ASK THE EXPERTS

Dec 21st, 2012

Solar Power on Brownfields

I’ve heard of some projects that want to put solar power on brownfield site. Why would we want to do this, and is it even possible? Have any projects succeeded so far?

 

Like all brownfield development, using already-contaminated land for new solar projects lessens the pressure to build solar projects in open spaces, desert habitat, or on farmland. As many concerns have been raised over the potential environmental impacts of large-scale solar development in the desert, “brightfields” represent an opportunity to invest in renewable energy without many of the potential downsides.

Although the idea of brightfields has existed for some time, the market for renewable energy and the technology required to make them economically viable has only recently started to come together. One option that has gained a lot of popularity recently is siting solar projects on closed landfills. In many cases, local governments own these sites and have ongoing maintenance costs and no plans for redevelopment. Solar projects represent a source of clean electricity (and potentially profit!) when previously there were only maintenance costs. As discussed in the previous post, landfill caps can safely contain wastes, allowing new development to be placed on top of them. New technology is developing ways that solar panels can be safely placed on top of landfills, including flexible solar membranes which are unaffected by the settling that happens in a landfill over time as waste compacts.

As the idea of brightfields grows, the number of success stories across the country is expanding. The Environmental Protection Agency’s RE-Powering America Initiative (http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/index.htm) provides a great source of information for those interested in learning more about past projects, technical resources, and potential opportunities. Some example projects include:

  • Exelon City Solar (http://www.solarserver.com/solar-magazine/solar-energy-system-of-the-month/turning-a-brownfield-into-a-bright-field-the-exelon-city-solar-plant-in-chicago.html) in Chicago, Illinois, is the largest urban solar plant in the US. Developed on a huge industrial site which had sat vacant for 30 years, the project beautifies the community, provides jobs and economic development, and generates clean energy.
  • Nellis Air Force Base (http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/success_nellis_nv.pdf) in Nevada is recently opened a solar plant that will supply a quarter of the base’s energy. Located in part on an old landfill, the solar power plant is the largest on any US military base.
  • The Oliver Street Landfill (http://waste360.com/landfill-solar-projects/letting-sunshine) in Easthampton, Massachusetts, installed 2.3 MW of generating capacity on the closed municipal landfill. This project provides enough energy to power 20% of the city’s municipal buildings. Massachusetts has a particularly strong program to encourage renewable energy on landfills; more information is available at the Department of Environmental Protection’s website (http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/landfill.htm).

Many more examples of successful projects can be found online and at EPA’s RE-Powering America site. Brightfields represent one of the many opportunities available to develop brownfields sites from contaminated blight to useful purposes that benefit the community, the economy, and the environment.

Posted December 21st, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Posted by Evan Reeves
Posted in Brownfield Redevelopment, Land Recycling |
No Comments
Jul 24th, 2012

Landfill Capping Safety

I’ve heard that some cleanups of landfills and other toxic sites just put a cap over the contamination! Is this safe? Shouldn’t all the hazardous waste be removed instead?

In almost all cases, properly designed and monitored caps on landfills can allow the site to be reused safely. Since 1988, landfills in the US have been regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This legislation requires new landfills to be designed with protective liners under the layers of trash, to have careful plans for their operation, and to set aside funding to monitor and maintain the landfill for at least 30 years after its closure. Older landfills, which were not required to have these same protections, must install monitoring wells and protective underground layers after the fact.

To begin, it’s important to understand what exactly a landfill cap is. While different methods of construction exist, all landfill caps contain a solid layer that is placed over the top of a landfill to prevent water from getting into the landfill. This layer may be thick, water-resistant clay, a thin layer of impermeable plastic, or both. Keeping water out of the landfill is important because when water trickles through the waste, it can pick up hazardous chemicals. This water is called “leachate.” If leachate escapes from the landfill, it can contaminate groundwater and spread potentially harmful chemicals through the soil.

Of course, not even the best protective layers can keep out all water, and some water forms inside the landfill itself when trash decomposes. As a result, it’s important to have some way to remove the leachate that does get through. When a landfill is closed, a geologist specializing in landfill design will evaluate where the leachate will flow when leaving the landfill. Depending on how much leachate is expected to leave the landfill, different systems to capture it can be used. The most advanced actively pump leachate out of the ground for treatment, while passive systems add a layer of rock that directs the leachate out of the ground, allowing it to drain naturally. In older landfills which have no underground liner in place to prevent leachate from seeping out, slurry walls or other barriers may be buried along the sides of the landfill.

