Brownfield land

Last updated

Example of brownfield land after excavation at a disused gasworks site, with soil contamination from removed underground storage tanks Soilcontam.JPG
Example of brownfield land after excavation at a disused gasworks site, with soil contamination from removed underground storage tanks

Brownfield is previously-developed land that has been abandoned or underutilized, [1] and which may carry pollution, or a risk of pollution, from industrial use. [2] The specific definition of brownfield land varies and is decided by policy makers and land developers within different countries. [3] [4] The main difference in definitions of whether a piece of land is considered a brownfield or not depends on the presence or absence of pollution. [3] [5] Overall, brownfield land is a site previously developed for industrial or commercial purposes and thus requires further development before reuse. [3] [6]

Contents

Examples of post industrial brownfield sites include abandoned factories, dry cleaning establishments, and gas stations. [7] [4] Typical contaminants include hydrocarbon spillages, solvents and pesticides, asbestos, and heavy metals like lead. [8] [9]

Many contaminated post-industrial brownfield sites sit unused because the cleaning costs may be more than the land is worth after redevelopment. Previously unknown underground wastes can increase the cost for study and clean-up. [10] Depending on the contaminants and damage present adaptive re-use and disposal of a brownfield can require advanced and specialized appraisal analysis techniques. [10]

Definition

Canada

The Federal Government of Canada defines brownfields as "abandoned, idle or underutilized commercial or industrial properties [typically located in urban areas] where past actions have caused environmental contamination, but which still have potential for redevelopment or other economic opportunities." [11]

United States

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defined brownfield as a property where expansion, redevelopment or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant. [12] This comports well with an available general definition of the term, which scopes to "industrial or commercial property". [2]

The term brownfield first came into use on June 28, 1992, at a U.S. congressional field hearing hosted by the Northeast Midwest Congressional Coalition. Also in 1992, the first detailed policy analysis of the issue was convened by the Cuyahoga County, Ohio Planning Commission. EPA selected Cuyahoga County as its first brownfield pilot project in September 1993. [13] The term applies more generally to previously used land or to sections of industrial or commercial facilities that are to be upgraded. [14]

In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (the "Brownfields Law") which provides grants and tools to local governments for the assessment, cleanup, and revitalization of brownfields as well as unique technical and program management experience, and public and environmental health expertise to individual brownfield communities. The motivation for this act was the success of the EPA's brownfields program, which it started in the 1990s in response to several court cases that caused lenders to redline contaminated property for fear of liability under the Superfund. As of September 2023, the EPA estimates that the EPA Brownfields program has resulted in 134,414 acres of land readied for reuse. [15]

Mothballed brownfields are properties that the owners are not willing to transfer or put to productive reuse. [16]

Brownfield status is a legal designation which places restrictions, conditions or incentives on redevelopment and use on the site. [17]

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, brownfield land and previously developed land (PDL) have the same definition under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). [1] [18] The government of the United Kingdom refers to them both as: "Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure." [18] [19]

They exclude land that: "is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures; land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time." [18] [19]

Locations and contaminants

An abandoned factory, an example of what may be considered brownfield land Abandoned factory in Lexington.jpg
An abandoned factory, an example of what may be considered brownfield land

Generally, post industrial brownfield sites exist in a city's or town's industrial section, on locations with abandoned factories or commercial buildings, or other previously polluting operations like steel mills, refineries or landfills. [20]

Small brownfields also may be found in older residential neighborhoods, as for example dry cleaning establishments or gas stations produced high levels of subsurface contaminants.

Typical contaminants found on contaminated brownfield land include hydrocarbon spillages, solvents, pesticides, heavy metals such as lead (e.g., paints), tributyl tins, and asbestos. [20] Old maps may assist in identifying areas to be tested.

Brownfield status by country

The primary issue facing all nations involved in attracting and sustaining new uses to brownfield sites is globalization of industry.[ citation needed ] This directly affects brownfield reuse, such as limiting the effective economic life of the use on the revitalized sites.[ citation needed ]

Canada

Canada has an estimated 200,000 "contaminated sites" across the nation.[ citation needed ]As of 2016, Canada had about 23,078 federally recognized contamination sites, from abandoned mines, to airports, lighthouse stations, and military bases, which are classified into N 1,2,or 3, depending on a score of contamination, with 5,300 active contaminated sites, 2,300 suspected sites and 15,000 listed as closed because remediated or no action was necessary. [21] [22]

The provincial governments have primary responsibility for brownfields.[ citation needed ] The provinces' legal mechanisms for managing risk are limited, as there are no tools such as "No Further Action" letters to give property owners finality and certainty in the cleanup and reuse process.[ citation needed ] Yet, Canada has cleaned up sites and attracted investment to contaminated lands such as the Moncton rail yards.[ citation needed ] A strip of the Texaco lands in Mississauga is slated to be part of the Waterfront Trail.[ citation needed ] However, Imperial Oil has no plans to sell the 75-acre (30 ha) property which has been vacant since the 1980s.

