Clean and pleasant land: The changing world of land remediation

Redevelopment of brownfield sites is an important part of sustainable land use. Yet clarity of policy and regulations is essential. Some redevelopment projects have got off the ground successfully, and these can offer lessons for other sites.

by Guy Robinson

‘This is the future of redevelopment,’ states Anthony Catalano, Vice President of Woodard & Curran, a US-based consulting and operations firm. He is referring to neglected, contaminated sites worldwide. Following years of reliance upon landfills and a more relaxed attitude to the disposal of waste materials, stakeholders across the globe are waking up to the opportunities available in land remediation.

Driven by environmental and economic imperatives - ranging from issues of stewardship to the increasing cost of land - developers are re-assessing contaminated sites with fresh eyes, looking to tap into relevant political support, provide new amenities, improve the environment and, of course, make a profit.

While redevelopment remains a relatively complex process, there are encouraging signs in both the US and Europe that reflect our growing knowledge in this field and our increasing desire to ‘clean up’ after ourselves.

European policy development

Following a further delay in May 2006, stakeholders across Europe continue their wait for a new Thematic Strategy on Soil Protection to be approved by the European Commission. The so-called ‘soil package’ is expected to contain a Communication, the Soil Framework Directive (SFD) and an Impact Assessment Report. The Directive will represent the heart of the package, defining common principles to prevent threats, preserve soil functions and maintain or obtain the sustainable use of soils.

Towards the end of 2005, the Network for Industrially Contaminated Land in Europe (NICOLE) welcomed the development of a Soil Framework Directive to ensure that soil has its own policy niche in the EC. However, concerns were raised over the inclusion of a definition of ‘contaminated land’ in the Directive, and the use of ‘soil’ as a term.

NICOLE argued that if a Member State retains its own definition for contaminated land, then environmental regulators would need one system to enforce national law and another to meet the European standard. In contrast, if a state adopts the European definition and scraps its own, the change could destabilize an already unstable market in brownfield regeneration by changing the enforcement position.

Furthermore, NICOLE suggested that the word ‘soil’ implies a material that should be restored to biological functionality. This may not be appropriate where sites include a significant amount of fill materials or where a building is to be erected.

Such concerns suggest there is merit in examining the relationship between soil and waste more closely, and indeed, that is just what NICOLE did.

The relationship between waste and (contaminated) soil in Europe

In November 2004, NICOLE embarked on a review of different European countries, looking in particular at:

• the existing legal situation pertaining to soil and waste
• the extent of the (legal) link between contaminated soil and waste
• the reuse of contaminated soil
• the conditions under which contaminated soil could be left in place.

The Network surveyed a range of European countries - Finland, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the UK and three regions in Belgium - posing a standard set of 10 questions to ensure comparable results.

Results from the NICOLE survey

In brief, it was found that nine out of 12 countries/regions have overarching legislation that specifically addresses soil contamination (see Table 1). Furthermore, it was found that half of the regions or countries have published guidance on the reuse of contaminated soil (see Table 2). (Detailed results from this research can be obtained from the NICOLE secretariat and are accessible in two reports published on www.nicole.org.)

The level and type of national guidance varies. For example Germany, the Netherlands, Flanders and Italy have sophisticated guidelines on how and when contaminated soil can be reused. Flanders, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic provide specific incentives to promote the reuse of contaminated soil, and in Flanders and the Netherlands there is an explicit ban on landfilling if the soil is treatable.

Shifting sands?

So, should contaminated land be regarded as waste? In the NICOLE survey, all countries were found to consider excavated, contaminated soil as waste. While this approach is in line with EU definitions, the interpretation has far-reaching consequences.

One could argue that contaminated soil that is left in place is an illegal landfill, which would preclude in-situ remediation. This also renders risk assessments useless as after contamination has been detected, the only possible conclusion is removal and treatment or disposal off-site.

NICOLE believes that contaminated land should not be approached in the same manner as landfills. And it is concerned by the legal vacuum which exists in many countries. The potential reuse of contaminated soil needs to be clarified from a legal perspective. NICOLE advocates that the EC’s definition of waste should be amended to make an exception for treatable and reusable contaminated soil.

