United States Solid Waste EPA 500-F-01-350
Environmental and Emergency September 2001
Protection Agency Response (5101) www.epa.gov/brownfields/
Washington, D.C. 20460
vvEPA RCRA Brownfields
Prevention Initiative:
Pilot Projects 2000
Summary Report
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative is a U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) effort designed to use opportunities for statutory and regulatory flexibility in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act to accelerate site cleanup, facilitate dialogue, and integrate reuse
and redevelopment issues, as appropriate, into cleanup decisions. In the longer term, it is EPA's
goal that this initiative will help accelerate cleanups at brownfields sites, thus enabling the
creation of new jobs, businesses, and green spaces for communities.
In March 2000, EPA announced four pilot projects intended to provide case studies of
techniques, tools, and strategies to integrate RCRA cleanups and brownfields redevelopment.
The four pilots are: 1) the CBS/Viacom facility in Bridgeport, Connecticut; 2) the Bethlehem
Steel Corporation site in Lackawanna, New York; 3) the PECO-Energy (now Exelon
Corporation) facility in Chester, Pennsylvania; and 4) the Blue Valley Redevelopment area in
Kansas City, Missouri. The four pilots already have yielded results and innovations that can be
transferred to other sites. All sites have cleanup and redevelopment plans well underway, and all
have benefitted from the pilot process by eliminating unnecessary procedural steps, cutting red
tape, and brokering communication between state and local governments and the community.
The RCRA Brownfields Pilots illustrate how frequent communication among
federal, state, and local governments, community members, owners/operators, and other
stakeholders, coupled with the corrective action reforms emphasis on "results over
process," can expedite cleanup. This will, in turn, allow for redevelopment at RCRA
facilities. The process at all four sites has been accelerated (in some cases, dramatically) by their
designation as a RCRA Brownfields pilot. The pilots demonstrate the value of broad-based
stakeholder communication. They point out to methods for streamlining and accelerating the
RCRA corrective action process, partnering with states and industry, focusing on results, and
achieving faster cleanups that meet the redevelopment goals of the facility and community at
large while ensuring protection of human health and the environment. The pilots also
demonstrate that significant effort is needed to further incorporate a Brownfields approach
of accommodating plans for community revitalization and site reuse into the RCRA
corrective action program
This summary report provides background on the Initiative, describes the pilots and their
accomplishments, and identifies the "lessons learned" that EPA and other stakeholders can use to
improve cleanups by leveraging redevelopment potential at properties subject to RCRA.
-------
INTRODUCTION
In an effort to prevent future brownfields1 at RCRA sites and communicate streamlined
cleanup approaches to bring land back into productive use, EPA launched the RCRA
Brownfields Prevention Initiative in June 1998. The action was taken in response to growing
recognition that the traditional Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cleanup
process could, in some instances, delay cleanup and redevelopment of abandoned or
underutilized contaminated sites. RCRA primarily regulates the generation, treatment, storage
and disposal of hazardous wastes; however, the RCRA program also affects the cleanup of sites
that are contaminated with hazardous wastes (either because the property was subject to a RCRA
permit or had Interim Status, or because RCRA waste is managed during cleanup of the site).
While the initial years of EPA's Brownfields program focused on issues posed by the Superfund
program, EPA's review of the first several rounds of Brownfields pilot applications revealed that
many of the applicants also raised RCRA impediments to redevelopment or reuse.
A joint memorandum from the EPA Assistant Administrators for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) responded to the growing issue of RCRA requirements and Brownfields
redevelopment and launched the RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative with the underlying
goal to "facilitate reuse of brownfields subject to RCRA."2 A critical component of the initiative
is to highlight opportunities for statutory and regulatory flexibility that currently exist in the
RCRA program. The initiative is not about legislative relief or regulatory reform. Rather, it is
designed to improve how federal and state governments implement the RCRA program and work
with stakeholders regarding property reuse to yield more effective results for communities and
for the environment.
Accordingly, an important goal is to raise awareness among Regions, states, and other
stakeholders of redevelopment opportunities at RCRA corrective action facilities, and thereby,
where appropriate, leverage redevelopment potential to improve the corrective action process and
help EPA achieve its Government Performance and Review Act (GPRA) goals.
1 Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial commercial facilities where
expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.
2 The memorandum also announced the formation of an EPA workgroup that would
"identify and understand any potential impediments to cleanup and reuse of brownfields posed by
RCRA." The workgroup also was charged to "begin strategizing ways to facilitate successful
reuse of [RCRA corrective action] facilities." (See "Facilitating Reuse of Brownfields Subject to
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative,"
Memorandum from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator, OECA and Timothy Fields,
Acting Assistant Administrator, OSWER to RCRA Senior Policy Managers and CERCLA
Senior Policy Managers, Regions 1 - 10, June 11, 1998.)
-1-
-------
The memorandum also sets forth three primary goals of the RCRA Brownfields
Prevention Initiative:
• To raise awareness of the initiative by announcing and publicizing intentions for
undertaking this initiative to lenders, developers, community representatives and other
stakeholders in brownfields cleanup and reuse;
• To work with partners in brownfields reuse to gather information, identify any RCRA
barriers to redevelopment, and develop solutions; and
• To develop tools such as fact sheets and "pilot good ideas" generated from dialogue with
interested stakeholders, [emphasis added]
THE RCRA BROWNFIELDS PILOT PROJECTS
RCRA Reforms
In December 1999, EPA asked its Regional offices and the states to propose an initial
round of RCRA brownfields pilots to "showcase RCRA reforms" and develop solutions that take
advantage of existing statutory and regulatory flexibility.3 The RCRA Corrective Action
Reforms, announced in July 1999, were a series of administrative improvements to the RCRA
cleanup program designed to speed corrective action and help achieve the ambitious GPRA goals
for the RCRA program. Some of the most significant reforms included:
1. Withdrawal of the Subpart S corrective action proposed rule, and issuance of EPA
guidance recommending "performance-based" standards that focus on completion and
results, not process (64 FR 54604, October 7, 1999; 65 FR 15904, March 24, 2000).
2. The Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (HWIR-Media), which
streamlined the RCRA permitting process for such sites through the use of Remedial
Action Plans (RAPs), and eliminated the requirement for facility-wide corrective action at
sites that are only required to obtain a RCRA permit because of cleanup activities (63 FR
65874, November 30, 1998).
3. The Closure/Post-Closure rule for RCRA facilities, which for the first time allows
regulators to replace certain closure requirements at certain regulated units with
alternative cleanup requirements developed under a corrective action program. The rule
3 (See "Call for Regional/State RCRA Brownfields Pilot Projects," Memorandum from
Timothy Fields, Assistant Administrator, OSWER and Steven A. Herman, Assistant
Administrator, OECA to RCRA and CERCLA Senior Policy Managers, Regions 1-10,
Decembers, 1999.)