According to their 2014 report on federally listed contaminated sites, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the "total liability for remediating Canada's contaminated sites reported in the public accounts [was] $4.9 billion." [23] : 1  The report listed significant sites called the Big Five with a liability of $1.8 billion: Faro mine, Colomac Mine, Giant Mine, Cape Dyer-DEW line and Goose Bay Air Base. The Port Hope, Ontario site has a liability of $1 billion. [23] Port Hope has the largest volume of historic low-level radioactive wastes in Canada, resulting from "radium and uranium processing in Port Hope between 1933 and 1988 by the former Crown corporation Eldorado Nuclear Limited and its private sector predecessors. [24] [25] By 2010 it was projected that it would cost well over a billion dollars for the soil remediation project, it was the largest such cleanup in Canadian history. The effort is projected to be complete in 2022. [26] In July 2015 the $86,847,474 contract "to relocate the historic low-level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soils from an existing waste management facility on the shoreline of Lake Ontario to the new, state-of-the-art facility about a kilometre north of the current site." was undertaken. [24] There is also "$1.8 billion for general inventory sites" and "$200 million for other sites." [23] : 1  The same report claimed the inventory currently lists 24,990 contaminated sites."

The federal government exercises some control over environmental protection, the "provincial and territorial governments issue the bulk of legislation regarding contaminated sites." [23] : 4–5  Under the Shared-Responsibility Contaminated Sites Policy Framework (2005), the government may provide funding for the remediation of nonfederal sites, if the contamination is related to federal government activities or national security. See Natural Resources Canada (2012)

Denmark

While Denmark lacks the large land base which creates the magnitude of brownfield issues facing countries such as Germany and the U.S., brownfield sites in areas critical to the local economies of Denmark's cities require sophisticated solutions and careful interaction with affected communities. Examples include the cleanup and redevelopment of former and current ship building facilities along Copenhagen's historic waterfront. Laws in Denmark require a higher degree of coordination of planning and reuse than is found in many other countries.

France

In France, brownfields are called friches industrielles and the Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement Durable et de l'Énergie (MEDDE) maintains a database of polluted sites named BASOL, with "more than 4,000 sites", [27] of about 300,000 to 400,000 potentially polluted sites total (around 100,000 ha), [28] in a historical inventory named BASIAS, maintained by the Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maitrise de l'Energie (ADEME).

Hong Kong

Developing brownfield land is considered by the public as one of the most popular ways to increase housing in Hong Kong. [29] The Liber Research Community has found 1,521 hectares of brownfield land in Hong Kong, and has found that almost 90% of existing uses of the land could easily be moved into multi-story buildings, freeing up land that could be used efficiently for housing. [30] In June 2021, Liber Research Community and Greenpeace East Asia collaborated and found a new total of 1,950 hectares of brownfield sites, 379 more hectares than the government was previously able to locate. [31]

Germany

Germany loses greenfields at a rate of about 1.2 square kilometres per day for settlement and transportation infrastructure. Each of the approximately 14,700 local municipalities is empowered to allocate lands for industrial and commercial use. Local control over reuse decisions of German brownfield sites (Industriebrache) is a critical factor. Industrial sites tend to be remote due to zoning laws, and incur costly overhead for providing infrastructure such as utilities, disposal services and transportation.[ citation needed ] In 1989, a brownfield of the Ruhrgebiet became Emscher Park. [32]

United Kingdom

In the UK, centuries of industrial use of lands which once formed the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution have left entire regions in a brownfield status. There are legal and fiscal incentives for brownfield redevelopment. Remediation laws are centered on the premise that the remediation should leave land safe and suitable for its current or intended use. In 2018, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) reported that the 17,656 sites (covering over 28,000 hectares of land) identified by English local planning authorities on their Brownfield Land Registers would provide enough land for a minimum of 1 million homes, which could rise to over 1.1 million once all registers are published. The registers contain land that is available for redevelopment so is a small subset of all land that would be considered brownfield. There is also brownfield capacity in areas in which the green belt is in danger, for example in Northwest England, where local authorities have identified enough brownfield land to provide for 12 years of housing demand. [33]