Brownfield sites in the US

Having examined the picture in Europe, what about the US? Is its policy any clearer in this matter?

According to the US EPA website, brownfield sites are ‘real property - the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties takes development pressures off undeveloped, open land, and both improves and protects the environment’.

The US Government Accountability Office indicates there are 425,000 brownfield sites throughout the US, spanning approximately 5 million acres (2 million hectares) of abandoned industrial sites. This is roughly the same amount of land occupied by 60 of the US’ largest cities.

The US EPA’s response to this sizeable challenge was to launch its Brownfields Program in 1995, from which sprang the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act in 2002. Otherwise known as the Brownfields Law, this was intended to boost funding for assessment and clean-up, enhance the roles for State and Tribal response programmes, and clarify Superfund legislation. According to the most recent EPA figures, 44 states, two territories and three tribal nations are currently sharing a total of US$69.9 million in brownfield grants.

Landfills are eligible for assessment and clean-up grants, though there are eligibility restrictions that prevent brownfields grants from going to an entity that owned or operated a particular landfill. This can be a barrier for revitalizing municipal landfills.

Beyond the Brownfields Law, the most significant new policy developments have been occurring at the state level with many states trying different incentive and regulatory approaches to encourage clean-up and reuse.

‘Brownfield clean-up and redevelopment is very important to the environmental and economic conditions in our communities, large and small, rural and urban,’ comments David R. Lloyd, director of EPA’s Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment. ‘In addition to EPA and the federal programmes of other agencies, state programmes supporting these redevelopment activities are growing rapidly. Perhaps most important, private industry is leveraging these state and federal resources to help make brownfield redevelopment a visible reality across the country.’

As plans develop, environmental disclosure is emerging as an important issue in this field. The rules are changing on how property owners report actual or potential liability relating to environmental contamination. And these changes are causing companies and agencies to restate their liabilities and reconsider how they manage brownfield and other contaminated properties that they own.

In this regard, the All Appropriate Inquiries rule - which goes into effect on 1 November 2006 - will set Federal standards and practices for brownfield assessments. In particular this will impact on those purchasing potentially contaminated sites. To obtain liability protection, they must ensure that they conduct all appropriate inquiries to determine past ownership and uses of a property and assess the environmental conditions of the property prior to the purchase date.

The regulatory landscape is therefore continuing to evolve in the US - with other changes including the end of the brownfield tax incentive and the consideration of a brownfield tax credit bill. Much is being learnt from the growing experience in clean-up operations. A case study exemplifying one such operation is shown above.

Wasted space - the potential for landfill redevelopment

It is evident in both Europe and the US that the issue of closed landfills - as a type of brownfield site - presents specific concerns which require a more tailor-made approach.

‘Closed landfills are not considered as a separate category in the draft of the European Soil Strategy. From this point of view, a specific programme on closed landfills is needed,’ commented René Beijnen, Project Secretariat of SUFALNET (Europe’s Sustainable Use of Former and Abandoned Landfills Network). ‘Closed landfills are a part of national brownfield programmes, but they are not prioritized because of the large costs of remediation as a conventional measure of aftercare.’

There is little scope for defining the contents of landfills as anything other than waste - conventional MSW cannot be considered as soil - but perhaps this can be turned into an advantage for entrepreneurs looking to develop new golf courses, offices and parks. And the potential for redevelopment is expanding as more landfills are closed and the price of virgin land increases.

There are more than 150,000 closed landfills in Europe, according to SUFALNET. The total costs of traditional aftercare (examining actual risks and remediation) of old and abandoned landfills in Europe have been estimated to be €40-50 billion. This is big business, supported largely by private sector investment.

Planning for redevelopment

The most important prerequisite in landfill redevelopment is to survey the landfill and its risks. Aftercare measures must be taken, including monitoring, capping and landfill gas extraction. A viable clean-up strategy should be implemented that makes the site acceptable for its intended reuse, unless the risks can be controlled effectively through some other means.

According to W. J. van Vossen, Senior Consultant for Royal Haskoning, the Netherlands, a successful redevelopment strategy depends on:

• an integrated approach from the very start of the redevelopment process, with a life-cycle approach involving:
  - examination
  - risk-assessment
  - aftercare measures
  - financing/cost-benefit analysis
  - redevelopment possibilities
  - communication
  - legal aspects and liabilities
• a strong interaction and/or co-operation between the public and private sectors to secure financing for the necessary aftercare measures. These are extra costs compared with a redevelopment project on clean soil.

