NPL) to ensure protection
of human health, effective program implementation, and meaningful public involvement.
FFRRO approves other federal agencies cleanup remedies.
A-3
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
This page intentionally left blank
A-4
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Appendix B: Cover Letter Requesting Review of Draft
"Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in
America's Communities: Past Accomplishments and Future
Opportunities" Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
i WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
c- \. -.|| ,-• 'J
'^, ,-tc'^ OFFICE OF
'"'•" SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
August 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Review of "Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's
Communities: Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities" report and
development of cross-OS WER land revitalization measures
FROM: Thomas P. Dunne, Acting Assistant Administrator /s/
Barry N. Breen, Deputy Assistant Administrator /s/
TO: OSWER Office and Staff Directors
Superfund, RCRA, Tanks, and Brownfields Regional Directors
Attached is "Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's
Communities: Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities." Please provide comments on
the report and specific recommendations on how to move forward in developing cross-OSWER
revitalization measures to Guy Tomassoni (Land Revitalization Staff project lead) by September
16.
The Land Revitalization Office produced the attached draft report developed with input
from representatives of your offices serving on the Outcomes and Benefits Workgroup. The
primary objectives of the report include: describing why revitalization and measuring
revitalization is important to cleanup programs (Chapter 1); summarizing existing measures
being used by OSWER cleanup programs as well as associated data (Chapter 2 and Appendices);
identifying opportunities for possible cross-program revitalization measures (Chapter 3); and,
conveying possible next steps for development of new or enhanced revitalization measures
(Chapter 4). For a quick overview, the report also includes a three-page executive summary.
This is a high OSWER priority. We hope that this report will help launch a consistent,
unified approach to measure and report cross-program revitalization accomplishments. We have
asked the Land Revitalization Office to work with your offices. Region 6 (as the sub-lead region
for land revitalization) and the states (through ASTS WMO) to schedule a series of cross-
program discussions through which we can develop measures and an implementation plan. We
hope to begin using at least one measure in FY07.
offices in g
We thank your workgroup members in helping to produce this draft report, and your
in general for the upcoming collaborative effort.
B-1
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
This page intentionally left blank.
B-2
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Appendix C: Program Revitalization Definitions1
Brownfields
Number of Properties with Redevelopment Underway: The number of properties where
redevelopment activities were initiated (the grant recipients are also asked to provide the
redevelopment start date). In addition, any required Institutional Controls must be in place at the
property in order for it to be considered ready for reuse.
Number of Cleanup/Redevelopment Jobs Leveraged: The total number of all jobs leveraged
during the term of the grant at the property. The number listed should include jobs of a short-
term nature (i.e., with a duration of less than one year) typically leveraged during the assessment,
cleanup, and construction stage; and jobs of a long-term nature that typically occur as a result
of the new or enhanced reuse at the property (i.e., with a duration of more than one year). Only
actual jobs should be reported; planned or expected jobs should not be reported until they are
realized.
Amount of Cleanup/Redevelopment Funding Received or Leveraged: All funds linked and
leveraged by the grant to support additional, related activities at the property. Only funding
committed to the property should be reported; anticipated funding should not be reported until it
is committed. Redevelopment may include non-commercial reuses (e.g., parks, wildlife refuges,
nature trails, and green spaces, non-profit community health care facility) as well as commercial
or industrial uses (e.g., the expansion or remodeling of an existing manufacturing facility, the
construction of a new retail space) and residential and public purpose uses (e.g., courthouse,
public health clinic). Redevelopment activities conducted and funded prior to the awarding
of the grant should not be provided (i.e., pre-award activities are not considered leveraged and
should not be reported). Leveraged funds may be used to support allowable activities (e.g.,
inventory, assessment, cleanup) and activities that cannot be funded by the EPA grant (e.g.,
demolition, site preparation, redevelopment construction, transportation improvements).
Number of Job Training Participants Completing Training: The number of participants taking the
grant-funded training who have completed the training program.
Number of Job Training Participants Obtaining Employment: The number of graduates from the
grant-funded training who have obtained employment of any kind.