The UK government has recognised the ecological importance of brownfield sites and has afforded some protection to such habitats through the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan. [34] The Creekside Discovery Centre in Deptford, London is an urban wildlife centre encompassing brownfield habitats. [35]

United States

United States estimates suggest there are over 500,000 brownfield sites contaminated at levels below the Superfund caliber (the most contaminated) in the country.[ citation needed ] While historic land use patterns created contaminated sites, the Superfund law has been criticized as creating the brownfield phenomenon where investment moves to greenfields for new development due to severe, no-fault liability schemes and other disincentives.[ citation needed ] The Clinton-Gore administration and US EPA launched a series of brownfield policies and programs in 1993 to tackle this problem.[ citation needed ]

Redevelopment

Valuation and financing

Acquisition, adaptive re-use, and disposal of a brownfield site requires advanced and specialized appraisal analysis techniques. For example, the highest and best use of the brownfield site may be affected by the contamination, both before and after remediation. Additionally, the value should take into account residual stigma and potential for third-party liability. Normal appraisal techniques frequently fail, and appraisers must rely on more advanced techniques, such as contingent valuation, case studies, or statistical analyses. [36] [ failed verification ] A 2011 University of Delaware study has suggested a 17.5:1 return on dollars invested on brownfield redevelopment. [37] A 2014 study of EPA brownfield cleanup grants from 2002 through 2008 found an average benefit value of almost $4 million per brownfield site (with a median of $2,117,982). [38] To expedite the cleanup of brownfield sites in the US, some environmental firms have teamed up with insurance companies to underwrite the cleanup and provide a guaranteed cleanup cost to limit land developers' exposure to environmental remediation costs and pollution lawsuits. The environmental firm first performs an extensive investigation generally in the form of desk studies and potentially further intrusive investigation. [39]

Remediation strategies

In Situ bioremediation, a method used to remove pollution from the soil located on brownfield land. This method is done on site instead of taking it elsewhere for processing. In Situ Bioremediation.png
In Situ bioremediation, a method used to remove pollution from the soil located on brownfield land. This method is done on site instead of taking it elsewhere for processing.

Innovative remediation techniques used at distressed brownfields in recent years include in situ thermal remediation, bioremediation and in situ oxidation. Often, these strategies are used in conjunction with each other or with other remedial strategies such as soil vapor extraction. In this process, vapor from the soil phase is extracted from soils and treated, which has the effect of removing contaminants from the soils and groundwater beneath a site. Binders can be added to contaminated soil to prevent chemical leaching. [40] Some brownfields with heavy metal contamination have even been cleaned up through an innovative approach called phytoremediation, which uses deep-rooted plants to soak up metals in soils into the plant structure as the plant grows. After they reach maturity, the plants – which now contain the heavy metal contaminants in their tissues – are removed and disposed of as hazardous waste.[ citation needed ]

Phytoremediation, a method that can be used to remove pollutants from brownfield land. It uses plants to take up pollutants from the soil. Phytoremediation Process.svg
Phytoremediation, a method that can be used to remove pollutants from brownfield land. It uses plants to take up pollutants from the soil.

Research is under way to see if some brownfields can be used to grow crops, specifically for the production of biofuels. [41] Michigan State University, in collaboration with DaimlerChrysler and NextEnergy, has small plots of soybean, corn, canola, and switchgrass growing in a former industrial dump site in Oakland County, Michigan. The intent is to see if the plants can serve two purposes simultaneously: assist with phytoremediation, and contribute to the economical production of biodiesel and/or ethanol fuel.[ citation needed ]

The regeneration of brownfields in the United Kingdom and in other European countries has gained prominence due to greenfield land restrictions as well as their potential to promote the urban renaissance. [14] Development of brownfield sites also presents an opportunity to reduce the environmental impact on communities, and considerable assessments need to take place in order to evaluate the size of this opportunity. [42]

Barriers

Many contaminated brownfield sites sit unused for decades because the cost of cleaning them to safe standards is more than the land would be worth after redevelopment, in the process becoming involuntary parks as they grow over. However, redevelopment has become more common in the first decade of the 21st century, as developable land has become less available in highly populated areas, and brownfields contribute to environmental stigma which can delay redevelopment. [43] Also, the methods of studying contaminated land have become more sophisticated and costly.[ citation needed ]

Some states and localities have spent considerable money assessing the contamination on local brownfield sites, to quantify the cleanup costs in an effort to move the redevelopment process forward. Therefore, federal and state programs have been developed to help developers interested in cleaning up brownfield sites and restoring them to practical uses.[ citation needed ]