While this type of approach brings together elements of spatial planning, finance and environment, at a more basic level the number of hours per day that people will spend on the site is likely to be a defining element in the decision-making process. Reliable data on the site must be coupled with the capacity to listen to public concerns and to answer related queries on the likely impact on human health and the type of aftercare involved.

Currently there is little dedicated political support in Europe to stimulate and facilitate redevelopment projects at landfill sites. SUFALNET hopes that further research will underpin new policies in this area.

In the US, the support framework is perhaps further advanced. According to Anthony Catalano from Woodard & Curran, ‘more and more communities throughout the US are conducting studies to evaluate their open space and recreation area inventory and future needs. The conclusions from these studies generally focus on the need for more recreation areas. With the rising cost of real estate throughout the US, more and more communities are considering properties which have been historically neglected and contaminated. Grant programmes at the state and federal levels have made this opportunity more palatable to municipal agencies’.

Case studies - landfill redevelopment in action

Research conducted within the SUFALNET network have identified successful redevelopment projects in Europe including a golf course and a ski run in the Netherlands and a city park in Venice, Italy, along with planned ventures such as a residential area in Oosterhout and in Maastricht (Belvedere), both in the Netherlands. The network’s publications so far suggest that the Netherlands is taking a leading role in landfill redevelopment activity. Let us take a closer look at some examples of landfill redevelopment in Europe and US.

North Brabant, the Netherlands

North Brabant has around 600 landfills, covering 1200 hectares of scarce space. Nearly all of them were closed before 1996. The regional authority has taken the initiative to give these landfills a new future. In 2004 its aim was to have the first 30 landfills in redevelopment by 2007. Currently 13 projects are in an initial phase of development with others either awaiting approval or being prepared. The target is getting closer.

The Bavel site in North Brabant, the Netherlands, is undergoing redevelopment into a recreation and industrial area. photo: grontmij nederland bv, eindhovenClick here to enlarge image

In a bid to support redevelopment, the province opened a service to field queries on environmental, spatial planning, financial and economic concerns, and made available a matrix for developers to examine the pros and cons of redevelopment on a particular site.

And in addition to broad redevelopment goals, North Brabant is undertaking pilot projects - for example, the site of Bavel near the city of Breda.

The redevelopment plan for the Bavel site. source: grontmij nederland bv, eindhovenClick here to enlarge image

The Bavel site was a municipal dump between 1963 and 1993, containing 6 million tonnes of municipal solid and industrial waste across 34 hectares. The landfill included bottom and top liners, plus an adequate drainage and monitoring system. It was therefore a good candidate for redevelopment. The plan for redevelopment includes a golf course, an indoor ski slope and an industrial area. It is expected to be complete in 2009.

A whole new ball game in Englewood, Colorado

Turning to the US, one successful redevelopment project (completed in 2001) offers an interesting alternative case study.

The Centennial Park Expansion Project in Englewood, Colorado was supported by EPA brownfield funding. It represented the largest brownfield clean-up loan in the country at the time and the first loan by a coalition of member cities.

Before - a large redevelopment project in Englewood, Colorado, converted brownfield into sports grounds and leisure areas. photo: the city of englewoodClick here to enlarge image

The site is 9.4 acres (3.8 hectares), and has been redeveloped into a Rockies Youth Field of Dreams baseball field, a softball field, a soccer field, trail connections to the Mary Carter greenway, expanded access to the South Platte River kayak chutes, restrooms and a picnic pavilion. To achieve this goal, the site was found to require a methane venting system and a clay cap.

AfterClick here to enlarge image

Darren Hollingsworth, Economic Development Co-ordinator of the City of Englewood, comments: ‘We believe that this project has spurred additional investment in the area by focusing other public funds on the build out of a major trails connection in the area and the creation of additional open space. The impact of EPA’s funds go beyond “completing the project” to spurring additional investment in the surrounding area.’

Conclusions

Bringing things to a close, one can draw two, almost contradictory conclusions from this review.

