integrating sediment cleanup - nemw · use of voluntary cleanup agreements to avoid superfund...
TRANSCRIPT
A PUBLICATION OF THE
NORTHEAST-MIDWEST
INSTITUTE
i n t e g r a t i n g
SEDIMENTCLEANUPa n d b r o w n f i e l d r e d e v e l o p m e n t
by
BARBARA WELLS
&
CYNTHIA SIBREL
Gorte, Julie Fox. Marketing Brownfield Cleanup Technologies, Northeast-Midwest Institute, February 1999.
� 1 �
Gorte, Julie Fox. Marketing Brownfield Cleanup Technologies, Northeast-Midwest Institute, February 1999.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Sediment-Brownfield Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Nature of Sediment Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Extent of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Sediment Cleanup Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Capping, Containment, and Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Challenges of Sediment Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Securing Funds for High Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Determining Cleanup Standards and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Coordinating Multiple Cleanup Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Barriers to Linking Contaminated Sediment Cleanup and BrownfieldRedevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Case Studies: Integrating Sediment and Brownfield Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . 11Use of Voluntary Cleanup Agreements to Avoid Superfund Listing . . . . . . . 11Sediment Cleanup to Remove a Stigma at Brownfield Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Brownfield Cleanup to Spur Sediment Removal and Containment . . . . . . . 15Use of Brownfields as Sediment Repositories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Addressing Sediment through State Voluntary Cleanup Programs . . . . . . . . . . 19
Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix: Innovative Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Sediment and Sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
� 3 �
SUMMARY
� 3 �
and brownfield redevelopment. By recognizing andreinforcing the connections between these sites, fed-eral, state, and local entities may achieve more effi-cient and cost-effective cleanup and redevelopment.These connections could be strengthened by clarify-ing the guidelines for addressing sediment contami-nation; creating mechanisms for coordinating sedi-ment and brownfield programs; and developinginformation about the potential benefits of integrat-ing sediment and brownfield cleanup.
The cleanup of contaminated sediment and rede-velopment of brownfield sites appear to be com-
plementary. In many cases contaminated sedimentand brownfields are found in close proximity to oneanother, often along waterfront areas that are in highdemand for residential and commercial redevelop-ment. Yet for many reasons, sediment and brown-field remediation are rarely linked.
As demonstrated by several case studies, a grow-ing but still small number of communities are find-ing ways to jointly address contaminated sediment
SEDIMENT-BROWNFIELD CONNECTION
The essential difference between sediment con-tamination and brownfield contamination is that
sediment lies under surfacewater. Contaminated sedi-ment is soil, sand, organicmatter, or minerals that accu-mulates at the bottom of awater body and containstoxic or hazardous materialsthat may adversely affecthuman health or the environ-ment. Brownfields are aban-doned, idled, or underusedindustrial and commercial fa-cilities where expansion or re-development is complicatedby real or perceived contami-nation — on the land, in thegroundwater, or inbuildings.1
In waterfront areas, the most obvious connec-tion between contaminated sediment and brown-
field sites is their close prox-imity. Historically, riversafforded ideal locations forindustrial facilities becausethey provided transporta-tion corridors for raw mate-rials and finished products.Through decades of largelyunregulated discharges,these industrial sites andadjacent waterways becamecontaminated. In fact, an es-timated 5 to 10 percent ofthe nearly 500,000 existingbrownfields are located be-side a waterway.
Through decades of largely
unregulated discharges,
industrial sites and adjacent
waterways became
contaminated. In fact,
an estimated 5 to 10 percent of
the nearly 500,000 existing
brownfields are located beside
a waterway.
� 4 �� 4 �
NATURE OF SEDIMENTCONTAMINATION
Sediment contaminants include five types:
■ Nutrients — phosphorus and nitrogencompounds
■ Bulk Organics — oil and grease
■ Halogenated Hydrocarbons or PersistentOrganics — DDT and PCBs that resist decay
■ Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) — a group of organic chemicals that includes several petroleum products and byproducts
■ Metals — iron, manganese, lead, cadmium, zinc, mercury, and metalloids such as arsenic and selenium
Industrial facilities historically have contributedcontaminants to surface waters through direct
discharges from pipes. Over time, these contami-nants settled into the sediment that lies beneaththe water. Today, contaminants may leach intoaqueous sediment through groundwater and sub-surface plumes, in many cases from leaking un-derground storage tanks. Surface runoff from con-taminated sites and overflows from sewagetreatment plants also contribute to sediment con-tamination. In addition, particulate matter in theair that is deposited in surface waters can contam-inate sediment.
EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
Contaminated sediment causes numerous envi-ronmental, recreational, and economic impacts.
The release of excess nutrients causes red tides, con-taminates shellfish, kills wildlife, reduces biodiver-sity, destroys sea grass, and contributes to a host ofother ecosystem problems. It also promotes thegrowth of algal blooms that reduce the oxygen avail-able to fish and create sections in water bodies thatare aesthetically unappealing for boating or swim-ming. Toxic contaminants in sediment can enter the
food chain, causing human health risks from fishconsumption. Sediment contaminants also can de-crease the reproduction of ducks and fish, affectinglocal economies that depend on tourist dollars frombird watching, hunting, and fishing.2
Most of the nation’s contaminated sediment sitesare found in California, Washington, and the easternhalf of the United States along the coast and inlandwaterways. Many of these sites are concentrated inthe Great Lakes and the harbors of Boston, Chicago,Detroit, Los Angeles, and Puget Sound.
To determine the severity of the contaminationproblem, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) in 1998 assembled the largest set of sedimentchemistry and related biological data ever compiledinto a national database called the National Sedi-ment Inventory. The inventory includes approxi-mately two million records, collected from 1980through 1993 from more than 21,000 monitoring sta-tions. The inventory identified approximately 2,400river reaches (water body segments) in 50 stateswhere adverse effects from contaminated sedimentare probable. In a January 1998 report to Congressbased on the inventory, EPA identified 96 water-sheds that contain “areas of probable concern”
A r e a s o f P r o b a b l e C o n c e r n
EPA defines Areas of Probable Concern as those areas with at least ten Tier 1 sampling stations and a total number of
Tier 1 and Tier 2 sampling stations that account for at least75 percent of all sampling stations in the area. At Tier 1 sta-tions, associated adverse effects from the contamination areprobable. At Tier 2 stations, associated adverse effects arepossible, but expected to be infrequent.
Source: EPA National Sediment Quality Survey, 1998
� 5 �� 5 �
(APCs). (See box on previous page.) APCs are areaswhere further study of the effects and sources ofsediment contamination is warranted. According toEPA, “A reasonable estimate of the national extent ofcontamination leading to adverse effects on aquaticlife is between 6 and 12 percent of sediment under-lying surface waters.”3
Frequently, disturbed sediment recontaminateswater bodies. According to the International JointCommission, the U.S.-Canadian partnership dedi-
cated to addressing problems in the nations’ sharedsurface waters, contaminants buried in the deep sedi-ment (below 10 cm) can be transported back into thewater column by two processes. The activity of ben-thic invertebrates — organisms living on or in the bot-tom of a water body — can recycle material from asdeep as 40 cm to the more active surface layer, andmajor storms, internal waves, currents, and vesseltraffic also can resuspend contaminated sediment.4
SEDIMENT CLEANUP APPROACHES
Sediment is assessed to compare the potential en-vironmental and human health impacts of leav-
ing contaminated sediment inplace, undisturbed, versus someform of removal or control to pre-vent exposure. The selection of aremediation technique depends onwhether the material is toxic, ex-plosive, reactive, or otherwise dan-gerous to handle; how severely thecontaminants are affecting theecosystem; and whether the sedi-ment will be transported down-stream or remain in place. The costand feasibility of alternative tech-niques must be considered, alongwith their potential to resuspendthe toxics into the water column.Each technique has environmentalbenefits and consequences.
DREDGING
Dredging, one of the most com-mon remediation methods, re-moves the contaminated sediment from the bottomof a water body. In some cases it is not physicallypossible to dredge an area; when dredging is feasi-
ble it generally is very expensive. Dredged materialmay require dewatering, which increases costs. The
dredged site also may require airmonitoring, dust suppression,and vapor monitoring. Excavationof ditches, streams, and creekscan require the potentially expen-sive temporary diversion ofwater. Dredging also incurs costsfor transport, treatment, tippingfees, and liability.
The environmental impacts ofdredging are widely debated. Dur-ing the dredging process, contami-nated sediment inevitably is resus-pended in the water column tosome degree. The effect of this sus-pension depends on the quantityand toxicity of the sediment that isreleased and the sensitivity ofdownstream aquatic life to it. An-other environmental impact ofdredging results from the disposalof dredged material. The safe dis-
posal of sediment, whether it is contaminated or not,has become a challenge. Federal and state regula-tions increasingly restrict disposal of this material,particularly if it contains contaminated sediment.