In the process of cleaning contaminated brownfield sites, previously unknown underground storage tanks, buried drums or buried railroad tank cars containing wastes are sometimes encountered. Unexpected circumstances increase the cost for study and clean-up. As a result, the cleanup work may be delayed or stopped entirely. To avoid unexpected contamination and increased costs, many developers insist that a site be thoroughly investigated (via a Phase II Site Investigation or Remedial Investigation) prior to commencing remedial cleanup activities.[ citation needed ]

Post-redevelopment uses

Brownfield relic serves as monument in a new park in Atlantic Station area of Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Atlantic Station central park statue.jpg
Brownfield relic serves as monument in a new park in Atlantic Station area of Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.
Residential development at former brownfield site in New Jersey Hudson Riv WW canal Port Liberte jeh.jpg
Residential development at former brownfield site in New Jersey
Pedestrians walking along hillside path in Seonyudo Park, Seoul, South Korea which was developed from a former brownfield site Seonyudo Park.jpg
Pedestrians walking along hillside path in Seonyudo Park, Seoul, South Korea which was developed from a former brownfield site

Commercial and residential

As of 2006 the Atlantic Station project in Atlanta, was the largest brownfield redevelopment in the United States. [44] Dayton, like many other cities in the region, is developing Tech Town in order to attract technology-based firms to Dayton and revitalize the downtown area. [ citation needed ] In Homestead, Pennsylvania, the site once occupied by Carnegie Steel has been converted into a successful commercial center, The Waterfront.[ citation needed ]

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has successfully converted[ when? ] numerous former steel mill sites into high-end residential, shopping, and offices. Examples of brownfield redevelopment in Pittsburgh include:

Solar landfill

Solar arrays on a full landfill in Rehoboth, MA Faria 000102 153913 493502 4578 (35502216424).jpg
Solar arrays on a full landfill in Rehoboth, MA

A Solar landfill is a repurposed used landfill that is converted to a solar array solar farm. [45]

Regulation

United States

In the United States, Brownfield regulation and development is governed mainly by state environmental agencies in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 1995, the EPA launched the Brownfields Program, which was expanded in 2002 with the Brownfields Law. [38] The EPA and local and national governments can provide technical help and some funding for assessment and cleanup. [38] From 2002 through 2013, the EPA awarded nearly 1,000 clean-up grants for almost $190 million. It can also provide tax incentives for cleanup that is not paid for outright; specifically, cleanup costs are fully tax-deductible in the year they are incurred. [46] Many of the most important provisions on liability relief are contained in state codes that can differ significantly from state to state. [47]

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, regulation of contaminated land comes from Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; responsibility falls on local authorities to create a "contaminated land register". For sites with dubious past and present uses, the Local Planning Authority may ask for a desktop study, [48] which is sometimes implemented as a condition in planning applications. [49] However by definition land that is derelict or underused is highly unlikely to be determined as contaminated land – primarily due to risks to human health.

The key regulation of brownfield land is through the land use planning system when a new land use is being considered.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Superfund</span> US federal program

Superfund is a United States federal environmental remediation program established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The program is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The program is designed to investigate and clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances. Sites managed under this program are referred to as Superfund sites. Of all the sites selected for possible action under this program, 1178 remain on the National Priorities List (NPL) that makes them eligible for cleanup under the Superfund program. Sites on the NPL are considered the most highly contaminated and undergo longer-term remedial investigation and remedial action (cleanups). The state of New Jersey, the fifth smallest state in the U.S., is the location of about ten percent of the priority Superfund sites, a disproportionate amount.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental remediation</span> Removal of pollution from soil, groundwater etc.

Environmental remediation is the cleanup of hazardous substances dealing with the removal, treatment and containment of pollution or contaminants from environmental media such as soil, groundwater, sediment. Remediation may be required by regulations before development of land revitalization projects. Developers who agree to voluntary cleanup may be offered incentives under state or municipal programs like New York State's Brownfield Cleanup Program. If remediation is done by removal the waste materials are simply transported off-site for disposal at another location. The waste material can also be contained by physical barriers like slurry walls. The use of slurry walls is well-established in the construction industry. The application of (low) pressure grouting, used to mitigate soil liquefaction risks in San Francisco and other earthquake zones, has achieved mixed results in field tests to create barriers, and site-specific results depend upon many variable conditions that can greatly impact outcomes.

