Contact Us. Types of Contaminated Sites There are many different types of contaminated sites that you may encounter when redeveloping a property. Site Type Site Description Superfund Superfund sites are uncontrolled or abandoned sites or properties where hazardous waste or other contamination is located. A contaminated site is generally considered a "Superfund site" if the federal government is or plans to be involved in cleanup efforts. The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative SRI program offers guidance, tools, and services to help communities overcome obstacles to reuse at Superfund sites, including reuse assessments and reuse planning.
Brownfields Vs. Superfunds When a site is contaminated with hazardous substances, it must be addressed for the health and safety of the environment and the people who live in it. So, What is a Brownfield? What is a Superfund? Not Sure Where to Get Started? Need a Waste Solution? The aim is to complete the remediation with redevelopment in mind so construction may begin in a time frame that conforms to real estate market demand.
This expediency in developing an NPL site like brownfields may accelerate PRP expenditures, but it reduces the ultimate net costs to PRPs by eliminating years of costly monitoring and investigation activities that occur while NPL sites are idle.
In the Superfund context, NPL delisting traditionally takes a very long period of time — sometimes as much as 30 years. Redevelopment sets remediation goals that are defined by end use and a time frame to achieve them. In many cases, cleanup remedies implemented at sites can result in continuing efforts such as groundwater monitoring, groundwater treatment, or vapor extraction and treatment that have associated long-term costs. Redevelopment of a contaminated property creates cash flow that can fund these ongoing efforts and often can be classified by the end user as an operational expense.
To interact and partner with PRPs and their insurers at a Superfund site redevelopment, it is important to define the difference between CERCLA-related response cost liability and the additional remediation costs, if any, that are necessary to redevelop the site beyond its former use. There often are additional remediation costs attributable to a change in land use. For example, an NPL site that is zoned industrial may be rezoned as commercial.
That change in use will require a more robust remediation than before and may increase costs significantly. The PRPs will only agree to fund those costs necessary to a standard of completion that was applicable to its use at the time it was contaminated. While an agreement is not necessary for BFPP status, it often is wise to engage the EPA to settle liability for any existing liens on the property and formalize future interaction with the agency.
Once in control of the Superfund site title, the BFPP typically takes the lead role in site remediation to ensure it conforms with the desired end use of the property.
The BFPP can manage the risk of this residual contamination in several ways:. Superfund sites share the same major challenge as brownfields—defining the cost of environmental remediation. Every development has an estimated rate of return to attract investors and lenders. Environmental remediation costs in a development pro forma are notoriously difficult to estimate, even more so with Superfund sites.
This is another area in which developers of Superfund sites can utilize some of the mechanisms that have been successfully employed by brownfield developers to hedge their remediation cost investment. The risk that environmental costs will exceed their estimate is a major challenge to redevelopment. Risk capital markets have arisen to offset cost escalation risks in the brownfield market.
Such mechanisms are available for Superfund sites as well and are outlined below. There are companies, mostly environmental remediation firms, which will agree to complete site remediation for a fixed price.
The GFPR company will analyze site conditions and the expected remediation outcome. These arrangements are offered via complex and varied agreements but fall into two main categories: GFPR for a set scope of activities and GFPR for a set remedial outcome e. The latter is riskier and will command a higher premium, while the former leaves the site owner with the risk that the set scope of activities fails to achieve the desired remedial outcome.
A new breed of companies has arisen that actively seeks to purchase contaminated properties. In January , EPA announced its original Brownfields Action Agenda in response to the widespread economic development obstacles posed by urban brownfields.
The Brownfields Action Agenda encouraged a cooperative approach by EPA, lenders, and prospective purchasers to ease fears of financial liability and regulatory burdens. EPA has coordinated with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to create incentives within the CRA regulations for economic revitalization and development. Region 1 of the EPA has a page that offers guidance to download.
As part of the Superfund Beneficial Reuse Initiative, this guidance is intended to result in more informed and focused decision-making and more common-sense, cost-effective ground water cleanups which will facilitate the beneficial reuse of contaminated parcels.
Click below to go to that site. Groundwater Use and Value Determination Guidance.
0コメント