During the
dredging process,
contaminated
sediment inevitably is
resuspended in the
water column to
some degree.
� 6 �� 6 �
CAPPING,CONTAINMENT,AND TREATMENT
Other sediment managementtechniques include cappingand containment. A section ofa waterway may be capped ifdredging is not required andthe area is not affected bystorms, subject to erosion orstrong undercurrents, or con-taminated with a large accu-mulation of hazardous chemi-cals in nonaqueous forms.The best caps are finelygrained, organically rich, andable to bind with contaminantparticles. Capped areas mustbe monitored periodically toensure that toxic contami-nants are not released. Con-tainment techniques isolate aportion of a waterway by en-closing it within cofferdams,dikes, or other structures.Their environmental impactdepends on the quantity ofcontaminated sediment that isreleased during constructionof the containment structure.
A wide variety of techniques for treating or neu-tralizing sediment contaminants are being devel-oped. These methods are described in the appendixto this report.
For example, New Jersey in1997 banned dumping of allsediment off the state’scoast.
Dredged material resultsnot only from the removalof contaminated sediment,but also from dredging tomake water channelslonger and deeper for ship-ping and navigation. Har-bors in particular requireperiodic dredging to re-move accumulated silt. Ac-cording to a joint report ofTaxpayers for CommonSense and the NationalWildlife Federation, “Portauthorities are now en-gaged in a race to the bot-tom to accommodate mega-ships, which requirechannels that are at least 50feet deep. More than adozen ports are aiming to-ward that end, which willresult in a huge overcapac-ity of deep draft ports and amountain of dredge spoils,some of which are highlycontaminated.”5 A contentious debate continues overthe economic demand for dredging waterways ver-sus the environmental impacts of disturbing anddisposing of dredged sediment.
According to a
recent report, megaships
require channels that are at
least 50 feet deep. More than a
dozen ports are aiming toward
that end, which will result in a
huge overcapacity of deep
draft ports and a mountain of
dredge spoils, some of which
are highly contaminated.
� 7 �� 7 �
SECURING FUNDS FOR HIGHCLEANUP COSTS
Funding can be a barrier to the cleanup of bothbrownfield and sediment sites. Most municipalitiesdo not have the capacity and resources to undertakesustained sediment site investigations and cleanupswithout state and federal assistance. They lackfunds, as well as the statutory authority, to investi-gate common property resources such as aquifersand aqueous sediment.6 States also may need to de-vote their limited resources to more pressing envi-ronmental priorities.
Some federal programs provide funding for stateand local efforts to address sediment contamination.For example, every state and Puerto Rico has aClean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, whichtakes in contributions from the states and EPA andthen issues low- or no-interest loans for water qual-ity projects. Congress appropriated $1.35 billion forthe fund in fiscal 2001. The loans may be used forexcavation, removal, and disposal of contaminatedsoil or sediment; phase I, II, and III assessments;construction of wetlands as a filtering mechanism;and excavation and disposal of underground storagetanks.
Several programs in the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers (USACE) can fund beneficial dredging proj-ects. For example, in fiscal 2000 Congress appropri-ated $11 million for environmental qualityrestoration; $1 million for the beneficial use ofdredged material; $1 million for environmentaldredging projects; and more than $6 million foraquatic ecosystem restoration activities.7
According to an EPA study, the vast majority ofassessment work at sites with sediment contamina-tion was conducted through Superfund site investi-gations or with the assistance of USACE.8 In theGreat Lakes, virtually all U.S. sediment remediationconducted before 1997 was funded as a result of en-forcement actions taken against polluters, typically
industries or municipalities. Since then, states suchas Michigan have taken steps to clean up contami-nated sediment. The Clean Michigan Initiative(CMI), approved in a public referendum in Novem-ber 1998, funds five programs focused on cleanup,pollution prevention, and redevelopment statewide.In its first two years, the program designated $25million for waterfront redevelopment and remedia-tion of contaminated lake and river sediment.
Through CMI, the state initiated cleanup of con-taminated sediment in designated lakes and rivers atfive sites in the summer of 1999. Five additional siteswere being remediated in 2000. The state proceedswith the site remediation while retaining the right topursue cost recovery against identifiable potentialresponsible parties. According to Bill Creal of theMichigan Department of Environmental Quality, itwill take from five to seven years to clean up a sitewith contaminated sediment and sort out the liabil-ity issues. Without the CMI funding, however, itmight take 15 years to implement a managementstrategy.
DETERMINING CLEANUPSTANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Redevelopment of brownfield sites has been hin-dered by uncertainty about cleanup standards andguidelines, and similar uncertainty can stall sedi-ment cleanup. Many states lack clear guidelines fordetermining the pollutant levels that cause adverseecological and human health effects. Only ninestates — California, Florida, Massachusetts, NewJersey, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Washing-ton, and Wisconsin — have developed sedimentquality guidelines. Moreover, in most cases it is im-possible to quantify how much sediment needs to becleaned up and to what standard in order to achievespecific social, environmental, and economic im-provements.
CHALLENGES OF SEDIMENTREMEDIATION
� 8 �� 8 �
Recognizing this uncertainty, the Federal Intera-gency Sedimentation Project is working to improvethe data and methodology for assessing sedimentcontamination. The project coordinates the researchof its members, including representatives from EPA,the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE), the U.S. Bureau of Land Man-agement, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (in-cluding the Forest Service), and the Tennessee ValleyAuthority. For example, the De-partment of Agriculture isstudying physical properties ofsediment to determine both thedegree to which sediment trapscontaminants and the timeframe for biodegradation, chem-ical degradation, and burial ofcontaminants.
EPA is developing a User’sGuide for Multi-Program Imple-mentation of Sediment QualityCriteria in Aquatic Ecosystems toassist those who use the sedi-ment quality criteria generatedby a variety of environmentalprograms. The guide will clarifyhow sediment quality criteriavalues can be used with the pro-grams for Water Quality Stan-dards, National Pollutant Dis-charge and Elimination System(NPDES) permitting, Superfundand RCRA investigations, andsediment assessment, preven-tion, and remediation. EPA alsois developing technical informa-tion on a method used to derivesediment quality criteria knownas the equilibrium partitioningapproach. The draft guide andfinal technical document are ex-pected to be released by 2001.
USACE’s Center for Contaminated Sedimentsconsolidates research and facilitates the sediment ac-tivities of USACE organizations, the U.S. Depart-ment of Defense, other federal and state agencies,academia, and the private sector. USACE also pro-vides guidance on ecological and human healthrisks associated with upland disposal of dredged
material and is developing a method to rapidlyscreen sediment for dioxin. USACE is seeking morepractical and cost-effective decontamination anddetoxification approaches.
COORDINATING MULTIPLECLEANUP AUTHORITIES
Jurisdictional issues make sediment cleanup proj-ects more complicated than most brownfield rede-
velopment efforts. More than60 federal programs can helpreduce the amount of sedimententering the ecosystem, treatcontaminated sediment, findbeneficial uses for sediment,and identify parties who areresponsible for legally and ille-gally dumping toxics into wa-terways. According to EPA’sContaminated Sediment Strategy,“Implementation of these pro-grams by different EPA pro-gram offices under a widerange of statutory authoritieshas created inconsistencies inprocedures for assessing therelative risks posed by contam-inated sediment and has in-creased the potential for dupli-cation in the areas of research,technology development, andfield activities.” 9
At least nine EPA offices areworking on aspects of the sedi-ment issue. EPA and other fed-eral agencies work under a va-riety of statutes, including theResource Conservation and Re-covery Act; Clean Air Act;Clean Water Act; and MarineProtection, Research, and Sanc-tuaries Act. According to EPA’s
water office, these authorities enable the agency tocompel responsible parties to clean up contaminatedsites, recover costs for EPA’s cleanups from responsi-ble parties, and coordinate with natural resourcetrustees to seek restitution from responsible partiesfor natural resource damages.10
More than 60 federal
programs can help reduce
the amount of sediment
entering the ecosystem,
treat contaminated
sediment, find beneficial
uses for sediment, and
identify parties who are
responsible for legally and
illegally dumping toxics
into waterways.
� 9 �� 9 �
The coordination of federalprograms is complicated fur-ther by working with state andlocal programs, whose juris-dictions may overlap or con-flict in areas that are contami-nated by multiple sources orcross political boundaries. ANational Research Councilstudy concluded, “Federalleadership will be required onissues that span multiple juris-dictions or threaten federallyprotected species.”11 EPA isworking to improve the coor-dination of research and regu-latory activities among federalagencies, state agencies, inter-national organizations, andprivate parties.