-2-
-------
also allows the use of "alternative mechanisms" to permits for post-closure care (63 FR
56710, October 22, 1998).
4. Issuance of specific Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for hazardous
soils and provisions for site-specific, risk-based variances from LDR standards for
cleanup wastes (63 FR 28606, May 26, 1998).
The December 1999 memorandum called for EPA Regional offices and state agencies to
submit applications for pilot projects that would pursue new approaches to cleanup of existing
brownfields for reuse, as well as prevention of future brownfields at RCRA sites. Specifically,
the memorandum further emphasized the goal to "identify actual or perceived RCRA barriers to
reuse and develop solutions that take advantage of existing statutory and regulatory flexibility in
the program to address them." An underlying message in the "call for pilots" memorandum and
in the workgroup discussions was for pilot projects to "work and think out of the box" and
document new approaches. These approaches could involve use of state authorities, enforcement
tools such as comfort/status letters or prospective purchaser agreements, and coordination of
federal, state, and local efforts to speed cleanup and allow for redevelopment.
Pilot Selection Process
The December 1999 memorandum included a format for applications based on the
internal EPA/state workgroup analysis and review and used the earlier brownfields assessment
pilot application process as a starting model. The individual pilot applications were reviewed
and independently ranked by a review team of RCRA Brownfields Prevention workgroup
members and EPA Brownfields staff. Once the review team ranked the pilot applications, the
Assistant Administrator for OSWER selected four projects out of seven original applications.
The four pilot projects covered several aspects of RCRA and Brownfields, including streamlined
corrective action procedures, use of state voluntary (or alternative cleanup) authorities, and
integration of brownfields redevelopment/environmental data into a portfolio.
Highlights of the four pilots are set forth below. A more detailed description of each
pilot's background, goals, accomplishments, lessons learned, and future plans is presented later
in this report.
• CBS/Viacom in Bridgeport, CT: This site is a former electrical wiring manufacturing
site that operated from 1888 to 1998, with soil and groundwater contamination.
Assessment and remediation are continuing at the site. The primary pilot goal is to satisfy
state and federal cleanup requirements without duplication by identifying issues and
resolving differences between the Connecticut Property Transfer Act and RCRA
corrective action requirements. Additional goals include developing a public
communication fact sheet and forming a pilot project stakeholder team. To date, state
and federal cleanup requirements have been integrated, a local community-wide fact sheet
has been distributed, and remediation activity and redevelopment planning is proceeding.
Also, Viacom and the City of Bridgeport signed an agreement under which the Viacom
agreed to complete its obligations under RCRA and the Connecticut Property Transfer
-3-
-------
Act. As a result, Prime Resources, a developer, was provided "comfort" and is working
with Viacom to complete the purchase of the site. The future plan is to develop a light
manufacturing facility.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC) in Lackawanna, NY: This site is a former fully
integrated steel mill, a portion of which is still operating. The site includes two parcels of
approximately 102 acres and 500 acres that are strong redevelopment candidates but are
still covered by a RCRA Facility Investigation order and retain RCRA Interim Status.
Prior to the pilot, EPA issued a "no further action" letter for the 102-acre parcel. The
primary pilot goal was to devise a means to release the 102-acre parcel from the order,
and move it into the state voluntary cleanup program. EPA and New York then could
apply a similar approach to the 500-acre parcel. Broadened stakeholder involvement and
public outreach have been integral to the process. EPA has released the 102-acre parcel
from the RFI order and has turned over cleanup of the entire site to the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). A public workshop that covered
regulatory and site development issues has been held, as well as a public information
meeting with local officials and city residents. BSC and NYDEC are continuing work on
formulating voluntary cleanup requirements consistent with the NYDEC voluntary
program for the 102-acre parcel prior to redevelopment. The future plan is to build a light
industrial park.
PECO-Energy in Chester, PA: This is a former utility site, a 17-acre portion of which
was leased for hazardous waste recycling. PECO-Energy is under a RCRA consent order
and remediation of soils and groundwater is proceeding. The primary pilot goal is for
EPA and the state to expedite cleanup and redevelopment by working together to
integrate RCRA corrective action with the Pennsylvania Land Recycling and Reclamation
Act (Act 2), and thus help revitalize an environmental justice (EJ) community. The
regulatory integration process continues along with the ongoing cleanup. A property
developer, Preferred Real Estate Investments, has purchased a major portion of the site
from PECO-Energy (now Exelon Corporation) and plans to renovate an old power plant
building into commercial office space for a high-tech company headquarters. PECO-
Energy/Exelon will donate a parcel to the City of Chester to expand an adjacent city park.
Blue Valley Redevelopment in Kansas City, MO: The pilot focuses on a blighted
multi-facility industrial area (including RCRA facilities such as wood treaters and scrap
recyclers) in a flood plain adjacent to the Blue River in east Kansas City, a Brownfields
"Showcase" community. The primary goal is to meld RCRA issues into an existing
interagency redevelopment effort by incorporating RCRA data and issues into a city's
"Redevelopment Opportunity Portfolio" that also includes information from a geographic
information system (GIS) and other environmental data for the area. A secondary goal is
to combine EPA and Corps of Engineers projects to facilitate reuse of clean dredged
material from the Corps of Engineers Blue River re-channelization project as fill on a
RCRA facility that will be assessed and, if necessary, remediated before redevelopment.
The collected environmental data and GIS information has already been incorporated into
the city's "Redevelopment Opportunity Portfolio." However, it was also decided to use
-4-
-------
the collected information as part of an area-wide background study that will be used as a
baseline comparison of contaminants in site-specific investigations. The background
study is about to begin pending the approval of the Missouri Department of Natural
resources. Also, the reuse of dredged material is awaiting approval by the City of Kansas.
The future plans are to place new industrial facilities on old industrial properties and to
revitalize the area.
RESULTS AND "LESSONS LEARNED" FROM THE PILOTS
The pilots were launched in March 2000, and each has yielded results in a relatively short
time frame. Initially, pilot team leaders and participants needed to reorient perspectives and
establish communication and trust across a variety of stakeholder viewpoints. EPA encouraged
stakeholders to explore innovative approaches that integrate reuse issues and corrective action to
leverage redevelopment and reuse potential and hasten cleanup. Each of the four pilots has
produced valuable achievements and "lessons learned." These generally fall into three
categories:
• Accomplishments
• "Lessons learned" for the RCRA Corrective Action Program
• "Lessons learned" for administering the next round of pilots
Accomplishments
Overall, the four pilots demonstrated that frequent communications among all levels of
government and facility owners/operators, combined with the RCRA corrective action reform
emphasis on results over process, can speed cleanup which will, in turn, enhance the opportunity
for redevelopment. All four pilot sites had been in the RCRA corrective action pipeline for years
with limited progress due, in part, to a lack of understanding and communication of stakeholder
needs and views. The pilots provide a much needed forum that allow diverse stakeholder
interests to start communicating while focusing on cleanup and process improvement. As a
consequence, issues and problems have been clarified and possible solutions more readily
identified. The more intensive stakeholder dialogue provided a climate for constructive
communications that helped expedite cleanup and redevelopment. For example, at both the
CBS/Viacom and PECO-Energy sites, regulatory duplication was minimized, which accelerated
activity by a year or more. Developers are now involved at both locations. At the Bethlehem
Steel Corporation site and Beazer East site in Blue Valley, parcels were released from RCRA
oversight for subsequent redevelopment. The emphasis of the RCRA corrective action reforms
on "results over process" has begun to create a climate that has allowed team members to focus
on achieving desired goals by the most efficient and appropriate means, regardless of the vehicle,
be it a state voluntary order, state voluntary cleanup program (VCP), or state or federal RCRA
corrective action.