The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 11, 2002. Brownfields are defined as, "A former industrial or commercial site where future use is affected by real or perceived environmental contamination." The Brownfields Law amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act by providing funds to assess and clean up brownfields, clarifying CERCLA liability protections, and providing funds to enhance state and tribal response programs. Other related laws and regulations impact brownfields cleanup and reuse through financial incentives and regulatory requirements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Priorities List</span> Priority list of hazardous waste sites in the United States

The National Priorities List (NPL) is the priority list of hazardous waste sites in the United States eligible for long-term remedial investigation and remedial action (cleanup) financed under the federal Superfund program. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations outline a formal process for assessing hazardous waste sites and placing them on the NPL. The NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites are so contaminated as to warrant further investigation and significant cleanup.

The Inter-Tribal Environmental Council (ITEC) was set up in 1992 to protect the health of Native Americans, their natural resources, and environment. To accomplish this ITEC provides technical support, training and environmental services in a variety of disciplines. Currently, there are over forty ITEC member tribes in Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. The ITEC is an example of the Native American Pan-Indian Organizations and Efforts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Soil contamination</span> Pollution of land by human-made chemicals or other alteration

Soil contamination, soil pollution, or land pollution as a part of land degradation is caused by the presence of xenobiotic (human-made) chemicals or other alteration in the natural soil environment. It is typically caused by industrial activity, agricultural chemicals or improper disposal of waste. The most common chemicals involved are petroleum hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides, lead, and other heavy metals. Contamination is correlated with the degree of industrialization and intensity of chemical substance. The concern over soil contamination stems primarily from health risks, from direct contact with the contaminated soil, vapour from the contaminants, or from secondary contamination of water supplies within and underlying the soil. Mapping of contaminated soil sites and the resulting clean ups are time-consuming and expensive tasks, and require expertise in geology, hydrology, chemistry, computer modelling, and GIS in Environmental Contamination, as well as an appreciation of the history of industrial chemistry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Phase I environmental site assessment</span> Contamination assessment for US real estate, known as ESA

In the United States, an environmental site assessment is a report prepared for a real estate holding that identifies potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities. The analysis, often called an ESA, typically addresses both the underlying land as well as physical improvements to the property. A proportion of contaminated sites are "brownfield sites." In severe cases, brownfield sites may be added to the National Priorities List where they will be subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program.

Remediation of contaminated sites with cement, also called solidification/stabilization with cement is a common method for the safe environmental remediation of contaminated land with cement. The cement solidifies the contaminated soil and prevents pollutants from moving, such as rain causing leaching of pollutants into the groundwater or being carried into streams by rain or snowmelt. Developed in the 1950s, the technology is widely used today to treat industrial hazardous waste and contaminated material at brownfield sites i.e. abandoned or underutilized properties that are not being redeveloped because of fears that they may be contaminated with hazardous waste. S/S provides an economically viable means of treating contaminated sites. This technology treats and contains contaminated soil on site thereby reducing the need for landfills.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Havertown Superfund</span> Superfund site in Pennsylvania

Havertown Superfund is a 13-acre polluted groundwater site in Havertown, Pennsylvania contaminated by the dumping of industrial waste by National Wood Preservers from 1947 to 1991. The state first became aware of the pollution in 1962 and initiated legal action against the owners in 1973 to force them to cleanup the site. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ranked the site the eighth worst cleanup project in the United States. The site was added to the National Priorities List in 1983 and designated as a Superfund cleanup site in the early 1990s. Remediation and monitoring efforts are ongoing and the EPA transferred control of the site to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Land recycling</span> Reuse of abandoned buildings or sites

Land recycling is the reuse of abandoned, vacant, or underused properties for redevelopment or repurposing.

Brownfields are defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as properties that are complicated by the potential presence of pollutants or otherwise hazardous substances. The pollutants such as heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), poly- and per-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contaminating these sites are typically due to commercial or industrial work that was previously done on the land. This includes locations such as abandoned gas stations, laundromats, factories, and mills. By a process called land revitalization, these once polluted sites can be remediated into locations that can be utilized by the public.

The Escambia Wood Treating Company (ETC) site is located at 3910 Palafox Highway, northeast of the intersection of Fairfield Drive in Pensacola, Florida, and is in a mixed industrial, commercial, and residential area. The site includes the 26-acre property of the former wood preserving facility and over 60 acres of nearby neighborhoods. The facility was in operation from 1942 until 1982, then abandoned by the owner in 1991. During its operation, ETC treated utility poles, foundation pilings, and lumber with creosote and pentachlorophenol. Production byproducts were dumped into on-site, unlined containment pits where they seeped into the surrounding soil and groundwater. Escambia Wood Treating Company

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shpack Landfill</span> Hazardous waste site in Massachusetts

