160 BROWNFIELDS The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines brownfields as “abandoned, idled, or underutilized properties where expansion or redevelopment is compli- cated by the potential or confirmed existence of chemical(s) of concern.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Web page states, “Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or per- ceived environmental contamination.” In the mid-twentieth century, brownfield was a planners’ term for urban blight. Brownfields had existed for decades, perhaps centuries, but a strong focus on cleaning up these properties did not happen until the 1970s (see Table 1). Concurrent with the federal use of brownfields, several local and state governments adopted the term for their efforts to bring about economic revitalization. Most governments have adopted specific legal definitions of brownfields. These definitions reflect differing environmental and eco- nomic conditions but have strong similarities to the federal definition. In everyday language, a brownfield is an area that is con- taminated or perceived to be contaminated. Most brownfields can be redeveloped, revitalized, and reused after assessment and cleanup. The EPA’s brownfields program helps commu- nities work together to create jobs and put abandoned prop- erties back into productive use. The EPA, together with other federal, state, and local agencies, provides funds, coordina- tion, and advice for the cleanup of brownfields. Politically, brownfields have been contrasted to “green- fields.” Greenfields are rural areas that are in danger of being converted to industrial areas. The goals of many brown- field programs include saving farmland and open spaces in addition to putting brownfields back into industrial use. Development of greenfields can be economically and envi- ronmentally problematic, because it means building ship- ping and utility infrastructures that are essential for most industrial development. Development of brownfields can be economically and environmentally more desirable because they often have utility connections like water, sewer, and electricity as well as train access with sidings. Further, cities and counties can regain or enhance their tax base by cleaning and redeveloping brownfields. This article discusses the history of brownfields, lists some common and legal definitions, discusses the associa- tions with social justice and banking issues, and gives a case study of a showcase community that demonstrates creative successes. It does not discuss the associated new urbanism movement within architecture and urban planning. HISTORY The history of brownfields is intertwined with the history of hazardous-waste cleanups and the EPA. In the 1960s the United States grappled with the challenge of many unused and contaminated facilities. These properties were across the United States, from the shuttered steel mills in Pennsylvania and Cleveland to mining operations in Montana and Arizona to closed timber mills in Washington and Oregon. The facili- ties represented many industries, including closed smelters, metal-plating factories, machine shops, and chemical plants. Many facilities had complied with the few environmental regulations of the early 1900s. In response to a fire on the Cuyahoga River, President Richard Nixon created the EPA in 1969 by presidential directive. The new EPA was faced with such media disas- ters as Love Canal, the Valley of the Drums, and Bridgeport. The EPA began regulatory efforts with the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, closely followed by regulations to control hazardous substances. In 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) initiated cleanup regulations. In 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) ushered in two decades of federal Superfund cleanups. Many states created analogous legislation and regulations. From 1984 to 1995, Superfund cleanups were financed by a tax on the industries that synthesized or manufactured chemicals. In response to the widespread economic-development obstacles posed by urban brownfields, the EPA announced its original Brownfields Action Agenda in January 1995. Brownfields were an adaptation from the EPA cleanup- enforcement-driven pattern over to economic and environ- mental local collaboration with support from the EPA. The impetus to bring about this change came from several large Midwest and East Coast cities that led the movement to revi- talize their abandoned industrial areas with funding from federal and private sources. Initially, both the EPA and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundations funded a series of brownfield forums in Chicago in the early 1990s. These forums developed a set of brownfield redevelopment principles that have been adopted, adapted, and standardized. © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC BROWNFIELDS 161 TABLE 1 Brownfields time line Brownfields Timeline 1976 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 Resources Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA)—1976, 1984 Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)— 1976 Waste-treatment facility fire, Bridgeport, New Jersey—1977 Children hurt at waste dump, Love Canal, New York—1978 Discovery of Valley of the Drums site, Kentucky—1979 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund)—1980 $1.6 billion tax-funded trust fund authorized—1980 Environmental Justice Movement, Warren County, North Carolina—1982 Superfund Amendments & Reauthorization Act (SARA)—1986 Superfund trust fund increased to $8.5 billion—1986 Brownfields Initiatives announced—1993 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act—1993 EPA Brownfield Action Agenda—1995 CERCLA/SARA tax on chemical & petroleum industry sunsetted—1995 Brownfield National Partnership—1997 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative—1999 Brownfield Initiative/Harvard’s Innovation in Government Award—2000 Expanded Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund—2000 Relaim Pennysylvannia—cleanup of