One critical outcome of these pilots is that site assessment and cleanup activities and
redevelopment plans are well underway at all four pilot sites. At the CBS/Viacom and PECO-
-5-
-------
Energy facilities, developers and both the state and federal governments are actively involved,
and the owner/operators are taking steps to coordinate the planned or ongoing cleanup with the
redevelopment plans. At the Bethlehem Steel site, the pilot has spurred area-wide redevelopment
dialogues involving local government, academics, and urban planners. At Blue Valley
Redevelopment, the pilot resulted in integrating valuable RCRA site-characterization data and
related information into area-wide revitalization plans for marketing these properties, as well as
helping to spur redevelopment of the Beazer East facility site.
The pilots also have created generally cohesive teams with positive working relationships
that bode well for further progress on cleanup and reuse in the future. Though the pilots have
been relatively brief in duration, the opportunity created by the pilots has accelerated action by
the teams, created a setting in which technical or legal issues are identified and resolved
informally where possible (or rapidly elevated for attention), and educated team members about
the needs of other stakeholders at each site. Equally important, the teams include a diverse array
of stakeholders not normally involved with corrective action sites, including representatives from
economic development organizations, cities, and property developers.
Lessons Learned for the RCRA Program
There are several lessons learned from the pilots that may have implications for the
RCRA program:
Better Integrate Brownfields Redevelopment Opportunities into RCRA Corrective
Action Programs, as appropriate. Regional and state personnel are more empowered to
incorporate redevelopment concerns into cleanups, as appropriate, but need to be more aware of
the flexibility that existing Brownfields and RCRA "tools" can provide to satisfy the site-specific
needs of the site. These personnel need a better understanding of development issues and how to
accommodate them when using federal and state cleanup programs, thereby helping to revitalize
idled RCRA properties. Applying the lessons learned from the pilots to other RCRA corrective
action sites can help EPA and authorized states achieve their overall RCRA and GPRA program
goals. Thus, the pilots are a good start, but much more remains to be done. As one stakeholder
remarked, "Shouldn't brownfields thinking be part of every Corrective Action project?" A good
example of creative thinking is at the CBS/Viacom site. The owner/operator and City of
Bridgeport crafted an agreement under which CBS/Viacom would retain corrective action
obligations after the City obtains title to the site and sells it to a third-party developer.
CBS/Viacom and the City agreed to work the redevelopment plans around the corrective action
(e.g., site cap, access to groundwater wells). The presence of a potential redeveloper spurred the
pace of cleanup, and ensured that on-going remediation activities would not affect reuse.
Encourage High-Quality Owner/Operator Initiated RCRA Investigations and
Cleanups. The owners/operators of all four pilot sites proactively participated in a variety of
activities, depending on the circumstances at their individual sites. Three submitted various
work plans and conducted investigations, all four provided certain reports and data, and three
conducted cleanups. It appears that the incentive to move quickly spurred owners/operators out
of the normal "reactive" mode. The ability of EPA and the state to act on these owner/operator
-6-
-------
initiated efforts eliminated years of procedural time. Efforts to involve the public were enhanced
by the stakeholder process as well as the pilot team's focus on public communication.
Forge Cooperative Relationships between EPA and the States. All of the pilots in
effect created "one stop shopping" for the community, the owner/operator, and the redeveloper to
have state and federal cleanup issues resolved in a more holistic manner. For example, at the
CBS/Viacom pilot, the state is not authorized for RCRA corrective action, but EPA and the State
of Connecticut coordinated program requirements and work assignments smoothly. Connecticut
remediation standards for industrial/commercial future land use were integrated with RCRA risk-
based cleanup requirements to avoid duplication. Similarly, at the PECO-Energy pilot, EPA's
partnership with the state voluntary program under Pennsylvania's Land Recycling and
Reclamation Act saved valuable resources by enabling PECO-Energy to use one administrative
process to satisfy both state and federal corrective action goals. All of the pilots, in effect,
created "one stop shopping" for the community, the owner/operator, and the redeveloper to
resolve issues.
Be Receptive to "Carving Out" Portions of RCRA Permitted or Interim Status
Facilities, where appropriate. At least two pilots identified RCRA cleanup liability as an issue
for local governments interested in redeveloping sites. In particular, local officials are concerned
about pursuing redevelopment opportunities where the property (including even a portion of a
larger site) at issue is, or potentially will be, subject to RCRA corrective action because the
property is a permitted facility or operating under RCRA Interim Status. In these cases, local
officials are concerned that the potential cleanup liability might convey with title to the property.
EPA should address how sites can be "deleted" or carved out from potential RCRA cleanup
liability, and make available examples of successful approaches that have been used at particular
sites. The issue has been addressed at some individual permitted facilities through permit
modifications. Other approaches, such as those described in EPA's upcoming "completion"
guidance, may provide appropriate "comfort" at Interim Status facilities.
Encourage States to Allow Appropriate use of VCPs for Specific RCRA Sites. Some
states, either by statute or policy, consider RCRA sites to be ineligible for entry into their
voluntary cleanup programs (VCPs). This may be a barrier to expedited cleanup and
redevelopment. Owners/operators may perceive the voluntary cleanup programs as more flexible
in implementation, and in cases where a real estate transaction will occur or a loan is needed, a
"no further action" letter from the state's VCP may be critical to the project. Also, these
programs are independent sources of resources that can be effectively brought to bear at RCRA
sites. States whose VCP meets or exceeds the substantive requirements of the federal RCRA
program for cleanup and public participation might offer an expeditious complement to their
authorized corrective action program.
Reinforce Messages about Procedural Flexibility. Although the message from EPA
Headquarters has been to use "opportunities for statutory and regulatory flexibility in RCRA"
and to adopt a "performance-based approach" to cleanup, the pilots reveal that many stakeholders
want to adopt process-oriented methods to the reforms rather than apply the reforms as new
-7-
-------
tools. It seems that using a new approach sometimes is "in addition to" and not "in lieu of the
old process approach.
