Fact Pack

Over 150 years of industrial development in the wealthiest nations in the world have left their mark, and since at least World War II, economic production has relied on ever more quantities of complex chemical compounds. As a result, hazardous substances pervade the U.S. economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Americans are responsible for generating more than one metric ton of hazardous waste per person per annum (Congressional Budget Office 1985). Over the same period, increasingly mobile capital has fled inefficient production locations, leaving behind potential environmental hazards.

This environmental contamination aggravates well-known comparative disadvantages of previously developed “brownfield” sites in urban centers relative to undeveloped “greenfield” locations in suburban, exurban, and rural areas. As previously-developed sites, brownfields often contain buildings and facilities from earlier industrial periods. These facilities typically are liabilities, not assets, because they cannot accommodate more recent production processes. These sites require clearance, sometimes the acquisition of many smaller plots to form a single large site for modern single-story production facilities, and otherwise present redevelopment costs not found in previously undeveloped “greenfield” sites.

When sites are contaminated, not only must buildings be cleared for new uses, but chemicals stored on the properties and spilled into the soil must be removed. Thus, older industrial areas, often major portions of the land areas of urban centers (which continue to house large proportions of the population), face growing problems in attracting new development capital. In addition, the continuing underlying problem with brownfield sites is the presence or apparent risk of environmental hazards that threaten nearby residents.

What State Programs Have Already Done

(Provided by Northeast-Midwest Institute)

Most states have addressed some of the barriers to brownfield reuse by designing their own programs and demonstrating that there are many different ways to reach the common goal of site cleanup and reuse. To date, about 16,000 sites have gone through state Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCPs).

For more information on individual state brownfield remediation programs, read the Northeast-Midwest Institute’s report, “Brownfield Voluntary Cleanup Program Impacts: Reuse Benefits, State by State.”

Status of Problem

(Provided by U.S. Conference of Mayors)

A total of 223 cities provided information regarding the brownfields in their communities. In the 2001 survey, 180 cities estimated that they had over 19,000 brownfield sites. This figure represents more than 178,000 acres of land, acreage that exceeds the total land area of Atlanta, Seattle, and San Francisco. This year’s report again found that brownfields are not just a “big city” problem; more than 50 percent of the survey responses came from cities with a population under 100,000. These cities alone reported nearly 3,000 brownfield sites, totaling more than 89,000 acres.

The cities again identified the major obstacles to the redevelopment of brownfield sites. Like the 1998 survey, the “lack of funds to clean up these sites” was the most frequently identified impediment, followed by “liability issues” and the need for “environmental assessments” to determine the extent of the contamination.

The survey also asked cities if they had brownfield sites that would require additional subsidies beyond cleanup funds and assessment monies. More than 75 percent of the survey respondents indicated that they would need additional help, such as infrastructure upgrades, financial assistance to demolish obsolete buildings and structures, tax incentives, and low interest loans.

Arguments for Cleaning Up Brownfields

(Provided by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development)

This national interest in cleanup of contaminated sites can be justified on a number of grounds.

First, the current generation benefits from the accumulated wealth amassed by past generations. Arguably, all U.S. residents have benefitted from the high economic growth made possible, in part, by the use of toxic chemicals and its attendant environmental neglect. In effect, we borrowed from the future by not cleaning up. Of course, the debts incurred often were not voluntary or conscious – the dangers of indiscriminate disposal of chemicals were not known or well understood.

But these “loans” are now being called. Repayment takes the form of cleanup and safe disposal of the chemical and other toxic residues of past production practices, and is arguably a national responsibility.

Second, the immediate potential health – and indirect economic – impacts of hazards do not affect all citizens or parts of the country equally; i.e., national intervention can be argued on equity grounds. Hazards appear to be concentrated in areas adjacent to abandoned or underutilized old production facilities (and those near plants continuing to produce with potentially hazardous industrial raw materials). U.S. population dynamics suggest that the residents of those areas are disproportionately poor and minority. Thus the brownfields problem and the linked issues of cleanup and redevelopment inequitably affect the least-advantaged groups among us, and those least able to exercise the “mobility” option. These groups also live in jurisdictions – central cities and older industrial suburbs – that are least able to mobilize the financial capital needed to clean up or contain hazardous sites.

Third, site contamination deters redevelopment. Central city industrial decline, combined with (often federally-subsidized) suburbanization, poses broader environmental and economic efficiency issues. Growth of urban sprawl, increased reliance on single-occupancy cars for travel to work, and loss of leisure time to commuting imposes environmental costs of its own (e.g., deteriorated air quality). Urban fiscal problems have been exacerbated by loss of revenues from abandoned lands while environmental hazards on those sites may have driven up local healthcare costs. Returns to public capital – roads and bridges, water and sewer systems, and so on – are depressed while potentially productive sites are held off redevelopment land markets. Successful reclamation, redevelopment, and reuse of brownfields may be expected to not only reduce broad urban environmental problems such as air quality, but also enhance metropolitan area economic capacity.