In addition, the CoastalAmerica Partnership providesa forum for interagency collab-orative action and a mecha-nism to facilitate regional ac-tion plans to protect, preserve,and restore the nation’s coastalliving resources. Establishedby a memorandum of under-standing in 1992, the partner-ship includes federal agencies with statutoryresponsibilities for coastal resources or whose oper-ational activities affect the coastal environment. Its
primary goals are to buildearly project collaboration,enhance project benefits,leverage funding, facilitatetechnology transfer, and im-prove education and under-standing among both thepartners and the general pub-lic. The partnership focuseson regional activities that pro-vide direct local and water-shed action.
Coastal America also fos-ters collaboration among fed-eral, state, and local agenciesand private alliances to ad-dress coastal environmentalproblems. The partnership’sinteragency teams develop re-gional plans and strategiesthat provide frameworks forselecting projects and imple-menting programs. This plan-ning process seeks to incorpo-rate environmental objectivesinto regional economic devel-opment plans and encourageearly identification of oppor-tunities to restore the environ-ment while advancing devel-
opment. More than 400 Coastal America projects areunderway throughout U.S. coastal areas.
The coordination
of federal programs is
complicated further by
working with state and local
programs, whose
jurisdictions may overlap or
conflict in areas that are
contaminated by multiple
sources or cross political
boundaries.
� 10 �
BARRIERS TO LINKING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT CLEANUP
& BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT
Waterfront brownfield sites are ripe for cleanupand reuse due to growing demand for resi-
dential, recreational, and commercial developmentnear fishable, swimmable, and aesthetically pleasingwaterways. However, typically it is not possible tocouple waterfront brownfield redevelopment andsediment remediation. Under normal circumstances,if contamination is confined to a brownfield anddoes not affect groundwater or aquifers, state volun-tary cleanup programs do not require landowners toclean up the sediment on waterfront lots. (See box.)Innocent landowners do not bear responsibility forhistoric contamination of sediment by dischargesand leaching from their sites. These landownersneed only install controls such as fencing to preventhuman exposure to contaminated sediment.
Even if state and local governments sought tohold waterfront landowners responsible for cleaning
up adjacent sediment contamination, it would be ex-tremely difficult and costly to prove liability for thesmall share of sediment contamination that a water-front property may have contributed. This is becausesediment can be contaminated by numerous off-sitesources through groundwater, discharges, subsur-face plumes, and even the settling of particulatematter from the air.
Because areas of contaminated sediment are nu-merous and their remediation is expensive and com-plicated, states and municipalities usually avoiddealing with them unless the contamination causesimminent harm to people or wildlife. Municipalitiesoften separate the issues of upland and aqueouscontamination in order to expeditiously return up-land sites to the tax rolls or convert them into water-front parks and greenways.
J u r i s d i c t i o n a l I s s u e s t h a t
C o m p l i c a t e L i n k i n g S e d i m e n t a n d B r o w n f i e l d s
State Authority Over Surface Waters: Since most states claim authority over their surface waters, privatecleanups account for only the landward soils unless contamination that is traceable to the property ap-pears elsewhere during any later assessment for different reasons.
Limited Private Landowner Responsibility: Unless the state owns the waterfront property, voluntarycleanup programs for private landowners generally do not require sampling of aquatic sediment.Such sampling occurs only when there is evidence of groundwater contamination and the potentialfor subsurface flow into the water body.
Superfund Liability: Usually waterfront properties near Superfund waterway sites have offshore aque-ous sediment evaluated through the Superfund program, creating a link between waterfront redevel-opment and sediment cleanup. However, private landowners of waterfront sites may be reluctant tovoluntarily assess their property because of possible liability as a potentially responsible party to theSuperfund site contamination. Thus, a water body’s proximity to a Superfund site actually may dis-courage waterfront redevelopment and sediment sampling.
Source: Brian Pietruszewski, Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting, U.S. EPA, May - July, 1999.
� 11 �� 11 �� 11 �
Because contaminated sediment and brownfieldstypically are cleaned up under different authori-
ties by different agencies, opportunities to link theseparallel efforts may be overlooked. Moreover, manyindirect linkages may not be readily apparent. Theyinclude:
■ The willingness of responsible parties to enterinto voluntary cleanup agreements for both waterbodies and brownfields in order to avoid the list-ing of a site on the Superfund National PrioritiesList.
■ The potential for contaminated sediment cleanupto remove a stigma and perception of contamina-tion at neighboring waterfront brownfield sites.
■ The capacity for brownfield cleanup to spur sedi-ment removal or containment to allow the use ofsurface waters for recreation or shipping.
■ The opportunity to reuse some brownfield sites asrepositories for dredged contaminated sediment.
USE OF VOLUNTARY CLEANUPAGREEMENTS TO AVOIDSUPERFUND LISTING
As demonstrated by the case of a General Electricsite on Connecticut’s and Massachusetts’ Housa-tonic River, the specter of listing a waterfront siteon the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)can provide a strong incentive for responsible par-ties to voluntarily clean up land, water, and sedi-ment contamination. For more than two decades,residents, business owners, environmentalists,community activists, and public officials fromConnecticut and Massachusetts have worked toinitiate cleanup of the Housatonic River and itsfloodplain. After three years of intense negotia-tions, the parties have reached a settlementspurred by the desire of both the responsible partyand the community to avoid listing the site underthe federal Superfund program. The cleanup planwill restore the river area and redevelop the con-taminated site into one of Massachusetts’ largestcenter- city business complexes.
The contamination of the area’s soil, groundwa-ter, and sediment was well documented over thepast twenty years by General Electric (GE), theMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protec-tion (DEP), and the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). However, area residents and busi-nesses were divided over which strategies should beused to ensure that GE, the sole responsible party,would pay for the cleanup. Most of the residentsand citizens wanted an expedited settlement with-out resorting to the Superfund program, which en-tails the stigma and procedural delays of a listing onthe NPL. The recent agreement would allow treat-ment and remediation at the GE site under the su-pervision of EPA.
History of Contamination: Located in westernMassachusetts and emptying into Long Island Sound,the Housatonic River is contaminated with PCBs, apotential human carcinogen. (See box.) The contami-nation can be traced directly to the Pittsfield GE site,which historically is the sole producer and major han-dler of PCBs in western Massachusetts. From the1930s to 1977, GE used PCBs in its Pittsfield opera-tions to produce electrical transformers, capacitors,and other equipment. GE disposed of PCB-laden ma-terial in wetlands, ravines, and the river and its river-bank until PCBs were banned in 1977.
CASE STUDIES: INTEGRATING SEDIMENTAND BROWNFIELD REMEDIATION
P o l y c h l o r i n a t e d B i p h e n y h l s ( P C B s )
For years, PCBs have been used as lubricants and coolantsin electrical equipment because they are nonflammable
and provide excellent insulation. These compounds usuallyappear as an oily liquid that can persist for decades or muchlonger in the environment. PCBs are a probable human car-cinogen and pose special risks to pregnant women. Theyalso are linked to problems with intellectual functions inchildren and affect the nervous, immune, and reproductivesystems. PCB manufacturing was banned in 1977.
� 12 �� 12 �
In the 1940s and 1950s, GE also offered free fillmaterial to residents and businesses in Pittsfield. Itwas later discovered that this material was ladenwith very high concentrationsof PCBs. The contaminated fillalso was used in the oxbowscreated after the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers straight-ened a section of the Housa-tonic River.
The extent of the PCB con-tamination roughly coincideswith the ten-year flood plain ofthe Housatonic River. Thelevel of PCB contamination inPittsfield and the Housatonicis so extensive that DEP re-quired GE to remove soil frommany residences in the 1990sunder the Massachusetts Con-tingency Plan, which enablesstate regulators to categorize,determine oversight proce-dures, and set standards forsite cleanup. DEP and EPA dis-covered PCB levels greaterthan 100,000 parts per million(ppm) in soil from theHousatonic’s riverbank (theEPA considers 2 ppm to be asafe level for residential areas).
Surveys concluded that thelevel of PCBs at the site mayadversely affect fish and stressbottom-dwelling organisms.PCBs tend to accumulate infatty tissue and become more concentrated as theypass through the food chain. PCBs also may migratedownstream because they are readily absorbed inthe fine sediment found in slow-moving sections ofthe river and behind the dams. Storms or other highflow events may cause resuspension of PCB-ladensediment and result in sediment transport and depo-sition further downstream.
Negotiations: The discovery of the PCB contami-nation in the city, the river, and the GE facility, andensuing discussions about the cleanup strategy di-vided Pittsfield into several factions. Some groups inthe town of 48,000 wanted to sue GE and put the siteon the Superfund NPL, but others urged all parties
to negotiate a settlement in hopes that a cleanupcould get started quickly.
Initially, GE cooperated with EPA and state offi-cials in the investigation andremediation of the site pur-suant to state laws and thefederal Resource Conservationand Recovery Act (RCRA),which governs corrective ac-tion for contamination at oper-ating facilities. However,progress under RCRA wasslow and additional contami-nated sites were being locatedwhile the parties negotiated.