mining grayfields—2002 Nationwide movement to clean up abandoned grayfields—2003 © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 162 BROWNFIELDS Some of these principles have become engineering practice in the “Standard for Process of Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment” from the ASTM. In association with the forums, the Chicago Brownfield Initiative began with a pilot cleanup and redevelopment pro- gram in 1993. The Chicago Department of Environmental Protection, in partnership with the mayor’s office and the Chicago Departments of Planning and Development, Buildings, and Law, coordinated the brownfields pilot pro- gram. The pilot program involved the cleanup up of five abandoned polluted industrial sites and initiated redevelop- ment. The five pilots resulted in new construction activity and the creation of jobs. The city’s experience with these sites became a national model for continued innovation at large-scale cleanups. Chicago shared its experiences by hosting another brownfield forum to discuss the legal, financial, and ethi- cal issues related to urban disinvestments. The forum, which included business leaders, industrialists, environmentalists, bankers, regulators, and city officials, generated a list of rec- ommended actions to facilitate brownfield cleanups and rede- velopments. Cities across the United States began to use the successful Chicago-recommended actions. Chicago revisited its forum recommendation in late 1997 to assess local and national progress. This conference increased national atten- tion and validated the work since the first conference. More urban areas took the model and made it theirs. One city that took the model and made it theirs is St. Louis, Missouri. St. Louis, like many older cities, had deteriorated commercial districts that imposed a blighting effect on sur- rounding residential neighborhoods. St. Louis began one of the earliest brownfields programs in the mid-1990s. By 2000, St. Louis had cleaned up many sites using the brownfields approach. Mayor Freeman Bosley detailed the experiences at several sites in congressional testimony. In one targeted area, the city paid to assemble, clear, and clean a corner site critical to the shopping district’s viability. According to the mayor, the owners of this area had not been able to command sufficient rent to maintain their property. When cleanup was accomplished, a private company invested in what is now a thriving commercial business district that provides employ- ment, generates sales, and helps to attract patrons to other retail and eating establishments in the area. On May 13, 1997, Vice President Al Gore announced the Brownfields National Partnership Action Agenda (National Partnership), outlining the EPA’s activities and future plans to help states and communities implement and realize the ben- efits of the brownfields initiative. The National Partnership brings together federal agencies to address brownfield clean- ups and redevelopments in a more coordinated approach. AGENCIES, CITIES, AND UNIVERSITIES INVOLVED IN BROWNFIELDS The other seven federal agencies involved are: the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the General Services Administration (GSA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Energy (DOE). HUD administers the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) as the key competitive grant program to stimulate and promote economic- and community-development activities under Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Through BEDI, HUD administers these grants to stimulate local governments and private-sector parties to redevelop or continue phased redevelopment efforts on brownfield sites where environmental conditions are known and redevelopment plans exist. The DOT has multiple approaches to support transportation-related brownfields by funding cleanups as part of its infrastructure development, work with other agencies on brownfields for transportation- related uses, encourage consideration of transportation access in redevelopment planning, and identify policies that dis- courage transportation-related brownfields redevelopment. With thousands of federal properties located throughout the country, the GSA is partnering with communities to ensure that underutilized federal properties are an active component in the redevelopment of our nation’s urban centers. NOAA has a signed agreement with the EPA to lay the groundwork for revitalizing aging port-city waterfronts. The DHHS spec- ifies essential services to be provided by its health-related agencies and the larger public-health community that must be applied to each brownfields project to assure public-health protection. The DOL, through its Office of Environmental Management, Office of Intergovernmental and Public Accountability, has developed an electronic access (Internet- based) system to provide technical assistance and increase community members’ capacity to understand and resolve environmental issues related to brownfields. The DOE provides technical assistance in brownfield efforts from its Headquarters Program Offices and the National Laboratories and Technology Centers. Many major urban areas, through both cities and coun- ties, have associated with the federal brownfields, and some have continued their own brownfields efforts. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is a city that develops brownfields innovations in association with Carnegie Mellon University while it contin- ues to work with the EPA. Another city with a strong university affiliation is Cincinnati, Ohio, where collaboration with the University of Cincinnati provides training and environmental- justice support and broadens community affiliations. COMMON AND LEGAL DEFINITIONS The EPA and other environmental- and health-protection agen- cies base their regulations and implementation on science. Most often they adapt technical definitions that are measurable and science-based into regulations. The terms surrounding brown- fields do not follow this pattern. Brownfields definitions bring a community-based sensibility. The complexity and plasticity © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC BROWNFIELDS 163 of brownfields begins in the definitions and continues through implementation. Legally, the EPA uses the definition of brownfield in Public Law 107-118 (HR 28869), the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, signed into law January 11, 2002. This definition says that “within certain legal exclusions, the term ‘brownfield site’ means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential pres- ence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.” Following the definition are pages of exclusions that pri- marily detail sections of other laws with priority. The pri- mary statutory authorities citied are: the Clean Water Act, as amended in 1977; CERCLA of 1980, commonly called Superfund; the RCRA, as amended in 1984; the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986; the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988; the Great Lake Critical Programs Act of 1990; the Clean Air Act of 1990; the Clean Water Act of 1990; and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. On many publications and Web pages on brownfields, the EPA discusses them as “abandoned, idled or under- used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived envi- ronmental contamination.” This definition facilitates the EPA’s Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative in empowering states, communities, and other stakeholders involved in brownfield revitalization to work together on redevelopment. The definitions of brownfields by states are varied, as are the patterns of implementation. They vary from Missouri, with one of the oldest and most defined brownfields pro- grams; to Washington, with an operating program without a definition; to Alaska, with no definition or program. Missouri’s complex definition of brownfields comes from its 1995 brownfields legislation in Chapter 447 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri (commonly known as the Brownfields Redevelopment Program). The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the Missouri Department of Economic Development jointly have the fol- lowing definition. To be a brownfield in Missouri, a project must meet two criteria: 1. All projects must enter and be accepted into the MDNR Voluntary Cleanup Program which provides property owners with oversight of and concurrence with all cleanup activities. 2. A project will be considered eligible if it meets the fol- lowing criteria: (a) The property must have been abandoned for at least three years or underutilized. Real property is under- utilized if less than 35% of its commercially usable space is used for its most commercially profitable and economically productive use. (b) The property is owned by a local, state, or federal gov- ernmental agency, or by a private party who is to the potential responsible party, and the project is endorsed by the local municipality; (c) The property is contaminated, or perceived to be con- taminated, by a hazardous substance; and, (d) The property is planned to undergo redevelopment for a commercial, mixed-use, or industrial use that is expected to create at least 10 jobs or retain at least 25 jobs, or some combination thereof. The state of Washington discusses brownfields as “the short- hand term for historically contaminated and underutilized or vacant industrial property” on its Web page. In some litera- ture it defines brownfields as “properties that are abandoned or underused because of environmental contamination for past industrial or commercial practices.” However, there is not a definition in any state statute or regulation. If the public thinks a site is a brownfield—it is. Nevertheless, Washington maintains an active brownfields program, with a showcase project in Seattle and King County as its model. That project is discussed in the case study below. ASSOCIATED ISSUES: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND BANKING Many contaminated properties are located in areas such as older urban centers, where a high proportion of the residents are minorities, have low incomes, or do not have English as their first language. These common problems reflect the economic limitations faced by disadvantaged individuals. Therefore, dis- advantaged communities must overcome special barriers to effectively advocate for their community interests during the review and permitting of projects with potential environmental impacts. This created environmental injustice. In 1982, Warren County was the poster child for environmental injustice and documented racism. That year, citizens banded together and made the Warren County PCB landfill protest a seminal event for the environmental-justice movement. The North Carolina Environmental Justice Network (NCEJN) was formed, and it became a catalyst that galvanized people of color in the fight for environmental justice. The struggle in Warren County was the spark that lit that national environmental-justice movement in the 1980s. In its most basic interpretation, environmental justice (EJ) is the principle that all people have the right to be pro- tected from environmental pollution and to receive a fair share of environmental benefits. It combines environmen- tal protection with considerations of nondiscrimination and civil rights. Many organizations have been formed on the model of the NCEJN to support these principles locally. Additionally, governments have provided support through agencies such as the Oregon Governors Environmental Justice Advisory Board. EJ policies seek to level the playing field by providing disadvantaged communities with technical and organiza- tional support, by providing special scrutiny for proposed projects in EJ communities that might result in significant © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 164 BROWNFIELDS environmental impact, and by offering incentives for certain desirable types of development, including brownfields. EJ policies go beyond brownfields. However, brownfields