10-16-96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i 10 Iwnfi QCUs nNi Page L5 ENVIRONMENT Minnesota .fields are becoming gweeneri f 'r STATE MAKES STRIDES IN FUNDING DEVELOPMENT ; MREJ MF PHOTO —by Martha Brand— Martha Brand public water supply. time,there has been continued progress proposed,the uncertainty could prolong Last year,the Legislature recognized in answering the"how clean is clean" the transaction such that in certain situ- that remediation standards need to question at the MPCA.(For example, ations, the unremediated brownfield reflect the risk for the particular use n the past several years,public how the MPCA determines whether a could not compete with a similar green- proposed for the property and amended and private developers have brownfield property requires remedia- field site that could be developed quick- the state Superfund statute to require the turned urban properties contaminated lion,and the cleanup goals that should ly. MPCA to consider the"planned use"of by historic commercial or industrial be used in such remediation). The large number of people involved the site in setting remediation standards. activities into These developments have and will in the process—MPCA staff,environ- This means that if a brownfield is an GUEST downtown rest- positively affect the timing of many mental consultants,lawyers and repre- industrial area and the projected new dential develop- brownfield transactions, the cost of sentalives from all of the interested par- use of the property is industrial and not COLUMNIST ments, retailing rcmediating some of these properties ties(the seller,the buyer,the develop- residential, the MPCA may set the centers and urban and the certainty of the remediation er,the lender)in some cases also signif- remediation standard at a level which industrial expansions. These brown- process.All these factors will continue icantly increased the cost of the trans- reflects the risk to an industrial and not fields.and the many others that remain to make it easier for brownfields to action. a residential user of the property. undeveloped.are located near available compete for redevelopment with green- In addition,in the past,there was a Of course,the owner of the property labo forces, transportation networks fields. perception that the MPCA was continu- (or the developer or purchaser)is free town office space. The limes are changing ing to rely,at least as a starting point in to remediate the property to a more eless.many brownfields have Historically,it was difficult for a pro- negotiations,on the Superfund statuto- demanding residential or unrestricted le competing with greenfrelds ponent of development of a brownfield ry goal of permanent remedies for soil use standard if it so chooses. in development arena due to con- property to predict the standards that the cleanup and either"non-degradation"or By the time the Legislature imposed terns of developers and lenders about MPCA would use to determine whether drinking water standards for groundwa- this change, the MPCA had already acquiring liability for existing contami- identified contamination needed further ter remediation. started developing a Risk Based Site nation, funding the investigation and investigation and the cleanup goals that For brownfield properties where the Evaluation Manual,which will contain remediation needed to develop brown- the MPCA would impose for identified developer proposed a continued indus- guidelines for evaluating risks to human fields,and the lack of certainty regard- contaminants.There were two reasons: trial use after the remediation,there was - health and the environment on contami- ing the assessment and remediation Firs[,while the methodology used by a concern that use of these relatively nated properties. This movement standards that the Minnesota Pollution MPCA to determine the goals was based pristine bench marks would result in towards risk-based assessment and Control Agency(MPCA)might impose. on commonly accepted risk assessment remediations that were not based on remediation standards had begun In addition,there has been concern by practices,the MPCA often did not begin actual risk to human health and the nationally several years previously with some that remediation standards were the process until site-specific informs- environment and were more costly than the development of the Risk Based Cor- overly conservative and inconsistent lion was presented to the agency. necessary. rective Action guidelines(RBCA)for with the real risks to human health and Second,these goals were often the For brownfield properties with limit- the remediation of petroleum associat- the environment posed by the contami- subject of case-by-case negotiation ed groundwater contamination, there ed with petroleum tanks. nation and the proposed use of the site. between the MPCA staff and represen- was concern that the MPCA would not In Minnesota,this approach has been Minnesota has made great strides in tatives of the brownfield.The lack of consider the fact that groundwater under used by the Tanks and Spills Division at the areas of liability protection and early certainty and the negotiations the property was contaminated by the the MPCA for some time.It has result- funding for brownfields development in made it difficult for property owners or histoaCal industrial use of the entire ed in contaminated soils and groundwa- the last several years.Some of these developers to assess in advance whether area,that the community was by ordi- ter being left in place in those situations accomplishments were discussed in a particular brownfield could be eco- nance on a public water supply and the where this course of action presents an MREJ staff writer Edic Gros.sfield's nomically redeveloped. For those contamination contributed by the acceptable risk to human health and the article. "Diamond in the Rough," brownfields where development was brownfield property did not affect the continued on=1 page (MREJ, 12.11-95). During this same