First, a common theme unites the redevelopment of closed landfills and the remediation of other types of contaminated land - namely recognizing the value of land, from economic, social and environmental perspectives.

While this encourages the adoption of a common approach to the clean-up process, the other conclusion to be drawn is that each site tends to offer individual challenges and there is an important distinction to be made between waste and contaminated soil. It is in the interest of closed landfill developers and those working on other contaminated sites to see dedicated programmes develop which offer the necessary support for their particular conditions.

Finally, as in other areas of waste management, we should note the importance of developing suitable terminology and agreed definitions for key terms. Definitions impact on those responding to new legislation and importantly on stakeholder perception.

Guy Robinson is Commissioning Editor of WMW.
e-mail: wmw@jxj.com

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to members of NICOLE, in particular Dr Paul Bardos, and SUFALNET, in particular René Beijnen, for providing material on which this article is based. For more information visit www.nicole.org and www.sufalnet.net.

Thanks also to Roxanne Smith, US EPA, Daniel Scheppers, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment; Darren Hollingsworth, Economic Development Coordinator, City of Englewood, Colorado; Robert Howe, Tetra Tech, US; and Anthony Catalano, Woodard & Curran, US for their kind co-operation.

To comment on this article or to see related features from our archive, go to www.waste-management-world.com and click the ‘Forum’ tab.

The Poudre River Redevelopment Site

The Cache La Poudre River (Poudre River) site is located in downtown Fort Collins, Colorado. Spanning approximately 19 acres (7.5 hectares), the site includes the Northside Aztlan Center, United Way Building, a park, soccer fields, playground, bike path, parking areas and a manufactured gas plant. The plant ran from approximately 1900 to 1930, manufacturing heating oil from coal and other petroleum products, and was then purchased by a gasoline supply company. It has since been demolished. The site also includes a municipal landfill, operated from 1940 to the mid 1960s.

The Poudre River site in Colorado, US, is undergoing remediation efforts. photo: tetra techClick here to enlarge image

The City of Fort Collins, which currently owns the site, operates a recreation centre (built in 1973) on the old landfill and is interested in further redevelopment of the site. The landfill was not formally closed and the buildings were engineered on slabs because of potential for methane build-up.

A landfill closure submittal has recently been applied for, but not yet granted. It is expected soon because of the investigation and remediation efforts which have been conducted. Public support is high for the construction of a new 50,000 square foot (4650 m2) multi-generational recreation centre. Restoring the site and the nearby Cache La Poudre River will provide public access to river resources, protect recreational users and fisheries, and also protect wildlife habitat associated with the Cache La Poudre watershed.

The investigatory and remediation efforts have so far included the following mix of innovative and traditional technologies:

• electromagnetic induction and resistivity surveys
• direct push grab groundwater sampling and real-time analyses for VOCs
• passive soil gas survey to identify chlorinated solvents
• passive diffusion bag sampling of groundwater exiting to surface water
• auger drilling and trenching and fixed lab analyses
• open-path Fourier transform infrared (OP-FTIR) spectroscopy to identify VOC emissions from the landfill area in three dimensions.

The technologies were employed in concert to develop and refine a conceptual site model and improve the certainty of decision-making. Because of the high profile nature of the site, being near the city centre, results were shared with the press on a regular basis to keep the public informed of project findings. The findings of the investigation demonstrated the complexity of sites like this and most landfill and hazardous waste sites.

The case study was developed as part of the EPA’s ongoing initiative to promote the use of innovative work strategies and real-time measurement tools based on a sound understanding of potential exit strategies, namely ‘the Triad approach’. The Triad approach focuses on the use of collaborative data sets to improve decision-making confidence and limit decision uncertainty at hazardous waste sites.
- by Robert Howe, Tetra Tech, US

SUFALNET’s approach

The SUFALNET network brings together know-how and experience from 21 organizations in 12 EU Member States in the sustainable use of former and abandoned landfills. Its overall objective is to reduce environmental risks and stimulate the reuse of closed landfills. A core deliverable from the Network is a model strategy on best practices across Europe, covering research, aftercare and the redevelopment of closed landfills. The network is led by the Province of North Brabant, the Netherlands and will run from 2005-2007.