Number of Properties Ready for Reuse: EPA does not provide definitions to the grant recipients
for this measure because ACRES calculates the data. ACRES was programmed to determine the
Number of Properties Ready for Reuse based on the Number of Properties Assessed that Do Not
Require Cleanup and the Number of Properties Cleaned Up.
'Some of these performance measures use the term "leveraged" to refer to those non-EPA brownfields grant funds and activities
that have some link or nexus to the efforts of an EPA grant-funded activity, or where the EPA grant-funded activity was a catalyst
for the leveraged accomplishments.
C-1
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Number of Acres Ready for Reuse: EPA does not provide definitions to the grant recipients for
this measure because ACRES calculates the data. ACRES was programmed to determine the
Number of Acres Ready for Reuse based on the Number of Acres Assessed that Do Not Require
Cleanup and the Number of Acres Cleaned Up. In addition, any required Institutional Controls
must be in place at the property in order for the associated acreage to be considered ready for
reuse.
Number of Acres of Green Space Created: The number of acres that have been newly created
or made available as green space (i.e., acres of green space created). This includes only the
acreage for the portion of the property that constitutes green space. Green space typically refers
to vegetated or water-covered space that is in a natural or unbuilt condition, meaning not covered
with buildings, roads, or other paved areas, thus providing environmental, recreational, and other
benefits (e.g., parks, wildlife refuges, nature trails).
Superfund
Acres Ready for Reuse: Under the Superfund GPRA performance measure, a site is considered
to be ready for reuse if any of the following apply: (1) the site or a portion of a site is already
being used; (2) Superfund response actions are unnecessary for the site or portion of the site as a
result of an investigation of the property, and the Agency is not aware of other EPA, State, Tribal,
or local government environmental or land use restrictions for that property; or (3) the cleanup
goals established for the site or portion of the site have been attained (i.e., engineering controls
for the land component have been implemented and are operating as intended).
Sitewide Ready for Reuse: The new "Sitewide Ready-for Reuse" Superfund performance
measure is defined as:
The number of final and deleted construction complete National Priorities List (NPL) sites
where, for the entire site:
(1) All cleanup goals in the Record(s) of Decision or other remedy decision document(s) have
been achieved for media that may affect current and reasonably anticipated future land uses of
the site, so that there are no unacceptable risks; and
(2) All institutional or other controls required in the Record(s) of Decision or other remedy
decision document(s) have been put in place.
Definitions of reuse status from the SURE database glossary:
Actual Continued: The status of a site where EPA has undertaken or has overseen the cleanup at
the site, which allowed the site to be used productively during and after the cleanup.
Actual Reuse: The status of a site where new commercial, residential, ecological, recreational,
agricultural, governmental or other new use is occurring at the site. This means that the
developed site, or portion of the site, is "open" or actually being used by customers, visitors,
employees, residents, etc.
C-2
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Definite Planned: The status of a site where a detailed plan for a new use is in place. This means
that the redevelopment of the site has either been initiated (i.e., broken ground), the developers
are planning to break ground in the near future, or where there is a contract with a developer and
finances are secured.
Early Stages of Planning: The status of a site where a site-specific reuse plan is completed or
very near completion, and that the reuse options have been determined to be viable (e.g., have
been adopted or RAFLU).
Monitored: The status of a site where the Regions have had contact with the community and
where stakeholder meetings are occurring and reuse options are being discussed, as well as sites
where reuse is being discussed as reported in local or national print or other media.
Restored: The status of a site where pre-existing use has been halted during cleanup, and was
resumed after the site was cleaned up.
Definitions of reuse type used by the SURE database (Note: these definitions are not included in
the SURE glossary):
Q Agricultural Reuse - Communities are reusing cleaned-up sites for agricultural purposes
such as farmland for growing crops and pasture for livestock. Agricultural reuse can
encompass other activities as well, such as growing orchards, supporting research and
development, and irrigating existing farmland.
Q Commercial Reuse - While all types of reuse provide some level of economic benefit,
most is generated by commercial reuse. Retail shops, grocery stores, offices, restaurants,
and other businesses bring employment, shopping, and other opportunities to residents in
these communities, and can spur related development projects in the area.