Caps have other features to manage potential hazards. When the waste in a landfill decomposes, it emits a mix of chemicals, primarily carbon dioxide and methane (natural gas). While neither is directly harmful to health, methane can be explosive in high concentrations, something anyone who owns a gas stove knows. Other chemicals which may be emitted in small concentrations by decomposing waste, such as VOCs or benzene, can directly harm people who come into contact with them. Although these emissions are usually quite small, monitoring their release is very important to protect the health of people who will use the cleaned site. To prevent this, a layer of rock that is easy for gases to travel through directs the methane and hazardous gases to collection stations and monitoring wells. Here, it is either vented off, or collected to be burned as fuel.

Despite the concerns regarding landfill gases and leachate, even old, unregulated landfills have been safely redeveloped. One example is Fresh Kills, NYC’s landfill on Staten Island, which operated for 50 years as the largest landfill in the United States. Today, it is being redeveloped into parks, sports fields, wildlife protection, and hike and bike trails. Meadows and shrubs are usually planted in a layer of topsoil as the last layer of the cap, preventing erosion and protecting the deeper layers from cracking. Open spaces are the typical use for redeveloped landfills because as the waste breaks down over time, there is a risk that the ground will sink down and shift slightly. However, modern compacting technology can even allow buildings to be safely built on top of old landfills – for instance, see the Boulevards at South Bay, which aims to shopping centers, residences, restaurants, and more on a former Los Angeles municipal landfill.

The key to ensuring safety at any redeveloped landfill is good engineering that caps the site safely and adequate monitoring for contaminant release. All caps should be designed with the details of the specific site in mind – what sort of waste it contains, the climate of the area, and what future uses will be. If careful planning and appropriate precautions are taken, what was once a dangerous eyesore can become a much-needed community space.

Posted July 24th, 2012 at 11:30 am
Posted by Evan Reeves
Posted in Brownfield Redevelopment, Land Recycling, Remediation |
1 Comment
Jan 7th, 2012

The Loss of Redevelopment

With the elimination of California’s redevelopment agencies in December 2011, we are all left wondering what impact will this have on brownfield revitalization and urban development? CCLR’s Ignacio Dayrit weighs in:

Letter to the Editor – San Francisco Chronicle – January 5, 2012

Apart from the loss of funding for affordable housing like that provided by Habitat for Humanity (“Key Habitat for Humanity funds eliminated,” Jan. 3), the loss of redevelopment means the likelihood of more sprawl development, causing traffic, poor air and water quality, and the loss of open space, agricultural land and habitat. Redevelopment funds helped subsidize infill development. While infill is more expensive than sprawl, the environmental impacts are far less. But in order to develop in existing areas, more funds are needed to study impacts and appease neighbors, to upgrade infrastructure, to construct accompanying community-benefit projects, such as parks, and to clean up any toxic materials. Redevelopment also brings jobs and housing closer to existing neighborhoods, producing less traffic. It is true that many redevelopment agencies did not use their money wisely, leading to accusations that hastened their demise.

With Proposition 13, cities will look for other ways to generate revenue. With less funding to encourage infill, cities will sprawl (for the increased property taxes and development fees). Downtowns will decay, and there will be sprawl. We’ve seen this all before.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/letterstoeditor/article/Letters-to-the-editor-Jan-5-2441989.php

Posted January 7th, 2012 at 14:58 pm
Posted by Ignacio Dayrit
Posted in Infill Development, Sustainable Development |
No Comments
Dec 13th, 2011

Impact of Air District Regulation

I am a developer in the SF Bay Area. I am interested in acquiring a site in Oakland for a mixed use project, but it’s near the freeway and I heard that the Air District has just banned housing near freeways. Is this true?

Not exactly. I believe what you are referring to is guidance that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) promulgated recently on how to evaluate health impacts of air pollution from nearby sources such as freeways and refineries on potential new residential developments. The first thing to keep in mind is that what BAAQMD published is not a regulation or a formal rule, but rather guidance for use by your project’s permitting authority (likely the City Planning Department) in their environmental review of your project, to help them determine if air quality impacts warrant additional analysis under CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. So you’ll want to check with the city to see how they’re incorporating the new guidance into their CEQA process.

On a larger scale, however, BAAQMD’s new guidelines – which include quantitative thresholds indicating acceptable exposure levels for fine particulate matter (typically referred to as PM2.5) – have added new fuel to a continuing public policy debate over regulating land use to control the health impacts of localized air pollution. In recent years, a growing body of research has shown that exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) may cause serious detrimental health effects, including increased asthma risk, pulmonary failure, and bronchitis. Studies have also shown a connection between these health effects and proximity to heavily-trafficked roads; the vast majority of PM in major cities (80% by some estimates) comes from motor vehicle emissions, especially diesel. However, the science also shows a number of challenges with translating this connection to broadly designed regulation.

