ASCE GSP 82-1998 RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION AND BROWNFIELDS RESTORATIONS.pdf

《ASCE GSP 82-1998 RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION AND BROWNFIELDS RESTORATIONS.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASCE GSP 82-1998 RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION AND BROWNFIELDS RESTORATIONS.pdf（312页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NUMBER 82 GEOT.ECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 82 RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION AND BROWNFIELDS RESTORATIONS PROCEEDINGS OF SESSIONS OF GEO-CONGRESS 98 SPONSORED BY The Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers October 18-21, 1998 Boston, Massachusetts

2、 EDITED BY Craig H. Benson Jay N. Meegoda Robert B. Gilbert Samuel P. Clemence Asc American Society 5i of Civil EnginH, 1801 ALEXANDERBELLDRIVE RESTON, VIRGINIA 20191-4400 Abstract: This proceedings, Risk-Based Corrective Action and Brownfields Restorations, contains papers presented at sessions spo

3、nsored by the Geo-Institute of ASCE in conjunction with the ASCE Annual Convention held in Boston, Massachusetts, October 18-21, 1998. These papers describe the tools and methods employed in risk-basecl corrective action, provide illustrative examples through case histories with an emphasis on brown

4、 field s restoration. This proceeding provides practitioners with an introduction to the concepts that are employed and the lessons that have been learned by others. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Risk-based corrective action and Brownfields restorations I edited by Craig H. Bens

5、on . (et al. p. em. -Geotechnical special publication; no. 82) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7844-03 89-9 I. Industrial real estate- United States-Congresses. 2. Brown fields- United States Congresses. 3. Environmental risk assessment-United States-Congresses. 4. Hazardous wa

6、ste site remediation-United States-Congresses. 5. Real estate development-United States-Congresses. I. Benson, Craig H. II. Series. HD257 .S.R57 1998 363 . 739660973-dc21 98-33992 CTP Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the

7、 views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE. The materials are for general information only an

8、d do not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability,

9、 or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no liability therefore. This information should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing this

10、 information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents. Photocopies. Authorization to photocopy material for internal or personal use under circumstances not falling within the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act is granted b

11、y ASCE to libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that the base fee of$8.00 per chapter plus $.50 per page is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. The identification for ASCE Books is 0-7844-0389

12、-9/98/$8.00 + $.50 per page. Requests for special penpission or bulk copying should be addressed to Permissions ed Rock of the Piedmont Provi11ce 10 Engineeri11g Aspects of Soil Erosion, Dispersive Clays am/ Loess 11 Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations-Experiment, Allalysis ami Observation 12 Soil

13、Improvement: A Tell Year Update 13 Geotechnical Practice for Solid Waste Disposal 87 14 Geotechnical Aspects of Karst Terrains 15 Measured Performance Shallow Fou11dations 16 Special Topic i11 F01mdations 17 Soil Properties Evaluation from Centrifugal Models 18 Geosynthetics for Soil Improvement 19

14、Mine Induced Subside11ce: Effects 011 Engi11eered Structures 20 Earthquake Engineering imited restricted use,“ depending upon whether, and to what extent, engineering or institutional controls will be used in a remeqiation. N.J.S.A. 58: I OB-I. An unrestricted use remedial action w ill not require c

15、ontinued use of site controls at all in order to meet established standards; a limited restricted use remedial ac tion wi ll not require the use of engineering controls to meet standards (but .!W,l require institutional controls); and, a restricted use remedial action will require tl1e continued use

16、 of both types of controls in order to meet necessary standads. The Departments Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, N.J.A.C. 7:26E, have already been encouraging an increased number of brownfield cleanup and redevelopment projects by providing a clear, step-by-step “cook book“ type of appro

17、ach, easily understandable by consultants employed by those conducting site assessments, investigations or remediations. These Administrative Rules, in fact, respond especiall y well to a developers need for financial planning and predictability because they simplify the States expectations and ther