Q Ecological Reus - The ecological reuse of sites restores and sustains natural areas,
providing wildlife sanctuaries, nature preserves, meadows, and wetlands. These cleaned-
up sites provide habitat for terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals, and areas for low-
impact recreation such as walking and bird watching. While some "passive" recreational
opportunities may result from the restoration of natural areas, in ecological reuse, nature is
the primary beneficiary.
Q Industrial Reuse - refers to sites used for traditional industrial purposes such as processing
and manufacturing products from raw materials; and fabrication, assembly, treatment and
packaging of finished products. Examples of industrial use sites include factories, power
plants, storage facilities, warehouses, waste disposal sites, land fill operations, and junk
yards.
C-3
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Q Public Service Reuse - Public service reuse refers to the redevelopment of sites by local,
state, or federal government agencies to serve citizens' needs. This type of reuse can
include transportation services such as rail lines and bus depots, community libraries and
schools, government offices, public infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and utilities, and
other services for the general public.
Q Recreational Reuse - Recreational reuse allows communities to enjoy new sports facilities,
trails, open space for hiking and picnicking, and other opportunities for indoor and
outdoor leisure activities. Examples of recreational reuse include playgrounds, parks, golf
courses, baseball fields, skating rinks, basketball courts, soccer fields, boat launches, and
campgrounds.
Q Residential Reuse - Many sites are being reused for residential purposes, including single-
family homes, apartment complexes, condominiums, affordable housing, and assisted-care
living facilities on cleaned-up Superfund sites. In addition to supporting new housing
developments, these properties may include parks, playgrounds, and open space for
residents to enjoy.
Q Industrial Reuse - refers to sites used for traditional industrial purposes such as processing
and manufacturing products from raw materials; and fabrication, assembly, treatment and
packaging of finished products. Examples of industrial use sites include factories, power
plants, storage facilities, warehouses, waste disposal sites, land fill operations, and junk
yards.
Region 3 Superfund, Federal Facility, and RCRA Corrective Action Sites
Definitions Used in a Pilot Project Implemented with Support from EPA HQ 's Land
Revitalization Office:
Current Land Use:
Q 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.
Q Restored Reuse (Superfund site only) - Used for properties temporarily halted during
cleanup and the same use was resumed after the site was cleaned up.
C-4
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Q Reused - Property 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.
Q Planned Reuse - 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.
Q No Current Use - A site or portion of a site which is currently vacant.
Types of Use:
Q 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 growing orchards, agricultural research and development, and irrigating existing
farmland.
Q Commercial Use - Property used for retail shops, grocery stores, offices, restaurants, and
other businesses.
Q Enhanced Ecological Use - Property where proactive measures, including a conservation
easement, have been implemented to create, restore or enhance an ecologic habitat for
terrestrial and/or aquatic plants and animals, such as wildlife sanctuaries, nature preserves,
meadows, and wetlands.
Q 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, storage facilities, warehouses, waste disposal sites,
landfill operations, and junk yards.
Q Military - Property used for training, operations, research & development, weapons
testing, range activities, logistic support, and/or provision of services to support military or
national security purposes.
Q Mixed Use - This category is for sites where no one use is dominant, or the multiple uses
cannot be differentiated on the basis of acre. 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, the project manager will need to report the different
types of uses in the mixed use.
C-5
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
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.
Public Service Use - Property which is being utilized by a local, state or federal
government agency, or a non-profit group to serve citizens' needs. This can include
transportation services such as rail lines and bus depots, community libraries and schools,
government offices, public infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and utilities, and other
services for the general public.
Recreational Use - Property which is being used for recreational activities such as
sports facilities, golf courses, ballfields, open space for hiking and picnicking, and other
opportunities for indoor and outdoor leisure activities.
Residential Use - Properties which are being used for residential purposes including
single-family homes, apartment complexes, and condominiums.