Shpack Landfill is a hazardous waste site in Norton, Massachusetts. After assessment by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) it was added to the National Priorities List in October 1986 for long-term remedial action. The site cleanup is directed by the federal Superfund program. The Superfund site covers 9.4 acres, mostly within Norton, with 3.4 acres in the adjoining city of Attleboro. The Norton site was operated as a landfill dump accepting domestic and industrial wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, between 1946 and 1965. The source of most of the radioactive waste, consisting of uranium and radium, was Metals and Controls Inc. which made enriched uranium fuel elements for the U.S. Navy under contract with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Metals and Controls merged with Texas Instruments in 1959. The Shpack landfill operation was shut down by a court order in 1965.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Koppers Co., Inc. Superfund Site</span>

The Koppers Co., Inc. (KCI) Superfund Site is one of three Superfund sites in Oroville, California, along with Louisiana Pacific Sawmill and Western Pacific Railyard. The KCI Superfund Site is a 200-acre site which served as a wood treatment plant for 50 years. Wood was treated with many chemicals to prevent wood deterioration. The accumulation of these chemicals from spills, fires, and uses has caused this site to be contaminated with the hazardous waste material. Due to soil and groundwater contamination, the site was placed on the National Priorities List in 1984 for remedial action plans to clean up the site to protect surrounding residential areas concerning environmental and human health risks.

The Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront Superfund site is a contaminated region of the Wisconsin shoreline of Lake Superior that is being studied for remediation by Northern States Power Wisconsin (NSPW), as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). This site has held a manufactured gas plant from 1845 to 1947, as well as lumber manufacturing and treatment mills for four decades at the start of the 20th century, railcar loading facilities, and a municipal landfill. Additionally, a wastewater treatment plant is located on the premises, but is not in operation. Contamination of the site is currently believed to have been caused by all the parties mentioned above, or former owners of the property whose companies are no longer in business. The area is listed as a Superfund site by the EPA under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Releases of hazardous substances occurred onshore and migrated into sediment in Chequamagon Bay on Lake Superior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Gulch</span> Area in Lake County, Colorado, US

The California Gulch site consists of approximately 18 square miles in Lake County, Colorado. The area includes the city of Leadville, parts of the Leadville Historic Mining District and a section of the Arkansas River from the confluence of California Gulch downstream to the confluence of Two-Bit Gulch. The site was listed as a Superfund site in 1983.

Water in Arkansas is an important issue encompassing the conservation, protection, management, distribution and use of the water resource in the state. Arkansas contains a mixture of groundwater and surface water, with a variety of state and federal agencies responsible for the regulation of the water resource. In accordance with agency rules, state, and federal law, the state's water treatment facilities utilize engineering, chemistry, science and technology to treat raw water from the environment to potable water standards and distribute it through water mains to homes, farms, business and industrial customers. Following use, wastewater is collected in collection and conveyance systems, decentralized sewer systems or septic tanks and treated in accordance with regulations at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) before being discharged to the environment.

The A.O. Polymer manufacturing site is located in Sparta Township, New Jersey. This facility created special polymers, plastics, and resins. It was also used for reclaiming spent solvents. The facility's poor waste handling led to serious contamination of the ground. It also contaminated the water in the ground with volatile organic compounds. The site has been a threat to the Allentown aquifer, which provides drinking water to over 5,000 people. Initial clean ups started with getting rid of old drums and contaminants from their original disposal area. The company took them and decided to dispose of them elsewhere, thus not fixing the problem. Primary cleanups of the site were ongoing as of 2008. The EPA has been using water pumps to remove contaminants from the water in the ground. A soil extraction system has been put at their disposal to remove harmful contamination within the soil as well. All wells in the affected areas have been closed.

The Orange Valley Regional Groundwater Superfund site is a group of wells in Orange and West Orange, two municipalities in Essex County, New Jersey, United States. The groundwater in the public wells are contaminated with the hazardous chemicals of Trichloroethylene (TCE), Dichloroethene (DCE), Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethene), 1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), and 1,2-Dichloroethene (1,2-DCE). These chemicals pose a huge risk to the towns nearby population, as the wells are a source of public drinking water. In March 2012, the site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site list.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legacy pollution</span> Pollution caused by historical use of a chemical

Legacy pollution or legacy pollutants are persistent materials in the environment that were created through a polluting industry or process that have polluting effects after the process has finished. Frequently these include persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals or other chemicals residual in the environment long after the industrial or extraction processes that produced them. Often these are chemicals produced by industry and polluted before there was widespread awareness of the toxic effects of the pollutants, and subsequently regulated or banned. Notable legacy pollutants include mercury, PCBs, Dioxins and other chemicals that are widespread health and environmental effects. Sites for legacy pollutants include mining sites, industrial parks, waterways contaminated by industry, and other dump sites.