In 1997, EPA Region 1 pro-posed the GE-Housatonic Riversite for NPL listing, in order toshift the site jurisdiction fromRCRA to the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response Com-pensation and Liability Act(CERCLA), or Superfund,regime. CERCLA designationwould allow EPA to spend Su-perfund money on cleanup andthen bill GE for its costs. Someproperty owners supported theCERCLA listing as the mostcertain means of accomplishingthe cleanup.
GE countered by suing EPAin April 1998, contending thatEPA proposed the listing onlyto gain a bargaining advantage,not because the site met the cri-
teria for listing under CERCLA. GE opposed the list-ing in part due to concern about the company’s publicimage. The mayor of Pittsfield and some local busi-ness owners joined GE in opposing the listing, con-cerned about its stigma, and fearing it would causeproperty values to plummet. In addition, the mayorbelieved an NPL listing would further delay the startof cleanup activities because GE would fight the list-ing in court, and the mandatory provisions of Super-fund cleanups can extend the duration of cleanupitself. In fact, a March 1997 General Accounting Office study found the time required for Superfundcleanups had increased from less than four years inthe early 1980s to more than ten years.
All parties sought a
workable plan that would
restore the city and river,
redevelop the GE facility,
and avoid resorting to
the Superfund program.
After three years of
negotiations, in September
1998, the parties reached
what they consider a
satisfying conclusion.
� 13 �� 13 �� 13 �
ment, refurbish the 100-year-old GE facility, and pre-pare it for new tenants.
The site can accommodate 700,000 to 1 millionsquare feet of building space. The city plans to houseprospective tenants at the demolition site by creatingtemporary office space, rent free, for up to six years.Because only one building on the 250-acre site waslisted on the Superfund NPL, prospective tenantsmay use several state financial and tax incentivesthat support brownfield redevelopment. Already alarge electric vehicle manufacturer, EV Worldwide,plans to occupy part of the site, bringing an ex-pected 1,000 jobs over five years.
Partnerships in Play: Negotiations continuedamong EPA Region 1 and GE, as well as numerousother parties, including representatives of Pittsfield,Connecticut, Massachusetts, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Justice, andthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion. All parties sought a workable plan that wouldrestore the city and river, redevelop the GE facility,and avoid resorting to the Superfund program.
After three years of negotiations, in September1998, the parties reached what they consider a satisfy-ing conclusion when GE and EPA Region 1 agreed toa modified cleanup agreement. The negotiating par-ties agreed that the actions required in the settlementwill protect humans from future risks, clean up theriver and improve the natural resources, and create arefurbished facility that will benefit Pittsfield’s econ-omy. The parties decided to accelerate and expand thecleanup process in the river, the flood plain, and inthe city while the agreement was scrutinized by theU.S. District Court and released for public comment.However, EPA still may add the facility to the NPL ifnecessary to obtain additional money and enforceGE’s responsibilities to restore the site.
Consent Decree Provisions: The consent decreedescribes the actions that GE will take to remediatethe sites and restore some of the natural environ-ment. The decree covers 11 former oxbows of theriver that were filled with GE waste; a PCB spill atGE Building 68; approximately eight miles of PCB-contaminated flood plain soils; river sediment; twolandfills; and areas of contaminated soil in Pittsfield.GE has spent $114 million so far on removing PCBoils from the plant, rebuilding a dam to preventdownstream PCB transport, installing the newgroundwater and oil recovery systems, and remov-ing contaminated soil from flood plain residentialproperties and the nearby schoolyard. The settle-ment is expected to cost GE an additional $200 mil-lion to $750 million.
Under the consent decree, GE will demolish anti-quated vacant buildings, refurbish others, and cleanup contamination at the site to create one of thestate’s largest new center-city business complexes onabout 20 percent of the 250-acre site. This area willbe turned over to the Pittsfield Economic Develop-ment Association (PEDA). Created by the Massachu-setts Legislature in 1998, PEDA will plan for thecleanup, redevelopment, and marketing of the site.PEDA can issue revenue bonds to fund redevelop-
N e g o t i a t e d C l e a n u p S t a n d a r d s
a n d R e m e d i e s
The GE plant site will be cleaned up to allow for the com-mercial/industrial use of the property, with environ-
mental restrictions and easements placed on all GE-ownedproperties to ensure that current uses will not change. Aspart of the agreement, GE must make the property at the sitethat it does not own safe for current use through a combina-tion of cleanup and deed restrictions (with appropriate com-pensation to the property owners).
If a property owner proposes to EPA a legally permissiblenew use for the property, GE must clean up the site to thestandard of the future use. For example, if a commercialproperty were to be converted to a recreational area, thecleanup standard would increase from 25 ppm to 10 ppm.At residential properties along the river, the sites will becleaned up to 2 ppm, while nonresidential areas will be re-quired to adhere to the standards listed above.
Soil from the 26-acre Silver Lake, which contains as muchcontamination as the entire river south of GE, will be re-moved and the lake will be capped. The shoreline will becleaned and landscaped and some type of recreation areawill be created at the lake. A landfill at the GE facility will becapped and an extensive groundwater monitoring systemestablished to monitor the groundwater surrounding thelandfill. A leachate collection system and liner will be in-stalled. Dredged material from the first half-mile of the riverwill be stored in this area. An additional area may be usedand will be designed in a similar manner.
� 14 �� 14 �
GE will give the city more than $10 million in di-rect economic aid, including $1 million per year forten years to offset lost tax rev-enues. GE will fund marketingstudies to help the city attractnew tenants and make thebuildings handicapped acces-sible. The company’s total costwill be between $45 and $50million.
To mitigate the damage towildlife, wetlands, and theHousatonic, GE must fund a$15-million natural resourcedamage package that will re-store, replace, or acquire theequivalent of areas that werecontaminated by GE’s opera-tions. These measures includehabitat enhancements such asherbaceous native grasslandspecies, riparian communities,and wetland protection. In ad-dition, GE will provide $6 mil-lion in project work.
If PEDA succeeds in attract-ing new tenants and owners to the site, it will be requiredunder the consent decree to contribute $4 million fornatural resource restoration. Thus, the consent decreedirectly links the success of the redevelopment with the restoration of the area’snatural resources.
SEDIMENT CLEANUP TO REMOVE ASTIGMA AT BROWNFIELD SITES
Waukegan Harbor, on Lake Michigan in the city ofWaukegan, Illinois, illustrates the complexity of thesediment-brownfield relationship. For years, the har-bor could not be dredged to better accommodatecommercial shipping because it was heavily contami-nated with PCBs. Without a harbor depth to supportshipping boats at their full capacity, area industriessuffered escalated shipping costs that discouraged thegrowth of shipping-dependent industries.
At the same time, historic sediment contamina-tion created a perception of severe contamination
throughout the area, inhibiting private investment indeveloping vacant brownfield sites near the harbor.
Therefore, sediment remedia-tion in Waukegan Harbor hadthe potential to supportbrownfield redevelopment intwo ways: by allowing thedredging needed to revive thearea’s industrial base, and byrestoring a positive perceptionof the area for redevelopment.
Harbor Significance: Over-all, Waukegan Harbor is anarea primarily focused and de-pendent on commercial and in-dustrial uses, with sport fishingand recreational boat use alsocontributing to the economy.Located midway between Mil-waukee and Chicago, the har-bor is an important shippingport and also is designated asthe only harbor of refuge forcommercial vessels operatingbetween the two cities. Almostall of the area’s economic activ-ity and municipal services de-pend in some manner on theharbor. The National GypsumCompany reports that harborcommerce supports 7,000 jobswith an annual payroll of $25million.12
According to a 1997 dredging case study reportissued by the U.S. Department of Transportation’sMaritime Administration (MARAD), the harbor des-perately needs dredging to support shipping. Au-thorized to a depth of 23 feet, the harbor was lastdredged in 1972 to 18 feet and has since silted in to16 feet. The shallower depth requires many vesselsto light load to up to 40 percent of capacity. Three offour industries participating in a 1994 survey re-ported having to alter normal shipping proceduresin order to accommodate shallower water depths.For example, National Gypsum’s ships have a ca-pacity of 23,800 tons, but because of diminishingwater depth they could load only 15,300 tons in1998, 13,600 tons in 1999, and 11,500 tons in 2000.Light loading can increase annual shipping costs byhundreds of thousands of dollars.
Sediment remediation in
Waukegan Harbor had the
potential to support
brownfield redevelopment in
two ways: by allowing the
dredging needed to revive the
area’s industrial base, and by
restoring a positive
perception of the area for
redevelopment.
� 15 �� 15 �� 15 �
Contamination and Cleanup: In 1981, whenWaukegan Harbor was designated an Area of Con-cern by the International Joint Commission, initialstudies showed approximately 136,000 kilograms ofPCBs in the harbor proper, with some of the mosthighly contaminated sites having concentrations ashigh as 500,000 mg/kg — 10,000 times the level sub-sequently deemed to be safe.13 Outboard MarineCorporation was identified as the primary source of PCBs.