C-6
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Appendix D: Non-Federal Facility Superfund Land
Revitalization Data
Exhibit D-l: Private Sites CERCLIS Land Reuse Data by Region1
# of Sites with
Region Acres Ready
for Reuse
Acres Ready for
Non-Residential
Reuse
Acres Ready for
Residential
Reuse
Total Acres
Ready for
# of Sites
in Reuse
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
26
37
78
55
93
37
34
24
57
31
826
1,583
3,569
3,042
1 1 ,776
1,300
2,192
159,040
5,742
3,390
518
87
554
605
603
215
18,648
28,048
2,111
242
1,344
1,670
4,123
3,647
12,379
1,515
20,840
187,088
7,853
3,632
7
1
43
24
31
2
25
19
47
27
Total 472 192,460 51,631 244,090 226
Number of Sites with Acres Ready for Non-Residential Reuse
Number of Sites with Acres Ready for Residential Reuse
Number of Sites with Acres Ready for Non-Residential and Residential Reuse
Number of Sites with Zero Acres
Total Number of Sites with Acreage values > 0
Total Number of Sites with land ready for Reuse
317
72
35
48
424
472
Exhibit D-2: Data from the SURE database (as of EOY 04)
Excluding Mixed Use Sites:
Including Mixed Use Sites:
Reuse Type # of Sites
Agricultural
Commercial
Ecological
Industrial
Public
Recreational
Residential
5
93
19
45
16
31
20
Reuse Type # of Sites
Agricultural
Commercial
Ecological
Industrial
Mixed
Public
Recreational
Residential
3
66
11
44
33
12
13
7
'Data obtained from EOYFY04 SCAP-15 Report on Land Reuse from CERCLIS.
D-1
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Note: As of September 30, 2004, SURE has information on 189 out of 226 sites flagged as in use
in CERCLIS. The number of reuse types add up to more than 189 because some sites have more
than one reuse type. 33 sites are mixed use sites (have more than one reuse type) and 156 sites
have only one reuse type.
Region 6: Source: Wisdom Database (as of EOY 04)
Number of Usable Acres: 18,804
The Wisdom Database tracks 126 Superfund sites in Region 6 and includes the following data
elements: basic site info; contacts; encumbrances; acres; usable acres; property improvements;
zoning; contaminants; groundwater status; historic factors; EJ issues; potential'for reuse;
utilities; near mass transit; population (1 mile); demographics; unemployed rate; surrounding
land use; incentive to buyer; comments; and reference information.
Exhibit D-3: Superfund Reuse Information Detail2
Superfund Reuse Information Tracked
Number
Superfund Sites and Acres Ready for Reuse Number
Number of non-Federal Facility (FF) Superfund sites with land that is ready for reuse:
Number of acres of land at non-FF Superfund sites that are ready for reuse:
Number of acres of land at non-FF Superfund sites that are ready for non-residential reuse:
Number of non-FF Superfund sites that have land ready for non-residential reuse:
Number of acres of land at non-FF Superfund sites that are ready for residential reuse:
Number of non-FF Superfund sites that have land ready for residential reuse:
Number of non-FF Superfund sites mat have land ready for both non-residential and residential reuse:
Number of Ready for Reuse (RfR) Determinations that have been issued for Superfund sites to date:
472
244,090
192,460
352
51,630
107
35
7
Superfund Sites in Actual Use3
Number of sites identified as in use:
Number of sites in commercial use:
Number of sites in industrial use:
Number of sites in recreational use:
Number of sites in residential use:
Number of sites in ecological use:
Number of sites in public use:
Number of sites in agricultural use:
226
93
45
31
20
19
16
5
2Data obtained from EOY FY04 SCAP-15 Report on Land Reuse from CERCLIS.
3Reuse type information obtained from the SURE database as of EOY 04. SURE has information on 189 out of 226 sites flagged
as in use in CERCLIS. This number includes sites that may have more than one reuse type.
D-2
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Acres Ready for Reuse at 472 non-Federal
Facility Superfund Sites (Residential vs.
Non-Residential)
Residential 21%
(51,630 acres)
Non-Residential 79%
(192,460 acres)
* 48 sites currently have zero acres entered In Tor acres ready for reuse. These sites are
included in the number of sites with land ready for reuse.
472 non-Federal Facility Superfund Sites
Ready for Reuse
No acres 10%
Both 8%
Residential
17%
Non-Residential
75%
*48 sites currently have zero acres entered in for acres ready for reuse. These sites are
included in the number of sites with land ready for reuse.