References

  1. 1 2 "Brownfield land registers". GOV.UK. Retrieved February 20, 2023.
  2. 1 2 "Glossary of Brownfields Terms". Brownfields Center. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute. Archived from the original on February 26, 2015.
  3. 1 2 3 Jacek, Guillaume; Rozan, Anne; Desrousseaux, Maylis; Combroux, Isabelle (May 18, 2021). "Brownfields over the years: from definition to sustainable reuse". Environmental Reviews. 30: 50–60. doi:10.1139/er-2021-0017. S2CID   236348006.
  4. 1 2 Loures, Luis; Vaz, Eric (February 1, 2018). "Exploring expert perception towards brownfield redevelopment benefits according to their typology". Habitat International. Regional Intelligence: A new kind of GIScience. 72: 66–76. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.11.003. ISSN   0197-3975.
  5. ↑ Tang, Yu-Ting; Nathanail, C. Paul (May 3, 2012). "Sticks and Stones: The Impact of the Definitions of Brownfield in Policies on Socio-Economic Sustainability". Sustainability. 4 (5): 840–862. doi: 10.3390/su4050840 . ISSN   2071-1050.
  6. ↑ Alker, Sandra; Joy, Victoria; Roberts, Peter; Smith, Nathan (January 1, 2000). "The Definition of Brownfield". Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 43 (1): 49–69. Bibcode:2000JEPM...43...49A. doi:10.1080/09640560010766. ISSN   0964-0568. S2CID   153395212.
  7. ↑ Trouw, Michael; Weiler, Stephan; Silverstein, Jesse (March 6, 2020). "Brownfield Development: Uncertainty, Asymmetric Information, and Risk Premia". Sustainability. 12 (5): 2046. doi: 10.3390/su12052046 . ISSN   2071-1050.
  8. ↑ Trouw, Michael; Weiler, Stephan; Silverstein, Jesse (January 2020). "Brownfield Development: Uncertainty, Asymmetric Information, and Risk Premia". Sustainability. 12 (5): 2046. doi: 10.3390/su12052046 . ISSN   2071-1050.
  9. ↑ Green, T. L. (April 1, 2018). "Evaluating predictors for brownfield redevelopment". Land Use Policy. 73: 299–319. Bibcode:2018LUPol..73..299G. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.008. ISSN   0264-8377.
  10. 1 2 Chen, I-Chun; Chuo, Yu-Yu; Ma, Hwong-wen (April 1, 2019). "Uncertainty analysis of remediation cost and damaged land value for brownfield investment". Chemosphere. 220: 371–380. Bibcode:2019Chmsp.220..371C. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.116. ISSN   0045-6535. PMID   30590303. S2CID   58557619.
  11. ↑ "About contaminated sites". Federal Contaminated Sites Portal. Environment and Climate Change Canada. November 10, 2018. Archived from the original on November 10, 2018.
  12. ↑ "Overview of EPA's Brownfields Program". United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Washington, D.C. July 26, 2021. Archived from the original on June 30, 2019.
  13. ↑ "Brownfields Program Achievements Linked to Early Success" (PDF). EPA. October 2006. Fact sheet. EPA 560-F-06-267.
  14. 1 2 Maliene V, Wignall L, Malys N (2012). "Brownfield Regeneration: Waterfront Site Developments in Liverpool and Cologne". Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management. 20 (1): 5–16. doi: 10.3846/16486897.2012.659030 .
  15. ↑ Thomas Voltaggio and John Adams. "Superfund: A Half Century of Progress." EPA Alumni Association. March 2016.
  16. ↑ "Revitalizing Mothballed Properties: Challenges, Success Stories and Solutions". EPA. 2008. EPA 560-R-08-003.
  17. ↑ US EPA, OLEM (July 24, 2014). "Summary of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act". EPA . Retrieved June 1, 2022.
  18. 1 2 3 "National Planning Policy Framework" (PDF). GOV.UK. Retrieved February 9, 2023.
  19. 1 2 "National Planning Policy Framework - Annex 2: Glossary - Guidance - GOV.UK". gov.uk. Retrieved February 20, 2023.
  20. 1 2 "Contaminated land -Overview". UK: Crown Copyright. November 10, 2016.
  21. ↑ "Inventory of Sites-How many federal contaminated sites are there in Canada?". Federal Contaminated Sites Portal, Environment Canada. October 3, 2016. Archived from the original on April 19, 2017. Retrieved February 16, 2017.
  22. ↑ Environment and Climate Change Canada (December 7, 2022). "Action plan for contaminated sites". canada.ca. Retrieved March 24, 2023.