In all, 453,600 kilograms of PCBs were removedfrom the harbor, leaving no sediment with PCB lev-els of more than 50 mg/kg — the level specified inthe consent decree. Outboard Marine Corporationassumed the $20-25 million cost of cleanup. Withthese environmental dredging measures taken, aplan was developed for renewing maintenancedredging efforts in the harbor, with implementationof the plan scheduled for 2002. As of May 2000,300,000 cubic yards of sediment contaminated withlow levels of residual PCBs had yet to be removed.
Area Redevelopment: By the mid-1990s, heavilycontaminated sediment had been removed from theharbor. Cleanup of two nearby Superfund sites wasnearly complete, and negotiations at a third Super-fund site were proceeding. However, the stigma ofcontamination remained and potential developersand businesses feared liability for residual pollution.The perception was reinforced when the city ofWaukegan purchased a former gas station to convertinto a park, only to discover two leaking under-ground tanks that cost $180,000 to clean up.14
To relieve the stigma, Illinois EPA (IEPA) launcheda pilot under its 1996 brownfield initiative to conductpreliminary site assessments on the harbor water-front. Working with local officials, IEPA selected sitesthat were primed for redevelopment. Today two ofthe sites, which were found to be mostly free of con-tamination, are being redeveloped into a theater andhousing project. Additional sites are undergoing as-sessment, clearing the way for further development.
It is widely held that there would have been no in-terest in redeveloping the area at all if the sedimentcontamination had not been addressed. The cleanupof the harbor and neighboring sites, coupled withIEPA’s brownfield initiative, helped stir interest inredeveloping the harbor area. Subsequently, the re-sults of IEPA’s site assessments are expanding the op-portunities for brownfield redevelopment that theharbor cleanup began.
BROWNFIELD CLEANUP TO SPURSEDIMENT REMOVAL ANDCONTAINMENT
In some cases, redevelopment of a brownfield pro-vides the impetus to clean up or contain contami-nated sediment in adjacent surface waters. For ex-ample, the stagnant Malden River in Massachusettswill be restored through an ambitious redevelop-ment project known as TeleCom City. A lake inHammond, Indiana, and a pond in Astoria, Oregon,were rehabilitated in conjunction with brownfieldredevelopment, and became attractive amenities for the area. In Bay City, Michigan, redevelopmentof a brownfield site for industrial use spurred thecleanup of sediment contamination near the mouthof the Saginaw River so that the waterway could bedredged for shipping use.
TeleCom City, Massachusetts: About five milesnorth of Boston, three cities abutting the MaldenRiver in the Mystic Valley joined forces to transforma 207-acre brownfield into a state-of-the-art telecom-munications research and development park calledTeleCom City. As a result of the TeleCom City proj-ect, the heavily contaminated Malden River will berestored as well.
Currently, more than 70 percent of the TeleComCity site is covered by asphalt. Much of the site wasbuilt on former wetlands and tidal areas that werefilled with foundry refuse from the Jupiter SteelCasting Company. Coal storage yards, lumber com-panies, leather tanning, coal gasification, metal fin-ishing, and textile and chemical manufacturing op-erated on the site until the early twentieth century.The Malden River flowed through the site, provid-ing an important transportation corridor for thebusinesses there.
As the industries and technologies changed overthe last century, the Malden River became obsoleteas a transportation corridor. It was dammed in theearly 1960s, becoming a stagnant pond, 300 feetwide and a mile long, polluted by nonpoint sourcesand combined-sewer overflows. Pollutants fromAllied Chemical and the former Monsanto ChemicalCompany contaminated the river’s sediment, andoil, organic material, coal tars, and polyaromatichydrocarbons have been found in the core samples.Toxins from upland locations continue to migrateinto the river, resisting several efforts to correct the problem.
� 16 �� 16 �
Chemical companies hit hard by environmentalissues disappeared from the site by the 1970s. TheMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protec-tion (DEP) has listed nine sites in the 207-acre parcelas confirmed or potential haz-ardous waste sites — one of thehighest concentrations of listedsites in the Commonwealth. Al-though some parcels were con-verted to industrial or public usethrough federally funded urbanrenewal programs, today morethan 70 percent of the land is se-verely underutilized and 68 per-cent of the existing buildings areobsolete, physically deteriorated,or unsuitable for conversion orimprovement.
Despite its contamination, thesite was chosen for the TeleComCity project because it is uniquelysuited to serve as the physical andtechnological focus for Massachu-setts’ telecommunications indus-try. The site’s location is its great-est amenity, providing readyaccess to universities, business de-velopment, public transportation,and Logan Airport. Moreover, thesite’s riverfront setting could be-come an asset and focal point forthe development.
The local governments joinedwith federal officials led by Sena-tors Edward Kennedy and JohnKerry, Congressman EdwardMarkey, and the Weld-Cellucciadministration to develop an in-novative plan to transform the blighted industrialland. According to TeleCom City’s Master Plan, theproject will be worth an estimated $750 millionwhen built out to a three-million-square-foot facility,housing hundreds of technology companies, gener-ating an estimated $450 million on-site payroll, andquintupling the area’s current tax base from $1.1million to $6 million. The virtual global technologypark will be a self-contained research and develop-ment facility, combining a technology transfer and li-censing consortium of regional universities and cor-porations, a product commercialization center, a
manufacturing center, and an advanced communica-tions infrastructure.
The mayors of Malden, Medford, and Everettsigned an agreement in March 1995 to create the
Mystic Valley DevelopmentCommission (MDVC), a jointeconomic development agencythat oversees the TeleCom Cityproject. Governor William Weldand the state legislature estab-lished MVDC the followingyear. MVDC acts as the area’scentral permitting authority andis responsible for zoning, regula-tory, and tax requirements forTeleCom City. MVDC managesthe local real estate taxation inthe project area, dividing the taxrevenues according to a landownership formula.
The Master Plan calls for asubstantial program of acquisi-tion, clearance, and infrastructuredevelopment in partnership withMassachusetts and the New Yorkdeveloper Priotte, Lane, and As-sociates Ltd. To overcome frag-mented ownership and liabilityconstraints, the MVDC will ob-tain ownership control over theproject area and establish a con-sistent set of zoning controls,which will allow for the compre-hensive environmental testing ofthe area without the constraintsof parcel boundaries. The MVDChas the power of eminent do-main and will act as the area’s
central permitting authority.Because residents of the three cities have been cut
off from the Malden River for such a long time, thereis not a strong push to restore the river to its naturalconditions. The cleanup will make the river safeenough for boating, but not fishing or swimming.The Master Plan calls for a 50- to 60-acre landscapedarea for public access to the river by boardwalks andoverlooks, and vegetation will be planted to deterdirect contact with the river. The project abuts the70-acre Mystic River Reservation, one of the largestopen space systems in the northern metropolitan
The site’s location
is its greatest amenity,
providing ready access to
universities, business
development, public
transportation, and
Logan Airport. Moreover,
the site’s riverfront
setting could become an
asset and focal point for
the development.
� 17 �� 17 �� 17 �
Boston region. In addition,Bike to the Sea, Inc., is con-structing a ten-mile bicyclepath to occupy the abandonedrailroad track along the river’seastern boundary.
Hammond, Indiana: Ham-mond’s George Lake is a shal-low lake surrounded by indus-trial facilities, including theBairstow site, a 97-acre formersteel mill waste dump for slag(the residual material fromsmelting). The city of Ham-mond acquired the site for alake restoration project, includ-ing a youth golf course, adultgolf course, and wetlandsrestoration. Soon after, the cityobtained an EPA grant for a$200,000-Phase I and II site as-sessment.15
The site restoration involvedcapping 100 acres of slag field,with 46 acres completed to dateand the remaining 54 under-way. The first 46 acres were capped with about 60,000cubic yards of bottom ash from the site. The ash, ofthe consistency of clay, forms an impervious surfaceto be covered with soil and grass for the golf course,which then will be outfitted with a drainage system tochannel any surface water runoff.
The assessment included sediment sampling in thelake, which found minor elevated pH levels that werecaused by groundwater and surface water runofffrom the brownfield. The lake bottom is beingdredged to increase the depth of the lake’s southbasin from two feet to ten feet, primarily to supportfishing, eliminate the growth of invasive species thatthrive in shallow water, and provide a place for fish towinter. This dredging will remove 200,000 to 300,000cubic yards of sand and sediment that can be mixedwith “new earth” from a Hammond Sanitary Districtlagoon and lime from a nearby BP/Amoco site for useas the cap on the remaining 54 acres of the Bairstowsite. The sand and sediment also will be used on thegolf courses. In addition, the city is reconstructing theshoreline with 12 new acres of wetland.