For one thing, PM is highly variable and can have very different effects depending on its composition. Currently, not much is known about the effects of different types of PM because it is difficult to separate out different components for study. What is clear is that some elements that make up PM are more toxic than others, but little information is available as to which elements should be avoided. Many air quality experts have cautioned against legislating on PM at this time, as there is not enough information on what types and sources of PM are actually harmful to human health.

There are also significant challenges in designing a scientifically defensible method for quantifying and individual’s actual exposure to PM.  Studies have shown that PM exposure can vary greatly depending on a number of factors whose variability make them incredibly difficult to accurately model, including wind patterns, micro-climates, vehicle speed, topography, landscaping, and particle size.

Finally, policy makers must keep in mind that local land use policy can have broader impacts on the local and regional level. Especially given that local PM exposure is typically 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than the ambient air pollution levels urban dwellers are already exposed to, it is important to weigh the real public health benefits of such a policy against the potential for such a policy to drive good development out of urban areas and into suburban and greenfield sites. Not only could such a divestment from our urban communities have dire consequences on the quality of life for existing residents, but driving development to the suburban fringes would actually be counterproductive to the policy’s intent, leading to increased greenhouse gas and diesel emissions and putting the goal of protecting public health today at odds with protecting the environment and public health of tomorrow.

It is important to continue the public debate on the costs and benefits of controlling pollution exposure through land use regulation. However, until the scientific community can reach a consensus on how to reliably and accurately assess the real health effects of local PM exposure, it is premature to impose proscriptive land use restriction. In the meantime, the current guidance by the California Air Resources Board that any new residential project within 500 feet of a major freeway should evaluate air quality impacts is a reasonable approach that allows for site-specific analysis and minimizes unintended consequences.

Posted December 13th, 2011 at 17:00 pm
Posted by Evan Reeves
Posted in Infill Development |
1 Comment
Nov 14th, 2011

Determining Underutilized Property

What methodology is typically used to identify ‘underutilized parcels’?  - Daniel W. , County Planner

While there is no formal definition of “underutilized property” (the Federal definition applies only to Federally-owned land) you can rely on several measures, the most common used are economic or fiscal in nature, and usually refers to properties that can be put into a higher and/or better use in a financial, fiscal, community, social or environmental standpoint. And it would also depend on the needs of the community.

With the above as a caveat, a combination of any of the following have been used as measures of under-utilization. The final determination rests with the community and its priorities:

  • For the following, comparison of properties in similar zoning /land use designations, per square foot
    • Sales, property, business license or other taxes
    • Employees
    • Residential units
  • Vacancy, or partial vacancy
  • Non-conforming properties in higher use land use designations (i.e., grand-fathered industrial property in commercial district)
Posted November 14th, 2011 at 15:21 pm
Posted by Ignacio Dayrit
Posted in Brownfield Redevelopment |
No Comments
Oct 11th, 2011

Successful Grant Writing – Brief Update

The EPA ARC Grant Announcements are out! If you are applying for a grant we can’t stress enough the importance of reading through the FAQ. You can find it online at: http://epa.gov/brownfields/proposal_guides/FY12_FAQs.pdf.

If you would like our assistance with your application, please contact CCLR as soon as possible at 415-398-1080.

Posted October 11th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Posted by Evan Reeves
Posted in Uncategorized |
No Comments
Oct 1st, 2011

Properties Hindered By Perceived Contamination

Our community has many viable but vacant buildings in its downtown.  It is possible that the owners of these buildings are asking too high a rent or purchase price, but we are concerned that perceived site impairments may be a factor.  How do we validate this argument and how can we improve the situation?

First, you should determine if the owner is in fact asking too much. This can only be confirmed by comparing the asking price with comparable buildings in the area. If the rent or purchase price is on par with similar properties, then a perception that the property is contaminated (valid or not) may be hindering the reuse of the property, and thus it is a brownfield.

Second, determine if the perception of the property as impaired is valid. Assuming that the building is in good condition, there may be a perception that the property is impaired by other factors, such as location in an industrial area or potential exposure or release of toxic substances. If this is the case, local governments can obtain technical or financial assistance from the US Environmental Protection Agency, or their state partners, to conduct environmental site assessments. A site assessment can establish the type and extent of contamination on the site, if any; knowing this information can give potential owners the confidence to purchase the property.  Please contact your state environmental protection office, the EPA regional office or CCLR for more information. You can visit CCLR’s resource pages for contact information in your state.