It would be helpful for EPA and the states to conduct further training and outreach to
explain application of the RCRA corrective action reforms that "foster maximum use of program
flexibility and practical approaches" to cleanup at RCRA sites.
Form Project "Teams." Pilot experience shows that pilot teams and teamwork can
create optimism within state and local governments and community interests for progress toward
cleanup and redevelopment. While coordinating meetings, conference calls, and federal and state
programs with the stakeholders takes time, in the end, these efforts probably save time by
creating a "template" that can be used in other contexts.
Encourage New Thinking by, and a Willingness to Engage with, the Regulated
Community on Ways to Integrate Reuse into the Corrective Action Process. Typically at
RCRA sites there is a financially viable owner/operator legally responsible for site assessment
and cleanup. This means there are potential financial and technical resources that can be used for
cleanup that can help create redevelopment opportunities that benefit both the owner/operator
and the community. Site investigations and cleanup of facilities can be accomplished in advance
of permitting, using administrative agreements or streamlined voluntary approaches under state
or federal authorities, especially for less complex sites or portions of sites.
Government and private parties should come to the table prepared to focus on the goal of
getting property cleaned up and back into productive use. At one pilot, taking a fresh approach
resulted in noteworthy and very positive shifts in attitude. At all four pilots, newly opened lines
of communication enhanced working relationships between regulators and industry
representatives and fostered innovative strategies to meet regulatory obligations while achieving
environmental and economic success.
Lessons Learned for administering the next round of pilots
Pre-Application
Advance Stakeholder Buy-in is Critical. EPA needs to discuss the objectives of the
pilot selection process with private and public stakeholders before the pilot application. This
consultation did not happen in all cases. Some private interests were worried about being
"singled out" or stigmatized. Some local interests also expressed concern at being "left out"and
theorized it was due to RCRA not being flexible.
Solicit Applications from External Stakeholders. The first round of pilots were
solicited from EPA Regions and states. One pilot stakeholder suggested that EPA solicit future
ideas from external stakeholders, such as community groups, local governments, and
owner/operators. This would require some advertising, but could bring a wide range of
opportunities to EPA's attention.
-------
Establish Expectations Up Front. EPA RCRA and Brownfields program staff need to
discuss the scope, new approaches, and outputs up front. Even with RCRA corrective action
reforms, the RCRA regulatory requirements are complex and often not well understood by
specialists in brownfields programs. Similarly, Superfund Brownfields approaches are not
always well known to RCRA staff. All four pilots benefitted from exchanges of viewpoints,
ideas, and information through the workgroup, but advance staff-level discussions could help the
participants and help streamline the process.
Enlist Senior Management Support. Senior Regional and RCRA program management
in EPA Regions and the states should be "on board" before submission of applications to ensure
the commitment to trying out new approaches. In three pilots, it was necessary to elevate issues
to Regional and state management officials. In each case, management made decisions
instrumental to trying new approaches. At the Bethlehem Steel site, for example, it was
necessary to enlist both state and Regional management to approve use of a voluntary order to
address issues related to use of the New York voluntary cleanup program at a RCRA Interim
Status facility. At the PECO-Energy site, EPA senior management met with the state and local
officials to speed the pilot's progress.
Application Process
Streamline the Applications. The application/submission process itself proved
workable, and the project application seemed to provide most of the necessary information. A
relatively succinct writeup seems sufficient, as long as the issue/problem, objective(s),
stakeholder interest/involvement, and outputs are clearly delineated.
Provide an Informal Feedback Loop for Pilot Applicants. The pilot review and
selection process worked smoothly and fairly, and should remain within the workgroup
framework. While the workgroup ranking and discussion of applications resulted in thorough
analysis of applications, there was no mechanism to provide feedback about weaknesses,
suggested points of emphasis, or questions for clarification to applicants once final selections
were made.
Pilot project implementation
Continue and Build on the Team Approach. For purposes of project management and
to assist communications across many areas of interest, a pilot "team" process was instituted for
each pilot. The teams included participants from state/local governments, EPA (both
Headquarters and Region), company representatives in both technical and legal services, and
community interests. The pilots reinforce the importance of forming a pilot team for each site to
work on issues, formulate solutions and approaches, and build consensus. The pilots also
demonstrate the value of a team leader to help manage the team process and push resolution of
issues.
-9-
-------
Suggested "Model" Team Composition
• Team leader
• EPA Representatives from Programs (Headquarters or Region) - Brownfields, RCRA,
OECA
• State Environmental Agency - staff and mid-management
• State and/or local economic development/redevelopment agency
• Representatives from site owner/industry
• Others in local community
While somewhat dependent on the scope of the pilot, weekly or twice-monthly
conference calls involving all the players helps assure success. Pilots with routine and significant
communications with all team members have achieved fairly dramatic and substantially
accelerated progress toward cleanup and reuse.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PILOTS
The following is a detailed description of each pilot, including background information,
goals, innovations tested, results to date, lessons learned, and future plans:
CBS/VIACOM BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT PILOT
Background
The CBS/Viacom site in Bridgeport, Connecticut4 was in use from 1888 until 1988. The
site was formerly the Westinghouse Electric Corporation Bryant Electric facility, which
manufactured electrical components. Longer-term plans are to transfer the site to the City of
Bridgeport, which will transfer the site to a third party who will develop it for a new industrial
use. The city identified a local manufacturer who proposes a new manufacturing plant that
would be more than 200,000 square feet in size. The goal of the site clean-up is to comply with
both the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) Property Transfer Act
program and EPA RCRA Corrective Action program requirements. A key challenge in this pilot
is integrating state and federal cleanup requirements to avoid duplication and ensure the cleanup
is protective of human health and the environment considering the (industrial use) site-
redevelopment plans. The future plan is to develop a light manufacturing facility.
Planned Short-Term Goals and Results to Date
• Enhance Stakeholders' Involvement in Joint Problem Solving: A stakeholder group
was formed that includes federal, state (environmental and economic development), city,
4Midway through this pilot, which originated as the CBS Bridgeport Pilot, Viacom
purchased CBS.
-10-
-------
and company representatives. Site developers were later added to the team. Formation of
this group is a significant accomplishment because the company was reluctant to be
involved at the outset. Monthly stakeholder meetings were held and have helped expedite
the site assessment, remediation, and redevelopment activities.
• Identify and Resolve Differences in Connecticut Property Transfer Act and RCRA
Corrective Action Requirements: All substantive and procedural differences and
overlaps between state and federal requirements were identified and Viacom is working
toward compliance. For example, EPA staff developed a table comparing the CTDEP
remedial cleanup standards necessary for property transfer with the RCRA corrective
action cleanup standards, and determined that the CTDEP risk-based standards based on
future land-use plans were protective. As remediation progresses, on-going compliance
with these requirements will be reviewed, with a hoped-for outcome that is consistent
with RCRA corrective action requirements.