D-3
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Type of Reuse at Superfund
Sites in Actual Use
35%
17%
23%
• 35% Commercial
n 23% Industrial
D17% IVixed
n 7% Recreational
n 6% Public
• 6% Ecological
D4% Residential
n 2% Agricultural
SURE has information on 189 out of 226 sites flagged as in use in CERCLIS. 33 sites
are mixed use sites and 156 sites have only one reuse type.
r
50
45-
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
lumber of non-Federal Facility Superfund Sites
in Actual Use, by Region
s
47
_j
t]
1 ^
43
31
-" — j?
25
2
~~n
1234567
Region
|
2
7
8 9 10
D-4
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Appendix E: RCRA Land Revitalization Data
Headquarters RCRA Land Revitalization Data
RCRA Brownfields Pilots
Information on the 9 RCRA Brownfields Pilots chosen in 2000 and 2001 and which focus on
revitalization, as well as "Lessons Learned" reports for each round of pilots, can be found on
EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/rcrabf/success.htm. These Pilot descriptions
include information on the properties, cleanup activities, efforts to move properties toward reuse
and reuse plans.
Examples of Ecological Reuse of RCRA Facilities
A list of remediated RCRA sites with ecological/recreational reuse is available at http://www.epa.
gov/swerosps/rcrabf/ecoreuse.htm.
RCRA Targeted Site Effort Projects
In September 2001, seven RCRA facilities were selected as "targeted sites" where the RCRA
Brownfields Prevention Initiative would conduct Targeted Site Efforts (TSEs). In 2002, EPA
announced a second round of TSEs. The targeted sites were selected because they had one or a
number of barriers that were preventing them from being cleaned up and/or redeveloped. The
TSEs focus short term resources, (both human resources and some funding) to resolve these
barriers to moving forward with cleanup and reuse of the RCRA site. The TSEs are designed to
showcase Brownfields tools and RCRA Cleanup Reforms and also to emphasize the importance
of addressing brownfields issues in RCRA cleanups. Information on these projects can be found
on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/rcrabf/tse.htm.
Regional RCRA Land Revitalization Data
Several regions have information and factsheets on specific sites posted on their websites. Links
to the Regional websites can be found at http://www.epa.gov/rcrabrownfields/contacts.htm.
Regional Success Stories, including 16 RCRA Cleanup Reforms Success Stories (2 of these
focus on reuse: Region 3 and 5) are available on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/success.htm. The success stories focusing on reuse are anecdotal and
provide information on dollars spent on redevelopment; size of the site (often in acres); type of
reuse; and the number of jobs created.
Region 1 Land Revitalization Data
Region 1 maintains basic land revitalization information on its RCRA Corrective Action facilities
that includes acreage as well as the original use (that caused the facility to enter the RCRA
Corrective Action universe), the current use and potential future uses.
E-1
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Region 3 Land Revitalization Data
Information on 19 Redevelopment Success Stories posted is available on the Region 3 Web
page at http://www epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/bfJ"acilities.htm. These are 1 page success stories
providing anecdotal information on the site cleanup and redevelopment. Generally, these success
stories include site acreage information and reuse descriptions.
In 2005, in conjunction with EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
and state agency partners, Region 3 participated in a regional inventory of hazardous waste
sites use/reuse assessment. For RCRA, the Region collected reuse information on the 289 high
priority facilities that comprise Region 3's 2008 Government Performance Results Act (GPRA)
baseline, Project managers filled-out the Use/Reuse Assess Form with information on both the
number of sites and the number of acres. Information was collected and analyzed on current
land use, type of use, cleanup status, agency effort to facilitate use/reuse, and economic and
environmental benefits. Refer to Exhibit E-l through E-3 for results for Region 3 site use/reuse
assessment.