  23. 1 2 3 4 Story, Rod; Yalkin, Tolga (April 10, 2014). "Federal Contaminated Sites Cost" (PDF). Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO). Ottawa, Ontario. p. 41. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 27, 2021. Retrieved September 5, 2015.
  24. 1 2 "Contracts Awarded for Port Hope Area Initiative". Natural Resources Canada (News release). Ottawa, Ontario. July 30, 2015. Archived from the original on August 25, 2015. Retrieved September 5, 2015.
  25. ↑ "Port Hope Area Initiative". Archived from the original on August 20, 2009. Retrieved January 13, 2009.
  26. ↑ Carola Vyhnak (November 9, 2010). "Port Hope properties tested for radiation". Toronto Star . Retrieved January 14, 2013.
  27. ↑ "9. Combien y a-t-il de sites pollués ?". Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement Durable et de l'Énergie (MEDDE). n.d.
  28. ↑ "Les friches urbaines dans les SCoT et les PLU". ADEME. August 28, 2014.
  29. ↑ "Brownfield site use and reclamation 'most popular' land supply options". South China Morning Post. September 2, 2018. Retrieved May 24, 2021.
  30. ↑ "Government 'exaggerated constraints' in freeing up brownfield sites". South China Morning Post. December 20, 2018. Retrieved May 24, 2021.
  31. ↑ "Hong Kong NGOs find enough unidentified brownfield sites to build 95,000 homes". South China Morning Post. June 10, 2021. Retrieved June 23, 2021.
  32. ↑ "Emscher Park: From dereliction to scenic landscapes". Danish Architecture Centre . Kopenhagen. January 21, 2014. Archived from the original on October 31, 2014.
  33. ↑ Greenland, Martin (February 26, 2018). "What are the barriers to brownfield development?". Developmentfinancetoday.co.uk.
  34. ↑ "Planning for Brownfield Biodiversity: A Best Practice Guide" (PDF). Buglife . August 2019.
  35. ↑ "About Us : Creekside Discovery Centre".
  36. ↑ "John A. Kilpatrick Resume" (PDF). Greenfield Advisors. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 11, 2011. Retrieved November 29, 2009. Article Author of "Valuation of Brownfields", Chapter 29 in Lexis-Nexis Matthew Bender's Brownfield Law and Practice, 2007.
  37. ↑ Montgomery, Jeff (May 14, 2011). "Cleaning up contamination". The News Journal . New Castle, Delaware: Gannett. DelawareOnline. Archived from the original on May 25, 2024. Retrieved May 14, 2011.The first online page is archived; the page containing information related here is not in the archived version.
  38. 1 2 3 Kriston Capps (July 29, 2014). "How Much Cleaning Up Brownfields Is Really Worth". The Atlantic Monthly.
  39. ↑ Environmental, Oakshire. "Commercial development on contaminated land". Oakshire Environmental. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved May 24, 2021.
  40. ↑ "ASLA 2011 Professional Awards | The Steel Yard". asla.org. Retrieved June 22, 2019.
  41. ↑ University, Michigan State. "Brownfields may turn green with help from Michigan State research". MSUToday. Retrieved June 22, 2019.
  42. ↑ "Brownfield Sites". sustainablebuild.co.uk. September 11, 2006. Retrieved June 22, 2019.
  43. ↑ Mayer, Henry J.; Greenburg, Michael R. (August 2001). "Coming Back from Economic Despair: Case Studies of Small- and Medium-Size American Cities". Economic Development Quarterly . 15 (3): 203–216. doi:10.1177/089124240101500301.
  44. ↑ "Building a City Within the City of Atlanta". The New York Times . May 24, 2006. Retrieved June 16, 2014.
  45. ↑ "U.S. Landfills Are Getting a Second Life as Solar Farms". June 2, 2022.
  46. ↑ "Brownfields Tax Incentive". EPA . Archived from the original (URL) on February 12, 2011. Retrieved November 29, 2009.
  47. ↑ "Brownfields Overview Page". National Conference of State Legislatures. Archived from the original on November 28, 2009. Retrieved November 29, 2009.
  48. ↑ Environmental, Oakshire. "What is a Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment?". Oakshire Environmental. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  49. ↑ "Desktop Study Reports - London, Bristol & Exeter". Southwest Environmental Limited. n.d. Retrieved June 16, 2014.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.