are an effective means for advancing EJ principles. When HUD administers brownfields grants, it has EJ requirements. HUD works with community organizations, the private sector, local and state governments, and other federal agencies to provide equitable reinvestment in com- munities with fair employment opportunities. Other agen- cies, such as the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry’s Office of Urban Affairs, are actively involved in issues such as public-health issues that are linked to EJ. Bankers make lending decisions that affect brown- fields. Initially, bankers chose to lend on greenfields, rather than brownfields, because brownfields bring unpredictable expense and liability—this despite the fact that greenfields may be more expensive because of the infrastructure that needs to be built. The unpredictable expense and liability of brownfields came from the wide variability in cleanup and associated legal costs. Without some predictability for cleanup and liability costs, banks were biased toward the more predictable greenfields without infrastructures, like rail connections, sewer, water, electricity, and nearby communities to provide. The EPA’s brownfield program brought predictability through its multiagency collabora- tive approach. This approach, combined with funding, often overcame the reluctance of bankers to fund the develop- ment of brownfields. Additionally, bankers rely on techni- cal standards developed by other fields to make decisions. With the engineering standards that have been developed in the 1990s such as the “Standard for Process of Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment” from the ASTM, banks have reliable technical standards. Finally, banks are members of the community and are positively influenced by brownfields because of the community support and process. From the success of the brownfield cleanups, an associated movement to clean up grayfields has developed. “Grayfields” are defined as blighted or obsolete buildings sitting on land that is not necessarily contaminated. Grayfields range from aging shopping malls in the suburbs to mining reclamation across the Pennsylvania countryside. Many regions hope to have grayfield successes using some of the partnerships and methods developed by brownfield programs. SEATTLE AND KING COUNTY CASE STUDY Case studies are written discussions of a topic containing an applied example of the topic. Case studies are used in legal, business, and environmental studies. There are many case studies to select from, because from 1993 to 2000, the EPA has provided over $250 million in brownfields funding in the form of grants and loans. More that 50 brownfield-related job-training and redevelopment demonstration projects have been funded. Projects have ranged from innovative test pilots for heavily contaminated areas in large cities to small com- munities with a large brownfields. The case study below discusses a brownfield showcase community initiative in Seattle, Washington, that uses dif- fering levels of technology and different levels of private– public cooperation at several sites. The Seattle and King County Brownfields Initiative was one of the 11 initially funded under the EPA Brownfields Showcase Communities Initiative. The funding comes through the King County and Seattle Offices of Economic Development and has been renewed because of a track record of successes. This initiative has two tracks. First, several small busi- nesses have received assistance from the brownfields pro- gram that has enabled them to return contaminated industrial properties to productive businesses. Second, area-wide proj- ects have made cleanups more attainable for all businesses under their umbrellas. One of the businesses receiving funding was an auto- wrecking yard, All City Wrecking, that has been cleaned up and redeveloped as a neighborhood store and gas station. This 2-acre site supported a family-owned auto wrecking yard for 30 years. As the owners neared retirement, they ceased oper- ating their business with the hopes of selling their property. The presence of contamination posed challenges to that sale. The site was contaminated with oil, petroleum products, and heavy metals. The Environmental Extension Service (EES), a contractor under the grant, was able to help this business overcome the difficulties of addressing the contamination. The EES provided free assistance at every stage of the project. The EES helped the owners properly dispose of liquid wastes on the site, and obtained a local matching grant to defray disposal costs. The EES then assisted in selecting and hiring consultants to perform both the assessment and cleanup on the property, reviewed and interpreted consultant reports for the owners, and made recommendations for how to proceed with assessment and cleanup. Within approxi- mately 8 months, the All City Wrecking site underwent environmental testing, cleanup, and compliance monitoring. This process ended with a “No Further Action” designation by the Washington Department of Ecology and has enabled this property to be sold, redeveloped, and recycled for a new productive use as a neighborhood store and gas station. There were many such cleanups that were facilitated by the umbrella projects described below. Two wide-ranging projects facilitated the cleanup of all properties in their respective ranges. The largest, Washington’s newly established risk-based cleanup stan- dards for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), was state- wide. The other project was the localized Duwamish Corridor Groundwater Study. This study characterized the groundwater in a heavily industrial area that has been cre- ated with material dredged from the river and washed from the hills and documented that the groundwater was not a drinking-water aquifer. Both of these government efforts had the effect of streamlining projects and reducing the cleanup costs. The more flexible TPH cleanup standards enabled this project to clean the soil up to a commercial, rather than a residential, cleanup level. The groundwater study, funded by King County from state and federal grants, © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC BROWNFIELDS 165 helped to streamline the evaluation and regulatory process for each site. Both reduced the time needed to collect back- ground information on sites, thereby lowering the costs of site evaluation. This and other brownfield cleanups in Seattle and King County were facilitated by: 1. A 5-year project to improve the science for char- acterizing and guiding the cleanup of petroleum- contaminated sites statewide. The changes to state law recommended by this project were ecological as part of the revisions to Washington’s Model Toxics Control Act Regulation. 