Exhibit E-l: Region 3 RCRA Current Land Use
Total Number of Sites = 280
67,823 Acres
1% By Sites
fj Continued Use (52,261 Acres)
D Reused (4,886 Acres)
• Planned Reuse (5,904 Acres)
D No Current Use/Vacant (4,772 Acres)
D Continued Use (184 sites)
D Reused (17 sites)
• Planned Reuse (4 sites)
D No Current Use/Vacant (38 sites)
• Multiple Uses (37 sites)
E-2
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit E-2: Region 3 RCRA Agency Involvement Reused/Planned Reuse
Total Number of Sites = 54
D With Agency Involvement (38 sites)
• Without Agency Involvement (16 sites)
Exhibit E-3: Region 3 RCRA Type of Use Reused and Planned Reuse
Total Number of Acres = 10,790
54 Sites
n Agricultural (11 Acres)
D Commercial (1,676 Acres)
n Enhanced Eco (946 Acres)
D Industrial (5,369 Acres)
D Military (0 Acres)
• Mixed Use (1,201 Acres)
•other Federal (0 Acres)
D Public Services (573 Acres)
• Recreational (477 Acres)
• Residential (537 Acres)
Region 5: RCRA Federal Lead Sites (Spring 2001 survey of 155 high priority sites)
In 2001/2002 Region 5 conducted a survey of regional project managers about 155 Federal
lead RCRA CA GPRA sites. Information from this survey provided the following information
on possible future use of these RCRA sites. A factsheet on the methodology and results of this
survey can be found at http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/rcrabf/pdf/surveyfs.pdf
Reuse: 53%
No Reuse: 46%
Unknown: 1%
E-3
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Number of Potential Future Reuse Options
Habitat/Eco: 49
Industrial: 42
Recreational: 14
Commercial: 11
Other: 12
Residential: 3
Habitat/Eco Reuse Potential: 59%
Non-Habitat/Eco: 41%
Definition of terms used in the survey:
Reuse Potential: A site may have excess property that will not be used or is currently unused and
would be available for redevelopment following the completion of corrective action.
No Reuse Potential: A facility does not have any unused property that can be redeveloped. Some
operating facilities are completely built out to its property lines.
Habitat Area: Land that sustains local flora and fauna. This could include wetlands, prairies,
woodlands, riparian areas, river banks, etc.
Industrial: Manufacturing facilities, refineries, assembling plants, power plants, etc.
Commercial: Department Stores, malls, gas stations, home improvement stores, etc.
Recreational: Parks, playgrounds, soccer/football fields, tennis courts, etc.
Residential: Homes, condominiums, etc.
Other: This could include uses such as farming, ranching, cemeteries, historical locations,
highways, etc.
Multiple Reuses: When a site is redeveloped into a number of uses, such as commercial and
recreations and habitat area. This may occur in large sites, such as military bases.
E-4
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit E-4: Region 5 RCRA Survey Data
Unknown,
1%
Exhibit E-5: Region 5 RCRA Survey Data
D Habitat/Eco
D Non-Habitat/Eco
Exhibit E-6: Region 5 RCRA Survey Data
50 -I
45-
40
35-
30-
25
20
15
10
5-
0
-49-
11
42
14
•,o°
E-5
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Exhibit E-7: Region 9
No Current Use
10%
Total or Partial Reuse
Planned
10%
Being Totally or
Partially Reused
25%
In Continued-Use
55%
O Region 9 studied high-priority corrective action sites;
Q Identified original site use, prior waste history, current property use, planned use;
Q Estimated scale of reuse where possible;
Q Gathered anecdotal information about barriers to reuse, future potential for underutilized sites,
success stories; and
Q Is updating this data for 2006 and adding medium and low priority sites.
Region 6 Land Revitalization Data from RCRAInfo1
Number of RCRA sites with Ready for Reuse Determinations: 3
'Region 6 is currently the only region which has enabled RCRAInfo to track sites that have been issued Ready for Reuse
Determinations. This data is current as of March 3, 2005.
