An Overview of Brownfields Redevelopment in the United States Through Regulatory, Public Health, and Sustainability Lenses

Abstract

This second article in a series of three on land reuse highlights brownfields redevelopment in the U.S., focusing on regulatory frameworks, public health, policy, and sustainable development. The main regulatory agency in the U.S. involved in brownfields is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Many other state and federal agencies have brownfield or brownfield-supporting programs. Apart from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, few agencies have programs fully dedicated to public health protection related to brownfields. Sustainable development, defined in this article as development that minimizes use of nonrenewable resources, is recognized as a component of redevelopment and is generally promoted by U.S. EPA and through other sustainable development initiatives. A broader focus on sustainable development and public health improvement could reduce the inequity and health disparities typically seen in areas with distressed environments. Such a focus could be implemented globally to improve population health and the environment over the long term.

Editor’s Note:

This review article is the second in a series of three that examine brownfields redevelopment as a subset of overall land use and reuse practices in Europe and the U.S. The first article presented the European landscape of brownfields redevelopment through policy and funding frameworks. This article examined brownfields redevelopment in the U.S. through regulatory, public health, and sustainability lenses. The third article is a comparative analysis of brownfields in the U.S. and Romania.

Introduction

We authors are part of the U.S.–Eastern European Brownfields Working Group. The working group is a special initiative of the Brownfields & Reuse Opportunity Working Network (BROWN) of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 2020a). The working group is investigating reuse and redevelopment of potentially contaminated properties in Europe and the U.S. Through this mutually beneficial perspective, we are particularly interested in regulations and policies in Europe and the U.S. that either promote or hinder brownfields redevelopment. In our first article (Morar et al., 2021), we examined sustainable redevelopment in Europe through funding and policy perspectives. In this article, we focus on brownfields redevelopment in the U.S. through regulatory frameworks, public health, policy, and sustainable development.

In the U.S., brownfield sites make up much of a larger group of sites that ATSDR identifies as land reuse sites. These sites are potentially contaminated sites that could be reused or redeveloped; sites include previous industrial sites that are now vacant, incompatibly located sites, landfills, and sites that might be on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) National Priorities List—commonly referred to as Superfund sites (ATSDR, 2020b). The different types of land reuse sites have different regulatory steps for redevelopment. For example, Superfund sites (not considered brownfield sites) are prioritized and undergo rigorous investigation under the U.S. EPA Superfund program, but this step often requires years of litigation and remediation before reuse can be achieved. Some brownfield sites, such as former industrial sites, have a more complex contamination footprint than others but are not designated Superfund sites. These sites often need varied and costly remediation, requiring more resources and time than less contaminated sites. In contrast, some brownfields have little contamination and can be productively reused in a short amount of time. In one U.S. EPA study, approximately 30% of brownfields had contamination that was below regulatory concern levels (Jenkins et al., 2006).

U.S. EPA (2021a) estimates that there are 450,000 brownfields in the U.S. Figure 1 shows the extent and location of nearly 30,000 known brownfields in 2020 that was compiled from information from past U.S. EPA brownfields grantees. Figure 1 also highlights ATSDR activities in brownfields, which include performing public health assessments (red circles), implementing community health projects (blue triangles), providing technical assistance (gray circles), and conducting special initiatives such as soil sampling (green squares). Less than 7% of the estimated brownfields in the U.S., however, have undergone assessment and only a fraction of these have been cleaned up with U.S. EPA funding. This low percentage illuminates the challenges associated with brownfield sites from economic, regulatory, environmental, and public health perspectives. Figure 2 depicts examples of typical U.S. brownfield sites.

FIGURE 1.

Map of Brownfield Sites and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Projects on Brownfield and Land Reuse Sites in the United States

Note. GRASP = Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program; SoilSHOP = Soil Screening, Health, Outreach, and Partnership; U.S. EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Source: Efomo Woghiren (9/1/2020, PRJ 05833), GRASP, ATSDR.

FIGURE 2.

Images of Brownfield Sites in the United States

Photos were taken in 2014 and are courtesy of Lloyd DeGrane.

U.S. Brownfields Regulatory Infrastructure

The U.S. EPA Brownfields Program began in 1995. The program includes funding for environmental assessment, cleanup, and job training. The program also provides educational resources related to brownfields and sustainable reuse for states, tribes, communities, and other stakeholders (U.S. EPA, 2021a).