Thus, the Bairstow site redevelopment hascleaned up and enhanced George Lake, created ben-
eficial uses for the lake sandand sediment, and created anattractive lake and wetlandthat provide an amenity forthe recreation area. In fact, therehabilitation of the onceblighted area has convincedthe owners of the adjacentBP/Amoco industrial site toinvest in redeveloping theirproperty.
Bairstow’s redevelopmentalso illustrates the power ofcooperation. EPA funded alarge share of the projectthrough brownfield and wa-tershed restoration grants; thestate department of natural re-sources provided $1.5 millionto deepen the lake; and bothagencies are working with thestate department of environ-mental management, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, andBP/Amoco to complete theproject.
Astoria, Oregon: The redevelopment of a brown-field site in Astoria, Oregon, is having a similar ef-fect of rehabilitating a pond with contaminated sedi-ment. The three-acre pond is located in the middleof a sixteen-acre site on the banks of the ColumbiaRiver. The site once housed a plywood mill thatfloated logs down the river and into the pond. Overtime, the pond became contaminated with petro-leum from the mill’s activities.16
When the city of Astoria proposed redevelopingthe site for residential use, the Oregon Departmentof Environmental Quality (DEQ) worked with thecity to devise a cleanup plan. They found that thesediment was not highly contaminated, and clean-ing it up would be prohibitively expensive. In addi-tion, natural biological processes already at workwould eventually remove the contamination. There-fore, DEQ agreed to leave the contaminated sedi-ment in place if the city established institutional con-trols to prevent human and wildlife exposure. Theinstitutional controls include deed restrictions oneach housing lot that prohibit recreational use of thepond. To deter trespassing, the developer will gradethe bank line and surround the pond with dense
The Bairstow site
redevelopment has cleaned
up and enhanced George
Lake, created beneficial uses
for the slightly contaminated
lake sediment, and created an
attractive lake and wetland
that provide an amenity for
the recreation area.
� 18 �
native vegetation — an aesthetically appealing alter-native to fencing.
In addition, mechanisms have been created tomaintain the pond’s depth because the ColumbiaRiver is subject to rising and falling tides of 11 feet.At low tide, the water drained from the pond, leav-ing a mud flat that exposed the contaminated sedi-ment. To maintain the pond’sdepth and prevent contact withthe sediment by humans andshore birds, a barrier was in-stalled at the pond’s 30 foot-wide opening to the river. Thebarrier was set at an elevationthat allows daily water ex-changes between the pond andthe river to prevent stagnation,but also maintains a water depththat ensures the sediment is notexposed.
The developer could havesimply filled in the pond, butnow it provides an amenity andopen space for the community.DEQ will regularly monitor thesite’s groundwater and pondsediment to determine to whatdegree the petroleum contami-nants have broken down. Thecontaminants are expected to di-minish to safe levels within 15years, enabling the institutionalbarriers on use of the pond to be lifted.
Bay City, Michigan: In the Bay City area on theSaginaw River, a state waterfront development granthas indirectly spurred redevelopment of a brown-field site and cleanup and disposal of contaminatedsediment.17
The state of Michigan provides waterfront devel-opment grants, redevelopment loans and grants,and Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI) funding to ad-dress environmental issues that discourage the rede-velopment of contaminated sites. These funds arespecific to upland areas, and generally contaminatedsediment does not affect their use because dredgingmay not be required for waterfront redevelopment.Also, sediment already is being addressed by otherprograms — a natural resource damage settlementwith the state and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
provided money for federal and state efforts todredge PCB “hot spots” in the river.
However, in the case of one waterfront develop-ment grant, a facility that handles aggregate neededto be relocated from the downtown area to an indus-trial area closer to the mouth of the Saginaw River.The new site is a brownfield that formerly served as a
bulk oil terminal. Because the re-located aggregate facility requiresaccess to shipping, about a quar-ter-million cubic yards of contam-inated sediment must be dredgedfrom the boat slip and part of theriver to give the facility access tothe shipping channel. The sedi-ment will be shipped to a certi-fied facility for disposal. Thus,reuse of the brownfield led todredging of the waterway and,finally, the cleanup of contami-nated sediment.
USE OF BROWNFIELDSAS SEDIMENTREPOSITORIES
Occasionally brownfieldswith limited redevelopment po-tential can serve as repositoriesfor contaminated sediment, pro-viding both a beneficial reuse ofthe site and an urgently needed
repository for dredged material. According to theAshtabula River Partnership, the site of a formersodium plant provides an ideal location for the con-taminated sediment from the river.18
The brownfield is a decommissioned sodiumplant that houses several old buildings and struc-tures, some of which need to be torn down. Thecleaned site is not well suited for redevelopment andis adjacent to the landfill where the sediment fromthe Fields Brook Superfund site is disposed. Thedraft comprehensive management plan-environ-mental impact statement for the Ashtabula River an-ticipated disposing the sediment in another landfill.However, a newly revised plan selected the sodiumplant site as the sediment repository because it hasno wetlands and will reduce by two-thirds the dis-tance the sediment must be transported from theriver to the site.
In the Bay City area on
the Saginaw River, a state
waterfront development
grant has indirectly
spurred redevelopment of
a brownfield site and
cleanup and disposal of
contaminated sediment.
� 19 �� 19 �
ADDRESSING SEDIMENT THROUGH STATE VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP PROGRAMS
Afew state brownfield and voluntary cleanupprograms (VCPs) explicitly address sediment
contamination or create opportunities for linkingsediment remediation with brownfield redevelop-ment. In Maine, if responsible parties can be identi-fied, they must clean up both the brownfield and thesediment that was contaminated by the brownfield’sdischarges. Maryland’s voluntary cleanup programrequires Phase I and II site assessments that includesampling of surface water and sediment samplesfrom water bodies that are located on the contami-nated property or affected by discharges from theproperty.
In 1991, Washington became the first state toadopt sediment quality criteria, including narrativestandards and numeric biological and chemical ef-fects criteria. The state developed a decision frame-work to use those criteria in deciding when to list acontaminated site, require cleanup, require sourcecontrols to protect sediment, and prohibit the dis-posal of dredged material in open waters.
Washington also has a program to search for theupstream property owners that are responsible forsediment contamination. Using core samples, it ispossible to determine the historical source of con-tamination, although coring has its limits and worksbetter in lakes and ponds than it does in flowing sys-tems. Once the responsible parties are identified, ne-gotiations determine their percentage of responsibil-ity for the cost of the environmental assessment andcleanup. An assessment is not required by law, but
banks and insurance companies will not approve thesale or transfer of the property until an assessmentand any necessary cleanup are complete.
In Michigan, brownfield redevelopment usuallydoes not involve sediment. The state’s liabilityscheme relieves new landowners of liability for con-taminated property after they perform a baselineenvironmental assessment (BEA). Once owners ordevelopers complete a BEA, they are not held re-sponsible for historic contamination of sedimentfrom the waterfront site. Moreover, the sedimentitself generally is not part of the BEA.
However, the Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI)shows potential for integrating sediment cleanupwith brownfield redevelopment, but clear connec-tions have yet to be made. Approved by Michigan’svoters in November 1998, CMI funds five programsfocused on cleanup, pollution prevention, and rede-velopment statewide. In its first two years, the ini-tiative designated $25 million for waterfront rede-velopment and remediation of contaminated lakeand river sediment. So far CMI has not spurred jointcleanup efforts by the Michigan Department of En-vironmental Quality’s surface water quality divi-sion, which is responsible for sediment, and its en-vironmental response division, which handlesbrownfields. However, the generous allocation offunding for both types of cleanup through a singlestate agency creates an unusual opportunity forcollaboration.
� 19 �
� 20 �� 20 �� 20 �� 20 �
CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS
Sediment contamination is a vast and dauntingproblem, complicated by limited funds and in-
complete guidelines for assessment and cleanup.Brownfield redevelopment may create new avenuesto address sediment contamination. As the demandgrows for residential, recreational, and commercialdevelopment near fishable, swimmable, and aesthet-ically pleasing waterways, opportunities may existto leverage sediment cleanup with redevelopment atthe numerous waterfront sites where contaminatedsediment and brownfields coexist.
Anecdotal evidence suggests these opportunitiesalready are available and need only be explored andcultivated to make a dent in the sediment contami-nation challenge. The following measures could re-inforce the sediment-brownfield link.
Establish or clarify guidelines for addressingsediment contamination. Even when state and localgovernments respond to upland contamination, theymay avoid concurrently addressing contaminatedsediment because they lack guidelines for determin-ing whether sediment should be removed, capped,contained, or left undisturbed. Many of them needcriteria for assessing the risk of sediment contamina-tion and the most cost-effective, environmentallysensitive method of addressing it, similar to theguidelines established by Washington state. This in-formation would remove a significant barrier to con-currently remediating sediment and brownfields.