E-i
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Appendix F: Brownfields Land Revitalization Data
Reuse Measure for Brownfields Program, by Region (FY1996 - FY2006/2) (from
Brownfields Management Summary Reports from July 2006)
Region Acres Properties Total Number Total Funding Number of Number of Properties with Acres of
Ready for Ready for of Cleanup/ Received or Participants Participants Redevelopment Green/
Reuse* Reuse* Redevelopment Leveraged Completing Completing Activities Open
Jobs Leveraged Training and Training but Underway Space
Obtaining not Placed Created*
Employment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
17
41
65
12.3
139.4
162.55
7.69
60.56
163.67
120.81
mmm
8
3
3
10
20
4
->
j
5
12
29
^^H
5739
2511
6403
2396
4290
10287
1921
768
2145
1402
$524,971,000
$254,837,000
$451,559,000
$687,734,000
$1,833,097,000
$2,163,058,000
$565,168,000
$542,437,000
$1,090,573,000
$211,011,000
388
156
147
142
90
85
212
34
406
142
212
169
107
77
118
67
162
109
44
39
228
82
78
183
174
121
148
54
91
39
7
20
25
18
67
0
0
1
27
0
37,862 $8,324,445,000 1,802 1,104 1,198 165
* This figure does not reflect the total accomplishments of the Brownfields Program, because
this data was not collected for Grants awarded prior to FY 2003.
F-1
-------
Measuring Land Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Number of Brown fields Property
Acres Ready for Reuse*
"Tins
tills (I:
figure does not reflect the total accomplishments of the Brownfields Program, because
ita was not collected for Grants awarded prior to FY 2003.
Brownfields Properties
Ready for Reuse*
Region
* This figure does not reflect the total accomplishments of the Brownfields Program, because
this data was not collected for Grants awarded prior to FY 2003.
Brownfields Total Number
of Cleanup/Redevelopment
Jobs Leveraged
10000
9000
BOOO
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Brownfields -Total Funding
Received or Leveraged
2,500,000
~ 500,000
9 10
Region
Brownfields -Job Training
460-
400-
350
S & 2SO
E £ zoo-l
= I in
100
50
0
,156 ,47
90 85
1
123456
Region
789 10
D Number of Participants Completing Training
• Number of Participants Completing Training and Obtaining Employment
Brownfields Properties with
Redevelopment Activities Underway (1998-
2004*)
°1
u r
.Q o
IB
z a.
r
123456789 10
Region
Total Brownfields Properties with Redevelopment Activities Underway = 866
* Data on this key measure has been tracked in BMS since its inception in 1998. There
also exists some data from before 1998.
F-3
-------
Measuring Land Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
This page intentionally left blank.
F-4
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
Appendix G: FFRRO Land Revitalization Data
FFRRO Ready for Reuse Data (from EOY 04 SCAP-15 Report on land Reuse)
Inception to end of selected fiscal year
Current fiscal year
Region
Number of
Federal Facilities
that have had land
transferred/leased
Number of acres
at NPL and non-NPL
Federal Facilities with
land ready for reuse
Number of Federal
Facilities that have
had Land
transferred/leased
Number of Acres
at NPL and non-NPL
Federal Facilities with
land readv for reuse
1
2
")
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
7
12
17
11
15
11
->
5
31
0
17,911
88,642
9,975
29,235
16,712
35,833
1,133
13,719
124,851
0
0
1
0
3
2
2
2
0
6
0
0
1,637
0
748
425
393
547
0
6,180
0
Total 112 338,009 16 9,929
G-1
-------
Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities:
Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities
FFRRO Ready for Reuse Data1
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Number of FFRRO Sites with
Land Ready for Reuse, by Region
(1992-2004)
31
17
fj-
1
12
r
2 3
15
n r~
1
|
4 5
11
6 7
5
^1
0
8 9 10
Number of Acres of Land Ready for Reuse at NPL
and Non-NPL Federal Facility Sites (1992-2004)
140,000
120,000
100.000
<8 80,000
P 60,000-
<
40,000
20,000
0
Region
I Inception (1992) to end of FY 2003 D Current Fiscal Year (2004)
FFRRO Acres Ready for Reuse
Inception (1992)
to end of FY 2003
328,081 acres
97%
(112 Sites)
Current fiscal year
(2004)
9,930 acres
3%
(16 Sites))
'Data obtained from CERCLIS EOY 04 SCAP-15 Report on Land Reuse from CERCLIS. Note: This is EPA data and does not
represent DoD, DOE, or other civilian federal agency data.
G-2
------- |