Federal Brownfield Programs

Shortly after U.S. EPA established its Brownfields Program, many other federal agencies established their own programs focused on brownfields. The U.S. EPA 2019 Brownfields Federal Programs Guide highlighted 22 agencies with brownfield focus areas, with activities ranging from funding to resources (U.S. EPA, 2019). Example agencies include the Appalachian Regional Commission, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and many others.

Each agency provides a wide range of programs and resources that can enhance national brownfields redevelopment efforts. For example, since the 1990s, ATSDR (an HHS agency) has funded several brownfield and community health initiatives. Currently, ATSDR has a public health-focused program to improve health outcomes and reduce contaminant exposures related to land reuse and brownfield sites. ATSDR creates resources to spur health-focused redevelopment and offers training and technical assistance to communities (ATSDR, 2020b).

Other agencies fund economic or energy projects. The U.S. Economic Development Administration, for example, funds public works and infrastructure enhancement, provides local technical assistance, and encourages economic development by capitalizing revolving loan funds to attract private sector investment in redevelopment (U.S. EPA, 2019). Similarly, U.S. DOE offers financial and technical assistance for brownfield environmental cleanup and stabilization, transfer of property for public purposes, green energy parks at U.S. DOE facilities, and evaluation for renewable energy technologies (U.S. EPA, 2019).

State and Tribal Brownfield Programs

Annually, the U.S. EPA Brownfields Program funds state and tribal response programs through $50 million in cooperative agreements, referred to as Section 128(a) funding. The funding can be used for site assessment or cleanup of brownfields that could be lower risk and not of federal interest (U.S. EPA, 2021b).

States that are in Section 128(a) cooperative agreements operate under memoranda of agreements (MOAs) with U.S. EPA regional offices to implement state voluntary cleanup programs (VCPs), also called state response programs. MOAs help promote coordination and define roles related to site cleanup. Through VCPs, states can provide guidance and oversight related to risk-based cleanups, clean-up levels, and long-term monitoring of institutional controls. Institutional controls are practices to protect the public from exposure, such as zoning or deed restriction notices (e.g., commercial use only and not residential use). State VCPs also provide some liability protection to site owners by providing “no further action” or “no further remediation” letters to indicate that a site poses no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment (U.S. EPA, 2016).

Tribes also use Section 128(a) U.S. EPA Brownfields Program funding. There are 573 federally recognized Indian Nations in the U.S. that function as independent and sovereign nations (National Congress of American Indians, 2022). Tribes use Section 128(a) funding to inventory and assess properties and for tribal education about natural resources and community health, among other activities (U.S. EPA, 2021b).

A Problem of Complexity

A total of 10 U.S. EPA regional offices award and oversee the Section 128(a) cooperative agreements with states and tribes (U.S. EPA, 2021b). These site remediation programs vary by region and state, resulting in a complex regulatory environment with a myriad of approaches to site remediation. This regulatory environment adds complexity to site remediation and can also add potential impediments to a comprehensive national approach.

In addition to complexity, many states do not require the results of environmental assessments or clean-up data to be made public. When states do make such information available, there can be multiple analytical laboratory reports—showing hundreds of data points for dozens of chemicals—from multiple environmental samples and locations (e.g., surface soil, subsurface soil, ground-water). Oftentimes the data are not summarized statistically (e.g., minimum, median, or maximum concentrations of specific contaminants) or presented to enable quantification of exposures or health risks without significant background knowledge regarding the contaminants. This lack of clarity prevents interested parties, such as nearby residents or workers engaged in site cleanup or construction activities, from evaluating their own risks—and also complicates the implementation of environmental and public health tracking or monitoring programs based on consistent benchmarks or indicators.

Public Health and Brownfields

Brownfields can pose environmental exposure risks to community members via access to the sites or contamination of soil, air, and/or water at the site. Site contaminants can migrate on-site and off-site, such as from vapor intrusion, surface runoff, or fugitive dust. This exposure to harmful contaminants from a brownfield site can occur before, during, or after redevelopment via numerous exposure pathways (e.g., inhalation of vapors or dusts emanating from the site or drinking groundwater that is contaminated by the site). Common brownfield contaminants, such as lead-based paint, asbestos, or petroleum-based products (e.g., gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel) can have serious health implications. Lead poisoning in children, for example, can cause intelligence deficits (ATSDR, 2020c); inhalation of asbestos fibers can increase the risk of mesothelioma or other lung diseases later in life (ATSDR, 2016).