Create mechanisms for coordinating programsthat address sediment and brownfields. As theMichigan Department of Environmental Quality il-lustrates, even well-funded programs in the sameagency have difficulty collaborating on sites of mu-tual concern. The Clean Michigan Initiative is justone example of a state effort that could establishclear connections between its sediment and brown-field cleanup programs, producing more cost-effec-tive and comprehensive cleanup at waterfront sitesimpaired by both types of contamination.
Develop information about the potential bene-fits of integrating sediment and brownfield reme-diation. Examples such as Waukegan Harbor andAstoria demonstrate the sometimes subtle connec-tions between contaminated sediment and brown-fields. The mere perception of a clean waterway andthe amenity it provides to neighboring sites can dra-matically enhance the desirability of brownfield sitesfor redevelopment. Moreover, projects that encom-pass both water and land contamination have accessto a host of funding sources associated with sedi-ment, surface water, natural resources, and contami-nated sites. These benefits can be illustrated throughthe small but growing number of projects that in-clude sediment and brownfield cleanup.
� 21 �� 21 �
APPENDIX
I n n o v a t i v e Tr e a t m e n t Te c h n o l o g i e s f o r C o n t a m i n a t e d S o i l ,
S e d i m e n t , a n d S l u d g e
Technology Description Contaminants Treated Overall Cost* TimeRequirements
ResourceRequire-ments
Status
Biodegrada-tion
In Situ Treatments**
The use of microorganismsto decompose chemical com-pounds, which would other-wise persist for a long timein the environment.
Most effective on volatileorganic compounds (VOCs),semi-volatile organic com-pounds (SVOCs), fuels,explosives; less effective oninorganic compounds.
~$100/cubicmeter.
Average Operationand main-tenance(O&M)intensive
Available
EnhancedBioremedia-tion
The activity of naturally-occurring microbes is stimu-lated by circulation of water-based solutions through con-taminated soils to enhancebiological degradation.Nutrients, oxygen, or otheramendments may be used toenhance treatment.
Effective in treating petrole-um hydrocarbons, solvents,pesticides, wood preserva-tives, and other organicchemicals. Especially effec-tive in treating low levelresidual contamination inconjunction with sourceremoval.
$30-100/cubicmeter of soil.
Maytakeseveralyears(slowerthanaver-age)
NA Available
Bioventing Adding oxygen to soil in thevadose zone (above thewater table where pores andcrevices are not saturatedwith water) to stimulatemicrobial activity for biore-mediation.
Most effective on VOCs,SVOCs, and fuels; less effec-tive on inorganic com-pounds.
$10-$70/cubicmeter.
Slowerthanaverage
Neitheroperationand main-tenanceintensivenor capitalintensive
Available
LandTreatment
Contaminated surface soil istreated in place by tilling toachieve aeration, and if nec-essary, by addition of amend-ments. Periodic tilling to aer-ate the waste enhances thebiological activity.
Most successful in treatingpetroleum hydrocarbons andother less volatile,biodegradable contaminants.Diesel fuel, No. 2 and No. 6fuel oils, JP-5, oily sludge,wood-preserving wastes(PCP, PAHs, and creosote),coke wastes, and certain pes-ticides have been treated suc-cessfully.
$30-$70/cubicmeter.
Averageto slow-er thanaverage
NA Available
NaturalAttenuation
Natural processes — such asdilution, dispersion,volatilization, bio-degradation, adsorption, andchemical reactions with soilmaterials — are allowed toreduce contaminant concen-trations to acceptable level.
Can be used to treat VOCs,SVOCs, and fuels on a site-specific basis, depending ondegree of contamination,geology, and treatment ofresidual contaminants (e.g.,heavy metals).
Usually low,though thereare costs formodeling, con-tainment, sam-pling and sam-ple analysis(potentiallyextensive).
Usuallyveryslow
UsuallyneitherO&M norcapitalintensive
Available,thoughlittleguidanceexists onuse
Phytoremedia-tion
Use of plants to remove,transfer, stabilize, anddestroy contaminants in soiland sediment.
May be applicable for theremediation of metals, pesti-cides, solvents, explosives,crude oil, polychlorinatedaromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs), and landfillleachates.
Expected to below.
Slowerthanaverage
NA Undertesting inSITEprogram
ElectrokineticSeparation
Use of electrochemical andelectrokinetic processes todesorb, and then remove,metals and polar organics.
Target contaminants areheavy metals, anions, andpolar organics.
Little availableinformation;indications of$50/cubicmeter and up.
NA NA Few trialsin theUnitedStates;more inEurope
Soil Flushing Use of chemical amendmentsand fluid pumping to mobi-lize and recover contami-nants. May also use surfac-tants to decrease surface ten-sion of contaminants(NAPLs) or cosolvents toincrease solubility of NAPLs.
Target contaminant group isinorganics, includingradioactive contaminants.Can be used to treat VOCs,SVOCs, fuels, and pesticides,but may be less cost-effectivethan alternatives.
Varies widelydepending onamendment;$25-$250/cubic meterreported.
Short tomediumterm
Operationand main-tenanceintensive
Pilot
� 22 �
ChemicalOxidation orThermalReduction
Use of chemicals that oxidizeor reduce (add or removeoxygen from, respectively)contaminants in order todestroy them.
Target contaminant group forchemical redox is inorganics.The technology can be usedbut may be less effectiveagainst nonhalogenatedVOCs and SVOCs, fuelhydrocarbons, and pesticides.
$190-$660/cubic meter.
Fasterthanaverage
NeitherO&M norcapitalintensive
Available
� 22 �
Soil VaporExtraction(SVE)
Physical separation of con-taminants by creating a vacu-um in soil. SVE is the mostfrequently used innovativetreatment. May be used insitu or ex situ.
Target contaminant groupsare VOCs and some fuels.
$10-$50/cubicmeter, pluspossible costsof water treat-ment and off-gas treatment.
Average Operationand main-tenanceintensive
Available
ThermallyEnhanced SoilVaporExtraction
SVE can be enhanced byapplication of heat (generat-ed by steam, hot air, radiowaves, microwaves, or elec-trical resistance) to increasecontaminant volatility
Target contaminant group isSVOCs.
$30-$130/cubic meter
Fasterthanaverage
O&M andcapitalintensive
Available
Fracturing Cracks are developed byfracturing beneath the sur-face in low permeability andover-consolidated sedimentsto open new passagewaysthat increase the effective-ness of many in-situ process-es and that enhance extrac-tion efficiencies. Commontechniques include pneumat-ic fracturing, blast-enhancedfracturing and LasagnaTM
process.
Fracturing is applicable tothe complete range of con-taminant groups with noparticular target group.
$9-$13/metricton for pneu-matic fractur-ing. Cost forLasagnaTM is$180-$200/metric ton for1-year treat-ment; $110-$130/metricton for 3-yeartreatment.
Varies NA Limitedavaila-bility
Solidification/Stabilization/Containment
This umbrella covers a widerange of techniques todecrease the mobility of con-taminants in water. Techn-iques include removal ofwater, enhanced sorptionwith reactive barriers, precip-itation/ coprecipitation, limeaddition, removal of contam-inants through passive/reac-tive barriers, use of poz-zolonic (cement-like) barriersto decrease soil permeabilityand bond with contaminants,and the use of low-perme-ability barriers (slurry walls,sheet pile walls, grout walls)to prevent contaminanttransport. May be used insitu or ex situ.
Target contaminant group isgenerally inorganics, includ-ing radionuclides.
Wide variabili-ty dependingon techniqueand contami-nant; reportedcosts from$25/cubicmeter to>$300/cubicmeter.
Fasterthanaverage
Capitalintensive
Available
Ex Situ Treatments
Vitrification Combining contaminatedsoil with amendments need-ed to form a glass whenmelted, and melting. Glass isimpermeable and relativelystable. Can be used in situ orex situ.
Most effective on inorganiccontaminants; effective onVOCs, SVOCs, and fuels.
More expen-sive than aver-age.
Fasterthanaverage
Both O&Mand capitalintensive.Requireslargeamounts ofenergy.
Pilot
SolarDetoxification
Destroying contaminants byphotochemical and thermalreactions using the ultravio-let energy in sunlight.
Target contaminant group isVOCs, SVOCs, solvents, pes-ticides, and dyes. Theprocess also may removesome heavy metals fromwater.
NA Fieldtrialswererapid(e.g.,fourmonths)
NA Pilot
Composting Contaminated soil is excavat-ed and mixed with bulkingagents and organic amend-ments such as wood chips,hay, manure, and vegetativewastes.
Biodegradable organic com-pounds, explosives, andPAHs.
Variabledepending ontechnique andcontaminant.$190-$290/cubic yardreported.