Brownfields and School

(Provided by the Child Proofing Our Communities Campaign)

Lack of protective guidelines is of significant concern when decisions are made about whether to locate a school on what has come to be called “brownfield.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) describes brownfields as “abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.” (USEPA, 1995) Anyone who purchases property officially designated as a brownfield is essentially free of liability for any contamination that may be found on it. In some cases, no environmental testing is required to so designate a site. The Los Angeles Belmont High School disaster tragically depicts what can go wrong without protective guidelines and standards to direct the process. (For more information, see the Case Studies of Poisoned Schools included in the report, “Poisoned Schools: Invisible Threats, Visible Actions,” prepared by Child Proofing Our Communities: Poisoned School Campaign)

More importantly, when these sites are redeveloped, they need only be cleaned up to standards set for commercial or industrial property. Such standards vary among states, counties, and cities but all provide less protection of human health than those required for residential property. Designation as a brownfield is essentially a promotional real estate tool to encourage businesses to purchase and redevelop areas in order to stop sprawl and bring jobs and revitalization to urban areas. Such property is not intended for siting schools, parks, or playgrounds. Brownfields typically are in densely populated urban areas, but some are also in rural locations (e.g., agricultural land, abandoned mine areas, burn dumps, and abandoned lumber mills).

Brownfields are often selected as sites for new schools in urban areas because of the lack of available unused property and the need for new schools due to growing student enrollment. In many urban areas, brownfields are the only option for keeping schools in close proximity to the community served.

Common Ways Brownfields Contaminate Ground Water

(Provided by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

Ponds, Lagoons, and Land Disposal of Wastewater

Municipal, industrial, and private businesses use ponds, lagoons, and other methods to store, treat, and dispose of wastewater on their property. A familiar example is the small community sewage plant, where a lagoon may be used as the final step in treatment before purified waste is released to rivers or streams, or applied to land.

Lagoons are sealed with compacted clay or plastic liners. Nevertheless, burrowing animals or movement of the soil over time can cause leaks. Routine inspections are necessary to keep lagoons in good repair. Open-air lagoons also are subject to wet and cold weather, which can interfere with the treatment process.

Some industries dispose of their wastewater by applying it to farm fields. The waste is applied according to how much water and nutrients soil and crops can absorb. If the system isn’t managed properly, and too much waste and water are applied to the land, or if the operator fails to adjust the amount of liquid applied to account for rainfall, groundwater can be contaminated.

Spills and Illegal Dumping of Industrial and Commercial Chemicals

When paint thinners, degreasers, electroplating solutions, dry cleaning chemicals, used oil, and a host of other hazardous materials trickle into the groundwater, they contaminate the precious liquid that keeps us all alive.

In the past, first responders to the scene of a spill would attempt to eliminate a fire or safety hazard by flushing the spilled material into a ditch or sewer – bad news for the environment. Thanks to better training, most response efforts now focus on containing and removing the hazardous material to a proper disposal facility. This protects both ground and surface waters from becoming contaminated.

An undetermined number of spills go unreported, their presence a secret until area wells become polluted. Although there are strict regulations governing the transport, storage, and disposal of toxic and hazardous wastes, illegal dumping of dangerous compounds continues. Problems from past practices that occurred before regulations were in place still surface periodically.

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs)

People in the environmental cleanup business call them LUSTs; for all of us, it spells trouble. Many old leaking underground storage tanks that used to hold gasoline, diesel, and fuel oil have slowly corroded and released their contents into the soil and groundwater. Nationwide, tens of thousands of older tank systems have leaked as rust took its toll on the tanks and dispensing lines. Even small leaks have caused significant groundwater contamination. Many small leaks went undetected for years. It only takes a little gasoline in water to make it undrinkable; larger quantities seeping into wells or basements can cause explosions.

When corroded underground storage tanks leak, the contents, usually gasoline or oil, can contaminate groundwater. Property owners and their environmental consultants have been at work cleaning up LUST leaks. Regulations, in place for 10 years now, will help prevent future problems. Rules adopted by the U.S. Department of Commerce require that tank systems have corrosion protection, leak detection systems, and spill and overfill containment devices. Older tanks are required to either be upgraded to current standards or to be emptied and removed. The soil is sampled under commercial storage tanks that are removed.

The nature of cleanup operations has changed significantly over the years. Monitoring petroleum contamination as it breaks down into harmless by-products has in many cases replaced soil excavation and groundwater “pump and treat” at locations where the contamination is not spreading.

Abandoned and Drainage Wells

Years ago, wells were dug by hand with picks and shovels. Hand-dug wells were gradually replaced with “well pits” – a 6- to 10-foot-deep hole through which a well was drilled or driven. Both types are now being replaced by wells that provide more sanitary water.

What happens to the old well can determine how the new well functions. If old wells are not properly filled with cement, bentonite clay, or other impermeable materials, they provide a direct channel for pollutants from the surface to groundwater and to other nearby wells. Many thousands of old wells that are no longer used, but still open at the soil surface, threaten groundwater.

Three Case Studies

(Provided by Northeast-Midwest Institute)

Brownfield “success stories” are the building blocks of future successes, showing that regulatory, financial, and perceptual issues can be overcome in ways that are both economically viable and environmentally responsible. Three short case studies illustrate the kind of success that brownfields, whether in urban, suburban, or rural settings, can achieve.

Chicago established its Brownfields Initiative in 1993 to tackle the city’s estimated 2,000 brownfield sites. Since that time, Chicago has become a nationally recognized leader in the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfields, institutionalizing the brownfield process more than any other American city. Chicago provides incentives for private-sector players to redevelop brownfields, and it also acts as a brownfield redeveloper itself, not hesitating to take on or take over difficult sites with significant potential benefits.

Glen Cove, New York, has achieved success by placing the brownfield issue front-and- center, with the mayor personally spearheading many of the town’s efforts, mostly in the area of waterfront development. Glen Cove has found innovative ways to collaborate with county, state, and federal agencies to meet its brownfield needs.

Cape Charles, Virginia, is a small town that has used its local work force skills as a marketing tool to attract new users to sites. Cape Charles also has been very creative in forging partnerships to extend the town’s very limited capacity to take on development projects and in giving them a brownfield focus.