• Work to Resolve Site-wide RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Characterization
Issues: Except for one important groundwater characterization issue, all of the site
assessment or RFI issues have been resolved over the course of the pilot. The remaining
issue is to more fully characterize the nature and extent of a chlorinated solvent plume
that may have migrated off-site.
• Work to Formulate RFI Work Plan to Assess the Groundwater Plume: The work
plan is complete and characterization of the groundwater plume is underway. It is hoped
that implementation of the work plan will complete plume characterization and allow for
a review of the performance of the stabilization measures to control migration.
• Assist Bridgeport in Community Outreach Efforts: EPA took the lead in coordinating
development of a fact sheet that fully describes the status and plans for the site. The fact
sheet was printed on an innovative "joint" letterhead showing EPA, State of Connecticut,
City of Bridgeport, and Viacom involvement. Local redevelopment organizations
circulated the fact sheet to several thousand local recipients.
• Re-evaluate Site for Achievement of Environmental Indicators (RCRIS CA 725 and
CA 750): Progress on plume characterization and ongoing remediation activities show
promise that the site will be found to meet the environmental indicators because
controlling both groundwater migration and human exposures are under control.
Successes and Innovations
• Viacom has already initiated active remediation at the site, which helps ensure that the
State Property Transfer requirements and EPA stabilization goals are achieved. Viacom
has installed and is currently operating soil vapor extraction (SVE) and air sparging (AS)
systems, and has installed and operates a pilot-scale groundwater recovery and treatment
system. Viacom also has agreed to work with the ultimate developer of the site to
incorporate remediation technology into the building design, if necessary. As a result,
the ongoing cleanup will not impede redevelopment of the site.
-11-
-------
• Viacom and Bridgeport signed an agreement under which the company agreed to
complete its cleanup obligations under RCRA and the Connecticut Property Transfer Act.
As a result, Prime Resources, a redeveloper, was provided "comfort" and is working with
Viacom to complete purchase of the site. In addition, Viacom has completed work with
Prime Resources to incorporate remediation requirements into the building design and
construction plans so that ongoing remediation will not impede redevelopment. When
completed, the site is expected to include a 200,000 square foot light industrial
manufacturing facility and provide several hundred jobs and millions of dollars for the
community.
• The team approach enabled all parties involved in the investigation, remediation, and
redevelopment to stay informed on issues affecting the site, and has enabled these
stakeholders to work collectively to solve problems. For example, representatives of both
Bridgeport and state economic development programs were able to exchange perspectives
with Viacom representatives and CTDEP and EPA regulatory officials.
• Viacom voluntarily has conducted all of the site assessment and cleanup activities this far
without the legal mechanism of a permit or order, thus saving perhaps as much as six
months in time and legal resources in the negotiation of an order.
• Communication among the team members helped keep the group apprised of the site
redeveloper's due diligence efforts and coordinated stakeholders' efforts to provide
timely and responsive information concerning site conditions to the prospective
purchaser.
• Focused communication accelerated the cleanup by enabling team members to resolve
technical issues informally and expeditiously, consistent with the RCRA corrective action
reforms that emphasize results.
Lessons Learned
EPA RCRA Corrective Action guidance contains recommended approaches that differ in
both breadth and scope from the requirements of the Connecticut Property Transfer Act. The
pilot successfully showed that EPA and a non-delegated state program can work together
cooperatively to streamline different program approaches. The goals of EPA's RCRA Corrective
Action program, the Connecticut property transfer program, the City of Bridgeport's
redevelopment office, the facility owner/operator, and the community all are being achieved.
Future of Pilot
EPA will work with the pilot stakeholders to achieve Environmental Indicators at the site
and to conduct future cleanup activities in a way that appropriately and simultaneously
accommodates cleanup of the site with the transfer of the property to the redeveloper so that new
jobs and economic opportunities can be provided to the community.
-12-
-------
Stakeholder Feedback
Stakeholders contacted included state, local government, and industry participants. Their
detailed comments are included in the APPENDIX. In summary, stakeholders emphasized the
value of the pilot in bringing diverse stakeholder interests to the table. This helped to integrate
cleanup and redevelopment issues and kept expectations clear for all parties. Some expressed
reservations that the activities may have increased expenses, so companies should be given an
opportunity for advance consent. There is general consensus that the pilot helped streamline the
assessment and cleanup process and that the continued coordination provided by the pilot is
favorable.
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION LACKAWANNA, NEW YORK PILOT
Background
The Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC) site is a steel manufacturing facility at which
past operations resulted in the contamination of certain portions of the site. The site is a RCRA
treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) under Interim Status. The company currently is
investigating the contaminated areas under a RCRA 3008(h) consent order with EPA. The pilot
is focused on a 102-acre parcel that holds promise for industrial or commercial reuse as the first
step in a phased, longer-term plan for the entire site as part of a revitalized "Greenway" to the
Buffalo area. Erie County, New York, has $1-2 million available for infrastructure and
improvements to the parcel but the county wants more assurances about contamination and
liability before undertaking the investment. The Lackawanna Community Development
Commission (LCDC), City of Lackawanna, would take ownership of the property. EPA issued a
"no further action" letter to BSC for the solid waste management units on the 102-acre parcel,
but until the pilot project, the parcel remained part of the EPA/Bethlehem Steel RCRA facility
investigation consent order. Under normal circumstances, this portion of the property probably
would not be redeveloped until the balance of the site has been investigated and cleaned up as
necessary.
EPA and the stakeholders hoped to remove obstacles to the city and county's plan for the
redevelopment of the 102-acre parcel by first removing it from the RFI consent order. Then BSC,
working with the state and Erie County, would reassess this area as part of their due diligence
prior to any property transactions or investment in infrastructure. This pilot has explored
conducting this reassessment under the state voluntary cleanup program. If the pilot site is
successfully returned to use, the administrative process devised for the 102-acre area may be
applied to other portions of the Bethlehem Steel facility (including an adjacent 500-acre parcel).
Pilot Goals and Innovations
The goal of the project is to remove the 102-acre parcel, and subsequently, an additional
500 acres of the facility from the EPA RFI consent order. BSC requested that an additional goal
for the project be removal of RCRA Interim Status designation for the 102-acre and/or 500-acre
-13-
-------
parcels so these portions of the site would be eligible under the state's Voluntary Cleanup
Program. New York draft policy for the VCP currently prohibits sites operating under a RCRA
order or with RCRA Interim Status from eligibility into the program.
Despite Bethlehem Steel's request, EPA Region 2 and the NYDEC concluded that it
would be difficult and time consuming to attempt to find a way to remove the "RCRA Interim
Status designation" for the 102-acre parcel as long as BSC remained owner of the parcel. This
situation appeared to preclude use of New York's Voluntary Cleanup Program. As an alternative
approach, NYDEC with the concurrence of EPA, devised a voluntary consent order mechanism
for the 102-acre parcel that is substantively equivalent to a VCP approach, but which would not
be precluded from use at a RCRA Interim Status facility.
