[ Page 2 of 7 ]

By Nancy B. Solomon, AIA

Some basics

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, brownfield sites are “abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.” A brownfield, therefore, can range from a dilapidated but harmless property to a highly toxic Superfund site. The agency estimates that there are between 500,000 and one million brownfields in the United States.

Because the degree and type of contamination ranges greatly on these lands—from none to severe—potential developers must consider each site individually, weighing its advantages and liabilities and the financial and technical assistance that may be available to bring it up to acceptable standards.

The first step in the brownfield process should be familiar to most architects: When a client or developer is considering buying any existing structure, it has become good business practice to hire an environmental engineer to test for lead and asbestos. An environmental assessment for a potential brownfield site is no different, except broader in scope. Says Tom Liebel, AIA, associate architect at Design Collective in Baltimore, “It’s simply a matter of adding to the list of things to investigate and possibly abate.”

ASTM has developed protocols for these assessments, which typically consist of two phases. In Phase I, an environmental consultant researches historic and current uses of the site through visual inspection, documents, and interviews. If such research indicates activities associated with possible toxic materials, the environmental consultant proceeds to phase 2—sampling soil, soil gas, groundwater, surface water, or sediment, depending on the results of phase 1—to determine the type and quantity of contaminants.

Next, a work plan is developed that outlines how the site will be cleaned up for the intended use in accordance with EPA’s prescriptive standards plus any additional state requirements. An owner or potential owner could elect to undertake this cleanup himself or, if available, apply to the state’s voluntary brownfield cleanup program. If the latter, the state would review the work plan and request changes as necessary. Once the work plan was accepted by the public agency, the developer would be eligible for various tax credits, grants, or loans—depending on the state program—to help with cleanup costs. In some cases, explains Kevin McGrew, St. Louis’s federal brownfield coordinator, tax credits alone can cover the entire cost of remediation. Once the approved work plan is implemented, the state provides the developer with a letter certifying that the work has met its standards for cleanup. “It’s a good piece of documentation in case you want to sell the property in the future,” notes McGrew.

In addition, according to the 2002 brownfield legislation, if EPA has determined that the cleanup of a particular site can be monitored at the state level, the federal agency will relinquish power of enforcement for that site to the state unless deemed necessary due to an imminent danger. “That is a major change,” observes attorney Baerbel Schiller of the law firm Spencer Fane Britt and Browne in Kansas City, Missouri. In the past, owners who had cleaned up a site according to the state’s standards had little assurance that it was acceptable to

the federal government. Furthermore, the 2002 legislation relieves new owners of brownfield sites bought after January 1, 2002, of any liability for contamination created by others in the past as long as they comply with certain requirements prescribed in the law.