18、efore streamline the entire remediation process. B. The Statutory Framework In New Jersy 1. An Evolution of Environmental Statutes For the past three decades, New Jersey has been addressing sites through a progression of state laws designed to mitigate unacceptable risks that contaminants can pose t

19、o public health, safety and the environment. Thus far, New Jersey ha:s progressed through what can be termed several di stinct “generations“ of envirorunental statutes. Proceeding first through the experience of working to prevent contamination, then later, addressing the effects of already existing

20、 contamination, many lessons have been learned. Some statutes can regulate, through permits designed to limit or prevent contamination at the outset - some statutes implement liability schemes or increase the availabi lity of funding to address already existing contan1ination - some ofthe more innov

21、ative laws maneuver and facilitate the market forces to invite site cleanups. Now, through laws which blend cleanup concerns with real estate development, New Jersey is clearly addressing the “ big picture.“ In a word, this State is becoming a leader through a history of legislative and regulatory e

22、xperiences. 2. “Brownfields“ Statutes Enacted Durin: the Nineties For years, New Jersey has believed that if more contaminated sites are to be recycled for reuse, real incentives are needed. Loans for cleanup, tax savings for developers and liabi lity protection schemes for landowners are just some

23、6 RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION AND BROWNFIELDS RESTORATIONS of the ways in which this Legislature is inviting increased remediation and redevelopment pursuant to special brownfield statutes - this States most recent generation of environmental legislation. In late 1995, when the Environmental Opport

24、unity Zone Act12 became law, cleanup and reuse of sites located in “environmental opportunity zones“ was promoted. Encouraging acquisition of contaminated properties through various incentives (including special tax rebate exemptions), that Act worked well for certain properties. That law also provi

25、ded funding for projects located in certain zones, and, where a municipality held a tax sale certificate on a qualifying site, various financial relief was available. The result of that early brownfields law was some increased cleanup activity, along with a degree of growth for New Jersey cities. Ye

26、t, because there were other brownfields and other contaminated sites in locations not covered by that Act which were also in need of a new face, once again, more was needed. Another brownfields statute known as the Municipal Landfill Site Closure, Remediation and Redevelopment Act was enacted during

27、 1996. Under that legislation, those interested in executing Redevelopment Agreements with the State and developing municipal Solid Waste landfills could become entitled to a rebate of expenses associated with their landfdl closure and remediation. The law provided that reimbursement be derived from

28、 taxes generated at the redevelopment property. Through these and other incentives for would-be brownfield developers, municipalities could petition for assistance for cleanup or landfill sites in order to allow for new opportunities and additional revenues. Also in 1996, the Urban Redevelopment Act

29、 was adopted, under which additional redevelopment funds were appropriated, grant monies were made avai lable for site investigations, and reduced loan repayment rates became available. The most noteworthy component of the Urban Redevelopment Act, however, was its liability protections for brownfiel

30、d owners and operators in “qualifying“ locations.13 In many ways, that approach helped to set the stage for the current brownfield climate. Finally, as will be further highlighted below, when the Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act was enacted in 1998, innocent developers, landowners an

31、d various other persons conducting cleanups received expansive liability protections - more expansive than those under the Urban Redevelopment Act- both in regard to the number of sites the protections applied to, and the extent of the liability protections. A major benefit for the innocent party to

32、day, pursuant to the new Act, is that when a “no further action determination“ by the Department of Enviromnental Protection signifies the conclusion 11 of a remediation at a potential redevelopment site, a “covenant not to sue“ wi ll be issued by this Department. Under that covenant, the Department

33、 wi ll not force innocent covenant holders (or successive land owners, operators or tenants) to go back and perform additional remediation of the contamination already addressed. In sum , a no further actiot; letter from the RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION AND BROWNFIELD$ RESTORA T!ONS 7 Department wil