Another goal of the pilot is to find ways to integrate the different expectations of RCRA
and applicable procedures of the NYDEC, EPA, and Erie County to facilitate the phased
redevelopment, as well as to improve community involvement in planning and activities at the
site. The future plan is to build a light industrial park.
Results to Date and Accomplishments
• BSC submitted the requisite request and legal survey information to EPA for release of
the 102-acre parcel from the RFI order. EPA issued a letter of release and BSC and EPA
both signed amended terms to the order on January 12, 2001, which achieved the initial
goal of the pilot project.
• To satisfy BSC's request to proceed under state cleanup authority and Erie Country's
desire for further investigation of the 102-acre parcel, BSC has elected to enter into a
voluntary consent order with NYDEC. NYDEC will issue a consent order modeled after
the VCP approach that will implement a state-approved site assessment work plan
prepared by BSC. NYDEC is expected to provide BSC with industrial land-use cleanup
levels and liability releases, as appropriate, once BSC has successfully met the
requirements of the order.
• On June 27, 2000, EPA funded, and the pilot team conducted, a successful stakeholder
workshop and public meeting that involved federal, state, and local officials as well as
residents interested in environmental and redevelopment issues at the site. Erie County
was instrumental to the success of the public dialogue by bringing in academics, urban
planners, and developers to discuss cleanup and revitalization of this "Greenway" into the
Buffalo area.
• EPA, the state, the county, and BSC have developed a cooperative working relationship
that should streamline future discussions about investigation and regulatory treatment of
remaining parcels on this property. The group hopes to create a template that will help
expedite cleanup and resulting redevelopment of the remainder of the underused portions
of BSC's property.
-14-
-------
Lessons Learned
• Removal of the 102-acre parcel from an EPA RCRA consent order allowed continued
progress on redevelopment goals.
• From EPA's perspective, state cleanup programs, such as acceptable voluntary cleanup
programs, can help expedite the assessment and cleanup of RCRA sites. States should
not automatically preclude their use at these sites.
• RCRA Interim Status can impose a stigma that discourages redevelopment. EPA and
states should find creative ways to address that stigma wherever appropriate.
• Creating a cooperative working relationship and spirit of trust among diverse stakeholders
on the pilot team is essential to making progress on the integration of differing regulatory
programs.
• Engaging the public and local community helps focus the dialogue on cleanup and
community revitalization.
Future of the Pilot
A letter to EPA requesting release of the 102-acre parcel from the RFI order, a legal
survey of the 102-acre area, and a letter from EPA to BSC regarding release of the 102-acre parcel
have been completed. EPA and BSC have signed an amendment to the RFI order to remove
the 102-acre area.
NYSDEC plans to negotiate a voluntary consent order with BSC. BSC also needs to
negotiate an investigation work plan to fulfill NYDEC requirements and to help Erie County with
the due diligence for the 102-acre parcel. Once these negotiations are complete, BSC will conduct
investigation and cleanup activities required for the 102-acre parcel. At that point, the team hopes
to begin addressing the next, potentially low-risk parcels planned for investigation, cleanup, and
redevelopment. It is hoped that before the end of 2001, Erie County will commit funding to start
infrastructure improvements on the 102-acre parcel as the next major step toward redevelopment
by the City of Lackawanna.
Stakeholder Feedback
Stakeholders contacted included the owner/operator and state and local governments.
Their comments are presented in the APPENDIX. In summary, stakeholders expressed their
views on two aspects of the pilot project. First, there was consensus that the pilot project
addressed RCRA issues in a way that accelerated the process toward redevelopment, highlighted
the importance of seeking to accommodate redevelopment goals in cleanup, enhanced
communications, and served to partially address the company's eligibility to participate in the
state voluntary program. However, commenters expressed frustration with what they saw as the
inflexibility of RCRA regulators at Interim Status facilities.
-15-
-------
PECO-ENERGY CHESTER, PENNSYLVANIA PILOT
Background
The PECO-Energy (now the Exelon Corporation) site comprises about 88 acres along the
Delaware River in Chester, Pennsylvania. Seventeen of these acres are currently under a RCRA
3008(h) Administrative Consent Order to investigate and characterize past waste activities. The
Delaware River waterfront has been an industrial area for about the last 150 years. Contamination
at the site consists primarily of petroleum products and poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) from
decomposing resins. Interim measures are in place to recover free product and prevent sheens
from forming on the surface of the Delaware River.
PECO-Energy no longer needs much of the land at the Chester site and is committed to
cleaning up the site for redevelopment. Current proposed uses include office buildings and other
commercial ventures. The city is an Environmental Justice area and the Regional Environmental
Justice Office has played an important part in this project.
Pilot Goals and Innovations
The overall goal of this pilot is to expedite efficient remediation that protects human
health and the environment and does not hinder redevelopment by integrating the administrative
processes of the RCRA Corrective Action and Pennsylvania's Act 2 programs. Once integrated,
remediation at the PECO-Energy site will be done under the Act 2 administrative process to avoid
duplication of time and resources for EPA, the state, and PECO-Energy. Because of this
integrated process, EPA has eliminated the need to negotiate a second Consent Order for
investigation of the site beyond the original 17 acres and a third Consent Order for
implementation of the remedy. When PECO-Energy finishes all the remediation requirements,
the entire 88-acre site will be suitable for redevelopment.
Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
• Frequent communication between EPA, PECO-Energy, PA DEP, city officials, and the
public makes the process proceed smoothly. This is especially important because the City
of Chester is an Environmental Justice area.
• By integrating the Act 2 requirements and the RCRA Corrective Action process, the area
under investigation was expanded from the 17 acres of the Consent Order to the entire 88-
acre site. The cleanup is ongoing and once the remediation is completed, the site may
apply to PA DEP for a release of environmental liability.
• EPA became more familiar with Pennsylvania's Act 2 as EPA learned to integrate the
cleanup goals of the two programs. As a result, future coordination efforts between the
Region and PA DEP should proceed more quickly, which could expedite cleanup and
redevelopment at other sites.
-16-
-------
• Remediation was faster. By eliminating the need for a second RCRA Consent Order to
investigate the rest of the site and a third RCRA Consent Order to implement the remedy,
an estimated 24 to 36 months of EPA and PECO-Energy time and resources were saved.
• EPA and the state became more efficient. By using one administrative process, EPA, PA
DEP, and PECO-Energy did not have to duplicate their efforts and saved resources. These
resources now can be used to plan for remediation and redevelopment.
• EPA's approach to corrective action at this site helped speed redevelopment, including the
creation of a river front park to enhance the quality of life in an environmental justice
community.
