Estimating the Liability of Redeveloped Contaminated Lands
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 130, Issue 4
Abstract
The redevelopment of brownfields has been promoted heavily in recent years to return contaminated lands to productive use. However, concerns about liability can complicate and hinder remediation efforts. The proponent of redevelopment faces possible legal action if the site poses health risks to users of the site and adjacent sites. Liability is often treated as a single factor but it is in fact composed of various elements that are interwoven with the future site use and chosen remedial action. This paper presents a structured method for estimating liability and its relationship to site use and remedial action. It critically examines the factors that contribute to liability and how the results can be integrated into the selection of the most appropriate site use and remedial action. The method offers a tiered approach for evaluating liability, starting with a simpler, uniform contamination scenario and progressing to a more complex, nonuniform situation. The resulting analysis is formatted in a matrix adaptable to multi-objective decision decision-making. A hypothetical example illustrates how liability can be examined using this method.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Aksoy, M. ( 1988). Benzene carcinogenicity, CRC, Boca Raton, Fla.
2.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). ( 1995). “Standard guide for risk-based corrective action applied at petroleum release sites.” ASTM E 1739-95, Philadelphia.
3.
Attoh-Okine, N., and Gibbons, J. (2001). “Use of belief function in brownfield infrastructure development decision-making.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 127(3), 126–143.
4.
Begley, R. (1996). “Risk-based remediation guidelines take hold.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 30(10), 438A–441A.
5.
Boyd, J., and Macauley, M. (1994). “The impact of environmental liability on industrial real estate development.” Resources for the Future, 114(Winter), 19–23.
6.
Bureau of National Affairs (BNA). (2000). Daily Environment Rep. 〈http://pubs.bna.com〉.
7.
Covello, V., and Merkhofer, M. ( 1993). Risk assessment methods: Approaches for assessing health and environmental risks, Plenum, New York.
8.
Elliot, G.M. ( 1992). “Risk assessment and contaminated sites. Superfund risk assessment in soil contamination studies.” ASTM STP 1158, Philadelphia, 260–276.
9.
Environmental Protection Office. (1991). “Identification of potential environmental and health concerns of soil remediation technologies.” Dept. of Public Health, City of Toronto, Toronto.
10.
Freeze, R. A., Massman, J., Smith, L., Sperling, T., and James, B. (1990). “Hydrogeological decision analysis: 1. A framework.” Ground Water, 28(5), 738–766.
11.
Freeze, R. A., and McWhorter, D. B. (1997). “A framework for assessing risk reduction due to DNAPL mass removal from low-permeability soils.” Ground Water, 35(1), 111–123.
12.
Gots, R.E. ( 1993). Toxic risks: Science, regulation, and perception, Lewis, Ann Arbor, Mich.
13.
Hufschmidt, M.M., James, D.E., Meister, A.D., Bower, B.T., and Dixon, J.A. ( 1983). Environment, natural systems, and development, John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
14.
Hwang, S. T. (1992). “Determining target cleanup levels: a risk assessment-based decision process for contaminated sites.” J. Envir. Sci. Health., A27(3), 843–861.
15.
Ibbotson, B., and Phyper, J. ( 1996). Environmental management in Canada, McGraw–Hill Ryerson Ltd., Toronto.
16.
James, B. R., Gwo, J. P., and Toran, L. (1996). “Risk-cost decision framework for aquifer remediation design.” J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 122(6), 414–420.
17.
Janz, J. R., Arnold, J. R., Mays, R. H., and Shapiro, R. M. (1991). “Development and redevelopment of contaminated property.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 117(3), 108–120.
18.
Katsumata, P. T., and Kastenberg, W. E. (1997). “On the impact of future land use assumptions on risk analysis for superfund sites.” J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 47(8), 881–889.
19.
Keeney, R.L., and Raiffa, H. ( 1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs, Wiley, New York.
20.
Kolluru, R.V. ( 1996). “Health risk assessment: principles and practices.” Risk assessment and management handbook, R. V. Kolluru, S. M. Bartell, R. M. Pitbaldo, and R. S. Stricoff, eds., McGraw–Hill, Toronto.
33.
Kornhauser, L. A. (1990). “The value of life.” Cleveland State Law Rev., 38(1,2), 209–230.
21.
Lehr, J. H. (1990). “Toxicological risk assessment distortions: part III—a different look at environmentalism.” Ground Water, 28(3), 330–340.
22.
Maldonado, M. (1996). “Brownfields bloom.” Civ. Eng. (N.Y.), 66(5), 36–40.
23.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. (MOE). ( 1996). Guideline for use at contaminated sites in Ontario, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto.
24.
Proctor, N., and Hughes, J.P. ( 1996). Chemical hazards of the workplace, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
25.
Reddy, K. R., Adams, J. A., and Richardson, C. (1999). “Potential technologies for remediation of brownfields.” Pract. Period. Hazard., Toxic, Radioact. Waste Manage., 3(2), 61–68.
26.
Rosen, L., and LeGrand, H. E. (1997). “An outline of a guidance framework for assessing hydrogeological risks at early stages.” Ground Water, 35(2), 195–204.
27.
Suter, G. W., II, Cornaby, B. W., Hadden, C. T., Hull, R. N., Stack, M., and Zafran, F. (1995). “An approach for balancing health and ecological risks at hazardous waste sites.” Risk Anal, 15(2), 221–231.
28.
Swartzman, D. ( 1982). Cost-benefit analysis and environmental regulations, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.
30.
Tam, E., and Byer, P. ( 1997a). “Comprehensive decision framework for site remediation.” Proc., Air & Waste Management Association’s 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Toronto.
29.
Tam, E., and Byer, P. ( 1997b). “A rational decision framework for site remediation.” Proc. CSCE-ASCE Environmental Engineering Conf., Edmonton, Canada.
31.
Tam, E., and Byer, P. (2002). “Remediation of contaminated lands: a decision methodology for site owners.” J. Environ. Manage., 64(4), 387–400.
32.
Washburn, S. T., and Edelman, K. G. (1999). “Development of risk-based remediation strategies.” Pract. Period. Hazard., Toxic, Radioact. Waste Manage., 3(2), 77–82.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 130 • Issue 4 • December 2004
Pages: 184 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 ASCE.
History
Published online: Nov 15, 2004
Published in print: Dec 2004
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.