34、l now provide non-polluters with true cleanup finality. That comfort, along with third-party li ability protections now available to certain persons who acquire and remediate contaminated properties, should prompt an ever-increasing number of cleanups, land purchases and transformations of abandoned

35、, avoided industrial property. C. Assistance From the Hazardous Dischare Site Remediation Fund In 1993, the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund was created pursuant to N.J.S A. 58:1 OB. This Fund has provided financial assistance to many municipalities, businesses and persons with insufficient

36、 funds to complete site investigations and cleanups. Administered by the Department of Environmental Protection, with other state agencies acting as trust coordinator or helping to perform reviews of loan applications, this source of cleanup money is responsible for many of the States brownfield suc

37、cesses because it has prompted redevelopment of properties once considered beyond repair. Loans or grants from this Fund have been made available to persons that remediate sites pursuant to New Jerseys voluntary cleanup program; to municipalities for investigation of properties owned by them through

38、 foreclosure or other means; to persons with statutory obligations to perform remediation who cannot obtain private financing for the work; and, many loans or grants have been available to “innocent“ brownfield landowners. Since 1993, over 500 applications for assistance have been submitted to this

39、Fund, and almost 150 municipal grant applications, totaling over $13 million, have been approved under which various site assessments, investigations or remedial actions are being, or have already been conducted. Although the completion of an actual site cleanup can represent the best evidence of th

40、e success of this Fund, another significant use of Fund monies has been assistance with preliminary site assessments and site investigations.15 In fact, it has funded millions of dollars worth of investigations. For example, the investigation of the Trenton Champale site, the Saturn Chemical site in

41、 Lawrence Township, and the Cassidy and Sons Junkyard in Edgewater Park Township were all made possible due to the existence of this Fund, and those investigations have set the stage for further remediation, followed by profitable development. One particularly gratifying use of Fund monies is embodi

42、ed in an agreement reached with Trentons Department of Housing and Development for remediation of an eleven acre property known as the Magic Marker si te. Contamination in the soi l from lead and other metals once existed at that property, but because the Fund was available, irmovative cleanup metho

43、ds were employed and redevelopment can now be expected. This success story is especially noteworthy because this site is located directly across from an elementary school. 8 RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION AND BROWNFIELDS RESTORATIONS D. The Department of Environmental Protection Has Its Own Brownfield

44、 Cleanup and Redevelopment Plan Throuh The “Publicly Funded“ Cleanup Proram This Department uses public funds to conduct site remediations when parties responsible for causing the contamination are unknown, or unwilling or unable to perform or fund necessary cleanup work. Naturally, public funds, wh

45、ich can originate from a variety of sources (including the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, bond monies, state revenues, corporate business tax, and, for certain sites, federally-funded programs) are scarce, and the State must therefore utilize these funds wisely. Interestingly, the publicly fund

46、ed program is no different than the Departments other programs in its degree of dedication toward the task of brownfield revitalization. One clear example of a “brownfield strategy“ employed by this program involved the remediation of a 200 acre site in Florence Township, Burlington County. The part

47、icular remedy selected for cleanup of that Roebling Steel Company site was intentionally selected by the publicly funded program because it could actively encourage the sites return to “productive, profitable commercial and other uses.“ That brownfield - type of approach is clearly documented in the

48、 public site fi le. E. Formation of Brownfield “Partnerships“ Partnerships are helping enormously in New Jersey to implement brownfields laws and policies to pave the way for new development. Whe.ther the problem is a leaking underground storage tank, a gas or utility site, ajunkyard, or a landfill,

49、 working relationships are this States best tool for success, a success in fact which has not gone unnoticed.16 One very important way in which the Department of Environmental Protection is acting as a partner and helping to make remediatorsand developers jobs easier and understandable so that more development will occur, is through special outreach methods. For example, this Department involves itself with various brownfield task forces and other groups which meet to discuss risk-based progran1s such as ours. Also, by making Departmental bulletins, b