Future of the Pilot
On October 11, 2000, PECO-Energy Preferred Real Estate Investments (PREI) unveiled
its proposed redevelopment project plans for the Chester waterfront. The project is expected to
represent an investment of some $150-$200 million, create approximately 3,000 permanent jobs,
and create 500 temporary construction jobs. PREI signed a purchaser agreement in July 2000 and
closed on the property in May 2001. PREI has received a commitment from Synygy, Inc., a
software and systems provider company, to move its corporate headquarters to the site. PREI
plans to begin development during 2001 by renovating the old generating station into office space.
EPA expects to issue the Statement of Basis in late 2001, which begins the public
comment period for the proposed final remedy. EPA plans to mail a fact sheet to members of the
community and to hold a public meeting to collect comments. After a final remedy is determined,
PECO-Energy/Exelon will implement the remediation goals through the Act 2 process.
Stakeholder Feedback
Stakeholders contacted included state and industry interests. Their comments are included
in the APPENDIX. Stakeholders were uniformly supportive of the pilot as a
demonstration of how to integrate the federal RCRA corrective action program with the
state cleanup law to minimize duplication and accelerate the cleanup and redevelopment
process.
THE BLUE VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI PILOT
Background
The Blue Valley area in Kansas City, Missouri, is a blighted, multi-facility industrial area
that includes several RCRA-regulated facilities, including wood treaters and scrap recyclers. The
area is the Blue River flood plain in east Kansas City. This RCRA Pilot builds on the work of the
existing interagency Blue Valley Redevelopment Team formed to examine opportunities posed by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) flood control/rechannelization project on the Blue
-17-
-------
River and the EPA Brownfields program. The team partners include EPA Region 7, USAGE,
City of Kansas City (various offices), Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Hanson/Beazer
East, CEC, Inc. (a RCRA facility in the Blue Valley), and the Blue Valley Industrial Association.
Goals of the Pilot
The goals of the pilot are to perform an area-wide assessment of the Blue River Industrial
Corridor and facilitate site-specific cleanup and redevelopment of properties within this area,
starting with the Beazer East site. As a first step, the area-wide environmental assessment
includes the use of geographic information system (GIS) maps to compile and integrate data from
the USAGE, RCRA permits, Superfund assessments, and other pertinent environmental and
economic redevelopment information. These maps have been included in the city's
"Redevelopment Opportunity Portfolio." At the Beazer East site, a high-priority RCRA facility
with a post-closure permit, the team coordinated logistics, secured approvals to use dredged
material from the re-channelization project to make site improvements necessary for cleanup and
redevelopment, and provided certainty regarding future cleanup obligations by removing cleaned
portions from the cleanup requirements in the permit. The future plans are to place new industrial
facilities on old industrial properties and to revitalize the area.
Results and Accomplishments to Date
• The team has completed GIS maps for the Blue Valley and collected and reviewed existing
site specific environmental data from RCRA permits and other sources.
• The collected environmental data will become part of an area-wide background study
which will be used as a baseline comparison of contaminants in site-specific investigations
to be conducted within Missouri's VCP. The background study is about to begin pending
the approval of Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
• Multiple site tours have been conducted by the city to publicize the Redevelopment
Opportunities Portfolio.
• Approval has been obtained from Missouri to use clean dredged material as fill at the
Beazer East site to help stabilize the site for subsequent assessment and possible further
remediation. An approval from Kansas City is still needed for the placement of the fill
within the 100-years flood plain. The use of dredge materials has expedited RCRA
Corrective Action at the site.
• The Team has focused attention on the cleanup, redevelopment, and reuse of the AK Steel
site, a former steel making facility. AK Steel is now performing interim corrective actions
at the site.
-18-
-------
Lessons Learned
• Frequent communication among stakeholders and a willingness to bridge the differences
between different governments and regulatory programs is critical to success.
• Resolving issues associated with the reuse of dredged fill material approval in time for the
USAGE project work, with approvals required by Kansas City, Missouri, and other entities
(railroads), has been a challenge. Now that stakeholders have worked through the issues
once at the Beazer East site, they should be able to proceed more expeditiously at other
sites in the Blue Valley where reuse of dredged material is appropriate.
Future of the Pilot
In September 2001, the Team partners anticipate that an area-wide characterization of the
environmental conditions of the Blue Valley Industrial Corridor will be conducted, including
typical contamination levels by past-land-use category, background PAH and metals levels, and
qualitative ecological risk assessment data for use in site-specific risk assessments necessary for
voluntary cleanups. EPA also anticipates carving out Beazer East Tracts A and B from the RCRA
permit and the successful redevelopment of part or all of the Beazer East site.
Stakeholder Feedback
Stakeholders contacted included city, community, and business interests. Their comments
are included in the APPENDIX. The pilot was credited with accelerating the state RCRA process
and integrating state and federal approaches to accommodate site redevelopment goals.
Stakeholders felt that EPA should further explore the connection between brownfields and RCRA
sites as there often is a disconnect between remedial project managers and city land-use planners
regarding end use of the site. Some stakeholders felt that regulator attitudes often are a
disincentive for companies to "step up for help." They believe that for that reason, brownfield
sites remain unaddressed even though they are often ideally situated compared with greenfield
sites.
-19-
-------
APPENDIX
Stakeholder Feedback on RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative Pilot Projects
[Note: EPA sought feedback from external stakeholders involved with each of the four pilot
projects to help the Agency further improve communications, define needed refinements to the
over all RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative, and identify their concerns and perspectives.
EPA 's view is that all of the pilots worked well to identify issues and to formulate solutions, and
that the feedback was beneficial to focus attention on specific concerns and necessary next steps
in communications and outreach. Stakeholder comments are verbatim or edited only for context.
To assist the reader, each set of comments is followed by a note explaining the Agency's response
and steps taken to date, as appropriate.]
CBS/VIACOM BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT PILOT
Stakeholder Comments
There is "buy in" to the concept that getting everyone to the table and talking about all the
issues involving cleanup and redevelopment will advance both. "The proof will be in the
pudding on this pilot, as it is still early on." The pilot does show that if you get all the
stakeholders communicating, good things can happen.
The jury is still out here, however, and it is hoped that the cleanup will not be complicated
by RCRA regulations.
This pilot project is a good process. It helped timeliness some and it would be very
helpful for the pilot to continue, as it has greatly improved communications between all
parties and kept all expectations on the table and understood by all parties. There is a big
overall benefit to being able to integrate remediation with redevelopment.
The pilot is not of great consequence yet; but it is admirable that EPA is making an effort
to streamline the process.
[The pilot project] While not a regulatory program, "it still could involve some additional
expense to companies, and thus they should only be brought into the pilot process with
their advance consent."
A site earlier in the process might be more amenable to the pilot process, but this one had
been in the state pipeline for 12 years, and now was being shoe-horned" into the federal
RCRA pilot program. A fresher site may be more conducive to streamlining.