2. An interagency project that provided the Duwamish Corridor Groundwater Study of an industrial area by a river that is important to ship- ping. The area included parts of south Seattle and adjacent King County. 3. The creation of a technical-assistance center (the EES) run by the nonprofit Environmental Coalition of South Seattle (ECOSS), which pro- vides direct, door-to-door assistance to manufac- turing and industrial businesses in environmental cleanup and pollution-prevention practices. 4. A revolving loan fund for environmental cleanup for which a partnership among King County, the city of Seattle, the city of Tacoma, and the state of Washington manage the EPA grant money. CONCLUSION Brownfield programs are a highly successful phase of envi- ronmental cleanups in the United States. The first phase was science-based and regulation-driven cleanups. That phase began in 1976 and continues to this day. Occasionally, these cleanups involve economically viable properties that go right back into use. More often, the cleaned-up sites involve abandoned, idled, or underutilized properties. In those cases, the expansion or redevelopment is complicated because of the potential or confirmed contamination. Therefore, the brownfield approach was added in 1993 as a phase that ideally works with the cleanup and then continues through redevelopment. The two approaches continued concurrently. When the federal tax to fund Superfund cleanups was sun- setted in 1995, the number of cleanups began to decline. As Superfund monies run out, brownfield funding will become more important. Brownfield programs coordinate agency and private-sector interests to work together to create jobs and put abandoned properties back into productive use. Problems may arise when the brownfield cleanups are underfunded, the local economy is weak, or cooperation is not achieved. Despite these obstacles, brownfield pilots and projects have been documenting success stories for over a decade. Brownfields have sparked social economic movements such as EJ and economic revitalization of grayfields. The next phase of environmental cleanups has not yet arrived. Currently, brownfield programs are active across the United States. Their goal is to have all contaminated sites cleaned cooperatively and put back into use. If cleanup and brownfield sites remain clean and no further sites are cre- ated, cleanup programs may work themselves into obso- lescence. Related movements like EJ and grayfields begun from brownfields will separate as their goals differ. However, brownfields are likely to remain at a smaller and increasingly more sophisticated level for decades. REFERENCES ASTM, Standard for Process of Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment, E-1984–98, November 10 (1998), published January 1999. http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfld=1760130 http://dnr.metrokc.gov/swd/brownfields/demonstration.shtml http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/vol1/doc7c.pdf http://state.nj.us/dep/srp/brownfields/bda/ http://stlcin.missouri.org/cerp/brownfields/stlouis.cfm http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/OUA/RRCMH/borwnf.htm http://www.brownfields2003.org/ http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Environment/Brownfields/History.htm http://www.cpeo.org/lists/brownfields/1997/00000118.htm http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/local_gov/envirodir/toolkit_g.htm http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/ http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/glossary.htm http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/html-doc/97aa_fs.htm http://www.epa.gov/R5Brownfields/ http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/97608.html http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.html http://www.environews.com/Features/env_justice.htm http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contenteId=10033&con tentType=GSA_OVERVIEW http://www.hmdc.state.ng.us/brownfields/history.html http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/programs/bedi/ index.cfm http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/programs/bedi/ index.cfm http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2000/120500.htm http://www.nemw.org/brown_stateimpacts.pdf http://www.nemw.org/cmclean1.htm http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/oct1702.html http://www.planersweb.com/w226.html International City/County Management Association, Brownfields Blue- prints, A Study of the Showcase Communities Initiative, 2000. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5102G), EPA 542-B-97-002. LEE DORIGAN King County Department of Natural Resources © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC . University of Cincinnati provides training and environmental- justice support and broadens community affiliations. COMMON AND LEGAL DEFINITIONS The EPA and other environmental- and health-protection. nonprofit Environmental Coalition of South Seattle (ECOSS), which pro- vides direct, door-to-door assistance to manufac- turing and industrial businesses in environmental cleanup and pollution-prevention. pilot cleanup and redevelopment pro- gram in 1993. The Chicago Department of Environmental Protection, in partnership with the mayor’s office and the Chicago Departments of Planning and Development,