Posted October 1st, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Posted by Evan Reeves
Posted in Remediation |
No Comments
Sep 28th, 2011

Livability Principles

I keep encountering “The Livability Principles” in Federal grant announcements, such as HUD’s Sustainable Communities Grant Program and the EPA’s ARC Grants Program. How is redeveloping a brownfield consistent with these “Livability Principles”? – Nancy R., Development Associate


As background, the U.S. EPA partnered with HUD and DOT to help improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide. The goals of this Partnership for Sustainable Communities include discouraging sprawl and encouraging location efficient investments, smart growth practices, and green infrastructure development. The Partnership established six livability principles that serve as a foundation for interagency coordination:

(1) Provide more transportation choices; (2) Promote equitable, affordable housing; (3) Increase economic competitiveness; (4) Support existing communities; (5) Leverage federal investment; and (6) Value communities and neighborhoods.

Brownfield redevelopment promotes these goals in several ways. Below are just a few:

Location, location, location. By their nature, most brownfields exist in developed areas, and therefore redevelopment of these properties supports existing communities. Due to their typically central or developed location, many brownfield sites already have access to the infrastructure and transportation network of the community, and are more accessible to job and population centers than undeveloped (i.e., greenfield) sites. This results in buildings which are closer to desired amenities and markets, leading to lower transportation costs and improved air quality from reduced vehicle use. Many brownfield projects are also taking advantage of their central location and mixed-use planning to create bikeable and walkable communities.

Affordability and leveraging. The Federal partners and many state agencies provide incentives to redevelop brownfield sites for residential use. When leveraged with local incentives and programs, communities are able to develop affordable housing. Brownfield projects improve environmental problems through cleanup and assessment, in addition to creating housing and accessing transportation, which makes them excellent opportunities for coordinating federal investment.

Economic competitiveness. The presence of brownfield sites tend to drag down neighborhoods and discourage investment in a community. Revitalizing these sites not only brings government resources, but also private investment into a community, thus improving the economic competitiveness of a neighborhood. Brownfield projects often generate new economic activity and community-serving amenities that increase local tax revenues and create jobs both during construction and after development.

Sustainable redevelopment practices. The Partnership promotes sustainable building practices that can be applied in planning and redevelopment. These include renewable energy, green building practices, low-impact development, recycling/reconstruction of building materials and green remediation – all of which can be implemented in brownfield redevelopment.

The benefits derived from the redevelopment of a particular brownfield site are location- and use-specific, so if you are applying for a grant, be sure to provide specific examples of how your project is supporting these principles. This post should help get the ideas rolling, but get into the details of your project: How is local perception of the site hindering economic growth? How many or what kind of jobs will your project create? Which transportation options are in close proximity to the project? How many and what kind of new housing opportunities will it provide? What new businesses are anticipated after redevelopment? Use facts and figures to tell your story.

For further information about the benefits of brownfield redevelopment (many of which are consistent with the livability principles), please check out CCLR’s Land Recycling 101.

Posted September 28th, 2011 at 16:33 pm
Posted by Ignacio Dayrit
Posted in Brownfield Redevelopment, Sustainable Development |
No Comments
Aug 1st, 2011

Regulatory Agency Concern

My community would like to apply for an EPA site assessment grant. However, we are concerned about the US EPA becoming involved as the regulatory agency on our site – is our fear valid?  – Jacob M.

Since 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency has provided hundreds of assessment and cleanup grants throughout the United States under the brownfield program, but so far as this expert is aware, the EPA has never assumed regulatory authority over any of these awardees’ properties. A state or local regulatory agency has served as the lead agency in every case. The grants program is run by the brownfields unit, a non-regulatory branch of the EPA.

Posted August 1st, 2011 at 11:09 am
Posted by Ignacio Dayrit
Posted in Uncategorized |
No Comments
Jun 25th, 2011

Successful Grant Writing – Update

The number one question that people always ask us is: How do I successfully complete for brownfield funding? Communities and organizations often feel they have applied again and again, but just don’t get the grant. In January, we addressed this issue, but with the pending release of a new round of EPA Assessment, Cleanup, and RLF funds, I have a few more tips for you.

First, you have the opportunity to obtain feedback from your EPA Regional staff on the strengths and weaknesses of your grant application. You can find your regional contact person through the following link: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/regcntct.htm. Be sure to act fast though as the window closes approximately 60 days after the grants are announced!

Second, participate in in-person or remote funding and grant workshops. EPA Regions 8, 9 and 10 will host six grant writing workshops beginning in August 2011. There are also in-person workshops sponsored by state and EPA staff. Registration is available here: http://www.epa.gov/region9/brownfields/grants/images/WesternBfWorkshop.pdf

Lastly, CCLR provides peer review assistance for free. CCLR finds that our review improves the quality of an application and increases competitiveness of a grant application significantly. Please contact me at 415-398-1080 for assistance. Good luck!

Posted June 25th, 2011 at 14:54 pm
Posted by Ignacio Dayrit
Posted in Funding |
No Comments
« Older Entries