• The potential redevelopment here would be viewed as a home run if it ultimately came
through. Any word from EPA and/or the state that the pilot process would be aimed at
-20-
-------
streamlining the assessment and cleanup at a minimum, would not be an obstacle to the
redeveloper, and would continue to coordinate efforts would be viewed very favorably by
the interested parties.
• The potential redeveloper may wish to explore further liability relief such as state
covenants not to sue or federal comfort letters.
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the feedback about early communication with companies
that may become involved in pilot projects. Based on the pilot to date, EPA is confident that the
RCRA will not impede successful completion of the project. EPA and the state are working with
the redeveloper, provided assurances that the assessment and cleanup can proceed as part of the
redevelopment planning, and will continue to coordinate efforts at the site. For the next round of
RCRA Brownfields projects, EPA included company acceptance as a key consideration for
selection, stakeholders were apprised well in advance, and in several cases, helped to define the
scope of the pilot effort. The Agency also believes this project (as well as the other first round
pilots) further reinforces the value of broad-based and early stakeholder involvement in RCRA
cleanups where the potential exists for property reuse and revitalization. EPA has worked to help
streamline the assessment and cleanup with the involvement of city, state, and private
redevelopment interests.
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION LACKAWANNA, NEW YORK PILOT
Stakeholder Comments
Having the pilot project and forming the pilot team represented a "genuine" effort. It was
beneficial to have "parties at the table to hear issues," "break down barriers to
communication," and very much "worthwhile overall."
The pilot process helped focus attention and "accelerate action at the facility, especially for
the 102-acre parcel" covered by the pilot project. Two commenters further noted that but
for the pilot project, the non- or less-contaminated portion (the 102 acres) would "not have
been dealt with" separately and redevelopment at that (and adjacent portions) of the site
would have been delayed until the entire site was assessed and remediated, which is years
away.
Several comments addressed the issue of release of Interim Status for the 102-acre parcel.
EPA "inflexibility" under RCRA to "protect over-filing" and "EPA refusal to release
Interim Status is a mystery, and seems designed to, keep the owner/operator from spending
its money to clean its site to put the parcel back on the tax rolls as soon as possible."
Another comment expressed disappointment that the project couldn't "hit the Interim
Status issue head-on" and that what has happened (the state voluntary order) is "skirting
the Interim Status issue."
-21-
-------
• The state commitment to use a "voluntary order" (for the 102 acres) will work for this
parcel at this site, but in all probability may not be used elsewhere at this site and won't
help anybody else at other sites, in this area or elsewhere in the state.
• The pilot really "highlighted the importance of redevelopment goals."
• The pilot should continue to the keep the spotlight on the Interim Status "release" issue
and continue pushing EPA and the state to fix it, otherwise, it was not clear that the pilot
would accomplish anything further once the state order went into effect. It is good to have
everyone talking but that may not be enough reason to keep going.
EPA Response: EPA understands the difficulties that can arise regarding the regulatory status of
RCRA sites and agrees that it would be helpful to clarify how and when regulators may release a
facility from "Interim Status" at RCRA facilities. At this pilot site, EPA encouraged and strongly
supported pilot team efforts to work through the Interim Status issues in a way that recognized the
interests of both the company and community and provided for an outcome that is consistent with
the state voluntary cleanup program and meets the overall RCRA goal of protection of human
health and the environment. The state's voluntary order is expected to serve these purposes.
Subsequent to the release of the 102-acre parcel from the RFI, EPA also notified the state that
upon the completion of the ongoing facility investigation, the entire site would be turned over to
New York for completion of assessments or remediation as may be necessary. EPA will issue for
comment guidance on ways to reflect that cleanup obligations at RCRA sites or portions of sites
(whether permitted or Interim Status) are complete. Where appropriate, EPA will continue to
encourage the use of state voluntary cleanup authorities or other alternative approaches to help
expedite cleanup and redevelopment and prevent future brownfields at RCRA sites.
PECO-ENERGY CHESTER, PENNSYLVANIA PILOT
Stakeholder Comments
• The pilot has been very helpful. This one, along with three others, is showing how to fully
integrate [Pennsylvania's] Act 2 with RCRA corrective action. Stakeholders are working
well with EPA.
• The "hang-up" at the site is not administrative, but is the city and county debating over the
land-use plan. Some are pushing for residential use that would require re-zoning and more
cleanup. The plan must be complete before remedy selection and the pilot may help push
the process along.
• It would be helpful for EPA to get a more formal process or mechanism into place for
EPA to simply refer corrective action sites to Act 2. That effort would greatly streamline
cleanup.
EPA Response: Like the CBS/Viacom pilot, this project demonstrated that state cleanup
programs, whether in authorized states or not, can be effectively integrated with federal RCRA
-22-
-------
programs to enhance efficiency, avoid duplication, and streamline the cleanup and redevelopment
process. The Agency will continue to emphasize the importance of diverse stakeholder
involvement at sites and the value of the involvement, in particular when environmental justice
issues arise. EPA Region 3 is working with PA DEP to address the issue of a formal mechanism
for site referral to the Act 2 program, where appropriate.
THE BLUE VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI PILOT
Stakeholder Comments
• There is a beneficial effect to changing the RCRA culture from a five- to ten-year
regulatory process to close out sites to a more expeditious redevelopment-oriented
approach.
• A major drawback is the lack of direct funding for the pilots. It is hard to see the value of
more pilots without either more funding or more personnel in terms of in-house EPA
resources to help out.
• In terms of benefits, the status as a RCRA pilot helped the process at the state level, both
in terms of accelerating the RCRA process and being more receptive to site
redevelopment. This is a key benefit as many states have become more conservative
[cautious] than EPA in recent years. We hope to see more benefits in the coming months.
• It would be helpful to solicit pilot applications from outside EPA. Let projects come from
communities or owner/operators, not just EPA. This would take some marketing effort
and incentives to advertise.
• EPA should explore more of the connection between brownfields and RCRA sites. EPA
should also involve other agencies as stakeholders in the RCRA process. For example,
there often is a disconnect between EPA's remedial project managers and the city land-use
planners as to the end use of the site.
• EPA Region 7 is a good advocate for encouraging corrective action sites to enter into
brownfields reuse programs [such as this pilot].
• A "dictatorial" attitude is prevalent among cleanup regulators, including RCRA, that fails
to recognize and deal with companies willing to "step up" and that need help, but instead
find no incentive and no reward for taking the initiative. So it remains easier for
companies to do nothing.
• One company strongly advocated redevelopment and also noted more generally that steel
company sites, which can have problems, often are situated in ideal locations compared
with "greenfields" sites.
-23-
-------
EPA Response: The Agency appreciates the feedback on the Blue Valley Redevelopment pilot
and will continue to stress the importance of early and on-going involvement of stakeholders in
any site cleanups, as well as the importance of speeding cleanup to allow redevelopment of
RCRA sites wherever possible. Training and outreach to stakeholders, including federal and state
regulators, will continue as part of the RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative throughout 2001.
-24-
------- |