NA NA Available
Technology Description Contaminants Treated Overall Cost* TimeRequirements
ResourceRequire-ments
Status
� 23 �� 23 �
Substitution(dehalogen-ation)
Use of organic chemical reac-tions to convert contami-nants into less toxic com-pounds, typically by replac-ing halogen.
Target contaminant groupsare halogenated SVOCs andpesticides. Dehalogenation isone of the few processes thathas been successfully fieldtested in treating PCBs.
$220-$550/metric ton(exclusive ofexcavation,refilling, resi-due disposal,or analyticalcosts).
Inade-quatedata
O&M andcapitalintensive toinadequatedata
Few full-scale tests
Landfarming Contaminated soil, sediment,or sludge is excavated,applied into lined beds, andperiodically turned over ortilled to aerate the waste.
Most successful in treatingpetroleum hydrocarbons.
Pretreatmentcosts $25,000-$50,000; $100K- $500K forpilot or fieldtest; <$75/cubic yard toprepare bed.
NA NA Available
FungalDegradation
The use of white rot fungusto biodegrade specific con-taminants, including lignin(e.g. Kraft pulping wastes).Can also be used in situ.
Can remediate predominantconventional explosives:TNT, RDX, and HMX. Whiterot fungus has the potentialto degrade and mineralizeother recalcitrant materials,such as DDT, PAH, PCB, andPCP2-4. Laboratory testingon lignin, certain PAHs,DDT, TCDD, and PCBs.
Estimated at$98/cubicmeter.
Slowerthanaverage
Opertaionand main-tenanceintensive
Pilot
Slurry PhaseBiologicalTreatment
An aqueous slurry is createdby combining soil, sediment,or sludge with water andother additives. The slurry ismixed to keep solids sus-pended and microorganismsin contact with the soil con-taminants.
Successfully used to treatexplosives, petroleum hydro-carbons, petrochemicals, sol-vents, pesticides, woodpreservatives, and otherorganic chemicals.
$130-$200/cubic meter forslurry treat-ment; $160-$210/cubicmeter whenoff-gas treat-ment is added.
Can befast
NA Available
Soil VaporExtraction
A vacuum is applied to anetwork of above-groundpiping to encouragevolatilization of organicsfrom the excavated media.The process includes a sys-tem for handling off-gases.
VOCs. $10-$50/cubicmeter, pluspilot testing.
12-36monthsfor atypicalsite
NeitherO&M norcapitalintensive
Available
SolventExtraction
Use of solvents to separate orremove organic contami-nants from wastes, soils,sludges, and sediments.
Primarily used for organiccontaminants such as PCBs,VOCs, halogenated solvents,and petroleum wastes.
$110-$440/metric ton.
Longerthanaverage
Both O&Mand capitalintensive
Available
HighTemperatureThermalDesorption
Removal of VOCs andSVOCs from soil by transferto gas phase. Vaporized con-taminants are captured anddestroyed.
Most effective on SVOCs,PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides.
$45-$330/ metric ton.
Fasterthanaverage
Both O&Mand capitalintensive
Available
Low Tempera-ture ThermalDesorption
Same as above. Most effective on nonhalo-genated VOCs and fuels.
$45-$330/metric ton.
Fasterthanaverage
Both O&Mand capitalintensive
Available
Hot GasDecontamin-ation
Raising the temperature ofcontaminated equipment ormaterial for a specified periodof time. The gas effluent fromthe material is treated in anafterburner system to destroyall volatilized contaminants.
Applicable to process equip-ment requiring decontamina-tion for reuse; also to explo-sive items, such as mines andshells (after removal of explo-sives), or scrap material con-taminated with explosives.
Varies with the amountand type ofmaterial beingtreated.
Fasterthanaverage
Both O&Mand capitalintensive
Available
Technology Description Contaminants Treated Overall Cost* TimeRequirements
ResourceRequire-ments
Status
Incineration Burning contaminated mediato destroy hazardous waste.
Effective on explosives andhazardous wastes, particular-ly chlorinated hydrocarbons,PCBs, and dioxins.
$220-$1,110/metric ton foroff-site inciner-ators; $1,650-$6,600 for soilscontamina-tedwith PCBs ordioxins.
Fasterthanaverage
Both O&Mand capitalintensive
Available
� 24 �� 24 �
Source: Gorte, Julie Fox. Marketing Brownfield Cleanup Technologies, Northeast-Midwest Institute, February 1999.*Cost figures exclude costs of testing, assessment, and monitoring, except where noted.**In situ refers to wastes being treated on-site. Ex situ refers to wastes being taken off-site and treated.
Open Burn/Open Detonation
Explosives or munitions aredestroyed by self-sustainedcombustion ignited by anexternal source.
Explosives, VOCs, SVOCs,fuels, and inorganic contami-nants.
NA Lessthanaverage
Both O&Mand capitalintensive
Available
ChemicalExtraction
Waste-contaminated soil andextractant are mixed, dissolv-ing the contaminants. Con-taminants and extractant areseparated for treatment andfurther use.
Effective in treating organiccontaminants such as PCBs,VOCs, halogenated solvents,and petroleum wastes. Alsoapplicable for the separationof the organic contaminantsin paint wastes, syntheticrubber process wastes, coaltar wastes, drilling muds,wood-treating wastes, sepa-ration sludges, pesticide/insecticide wastes, and oilywaste.
$110-$440/metric ton.
NA NA Available
Pyrolysis Chemical decomposition isinduced in organic materialsby heat in the absence ofoxygen. Organic materialsare transformed into gaseouscomponents and a solidresidue (coke) containingfixed carbon and ash.
Target contaminant groupsare SVOCs and pesticides.The process is applicable forthe separation of organicsfrom refinery wastes, coal tarwastes, wood-treatingwastes, creosote-contaminat-ed soils, hydrocarbon-con-taminated soils, mixed(radioactive and hazardous)wastes, synthetic rubber pro-cessing wastes, and paintwaste.
~$300/metricton.
Fasterthanaverage
Both O&Mand capitalintensive
Limitedavailabil-ity
Vitrification (see in situ treatments,above)
Technology Description Contaminants Treated Overall Cost* TimeRequirements
ResourceRequire-ments
Status
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency2 International Joint Commission, Sediment Priority Action Committee,Identifying and Assessing the Economic Benefits of Contaminated Aquatic Sedi-ment Cleanup: Draft Work in Progress, 1999, p. 2,www.ijc.org/boards/wqb/econsed/background.html.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Sediment Quality Survey,1998, p. xix.4 International Joint Commission, Sediment Priority Action Committee,Overcoming Obstacles to Sediment Remediation in the Great Lakes Basin, 19November 1997, p. 4, www.ijc.org/boards/wqb.sedrem.html.5 Taxpayers for Common Sense & Natural Wildlife Federation, TroubledWaters: Congress, The Corps of Engineers, and Wasteful Water Projects, 12March 2000, p.5, www.nwf.org.6 Pietruszewski, Brian. Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools inthe Waterfront Voluntary Setting, National Network for EnvironmentalManagement Studies Fellow, Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Solid Wasteand Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, 1999, p. 23, clu-in.org.7 Northeast-Midwest House and Senate Coalition, Great Lakes TaskForce, FY2000 Appropriations Subject to Rescission, December 16, 1999.8 Pietruszewski, Brian. Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools inthe Waterfront Voluntary Setting, p. 21.9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technol-ogy, Contaminated Sediment Strategy - Chapters 1-4, September 1998, p. 15,www.epa.gov/OST/cs/manage/strat1-4.html.10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, ContaminatedSediment Management Strategy, EPA-823-R-08-001, April 1998, p. 57.
11 The National Academies, National Research Council, National StrategyNeeded to Protect Coastal Areas From Dangerous Levels of Nitrogen and Phos-phorus, April 2000, p. 4.12 Information on Waukegan Harbor throughout this section is drawnfrom an internal memo by Jessica Taverna, Northeast-Midwest Institute,September 2000.13 “Areas of Concern” are defined by the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes WaterQuality Agreement (Annex 2 of the 1987 Protocol) as “geographic areasthat fail to meet the general or specific objectives of the agreement wheresuch failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial useof the area's ability to support aquatic life.” The U.S. and Canadian gov-ernments have identified 43 such areas; 26 in U.S. waters, 17 in Canadianwater (five are shared between U.S. and Canada on connecting river sys-tems).14 Information on area redevelopment was drawn from personal commu-nication with Greg Michaud, former RAP coordinator, currently of John-son Depp and Quisenberry, September 19, 2000.15 Information on Hammond was drawn from personal communicationwith Milan Kruszynski, City of Hammond Department of EnvironmentalManagement, September 19, 2000.16 Information on Astoria was drawn from personal communication withPaul Benoit, Community Development Director, City of Astoria, October18, 2000.17 Information on Bay City was drawn from personal communication withRhonda Klann, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, October13, 2000.
ENDNOTES