Brownfields can also have negative health, economic, and social implications for communities. The U.S. has increasing numbers of vacant and blighted properties, of which brownfields can be part of the overall burden. The Northeast-Midwest Institute described and summarized the impacts of blighted properties: increased crime, drug activity, and risks to public health and welfare, along with decreased public safety and lower surrounding property values (Cain, 2016). Similarly, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2011) described community challenges associated with the dramatic increase in blighted properties including decreased property values, increased crime, threats to public safety, and general neighborhood decline. In addition, a study of impacts of vacant properties by de Leon and Schilling (2017) noted various conditions—such as radon, cockroach and rodent infestation, cold and damp, and proximity to vacant properties—as detrimental to health.

U.S. EPA estimates that since the inception of its Brownfields Program, there have been 32,292 properties assessed, 2,094 properties cleaned up, 168,494 jobs leveraged, $33,327 billion leveraged, and 130,099 acres readied for anticipated reuse (U.S. EPA, 2021c). While U.S. EPA does quantify some limited economic benefits of brownfields redevelopment, the full picture of community health outcomes is not included. ATSDR’s Land Reuse Team reviewed public health assessment activities conducted through 2020. Of thousands of public health assessment activities, ATSDR conducted over 400 public health assessments on brownfield sites, of which over 40% were found to pose risks to public health. Despite the potential contaminant exposure hazards posed by brownfield sites, few agencies besides ATSDR have brownfield programs fully dedicated to public health protection.

Based on our review of the literature, few frameworks exist that measure public health impacts associated with land reuse and brownfield sites. U.S. EPA does allow local government recipients of U.S. EPA brownfield grants, however, to allocate up to 10% of their funding for health monitoring activities (U.S. EPA, 2021d), and those activities have been successful among the grantees who have implemented them. For example, the 2008 Ringling Riverfront Redevelopment Project in Baraboo, Wisconsin, created 33 indicators of community health related to redevelopment that showed positive changes over a 5-year period, such as reducing the number of contaminated sites and preventing pollutant runoff into the Baraboo River (ATSDR, 2010). In Blue Island, Illinois, the community established the Blue Island Community Health Coalition to increase access to recreation and healthy foods, among other activities, to improve community health throughout the city over the course of redevelopment. Within 1 year, the coalition was able to highlight outcomes such as six new community gardens and nearly a 10-fold increase in programming in the local Blue Island Park District (Rampersad, 2020).

To holistically quantify community health impacts, ATSDR (2019a) consolidated a data set of public health indicators from 40 communities that used the ATSDR Action Model to track changes in environmental and public health over the course of redevelopment. ATSDR published these indicators to help communities track progress in nine community health categories and to evaluate the effectiveness of land reuse and redevelopment efforts for public health improvement (ATSDR, 2019b; Berman et al., 2019). Successful changes in Action Model indicators from different communities include the outcomes discussed previously in Baraboo and Blue Island. In other communities, successful changes include leveraging $300,000 of federal brownfield funding into $50,000,000 in private investment, cleaning up 50% of contaminated sites, receiving $500,000 in federal development funds for revitalization planning, and providing increased tax revenues for the city, among many other examples. Such positive changes can draw development interest and increase access to community amenities and services.

Sustainable Development and Brownfields

In 2006, U.S. EPA produced a brochure, Sustainable Reuse of Brownfields: Resources for Communities, which emphasized sustainable brownfields redevelopment; green infrastructure; and resources at the federal, state, and local levels (U.S. EPA, 2006). In 2009, U.S. EPA highlighted 16 Brownfields Sustainability Pilots in 15 U.S. communities. These projects implemented green and sustainable practices in brownfields redevelopment, such as green roofs, green building designs, storm-water management, and streetscape designs (U.S. EPA, 2009).

In 2011, U.S. EPA developed the Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities program (U.S. EPA, 2021e). This program a) employs tools that have demonstrated successful results and widespread application to implement sustainable development approaches and b) provides quick and targeted technical assistance to selected communities. U.S. EPA launched 200 Building Blocks projects in 47 states. Subsequently, from 2012 to 2017, U.S. EPA funded nonprofit organizations to provide similar technical assistance to communities (U.S. EPA, 2021e).

U.S. EPA (2013) also published the report, Equitable Redevelopment of Petroleum Brownfields for Zuni Pueblo and Other Tribal Communities, through their Smart Growth program. The report emphasized sustainable smart growth and equitable redevelopment to meet broad community needs through redevelopment, with the opportunity for all community members to participate in decisions affecting their neighborhoods (U.S. EPA, 2013).

While U.S. EPA generally promotes sustainable practices, it currently does not provide funding specifically to support sustainable brownfields redevelopment. There are other programs, however, that support sustainable redevelopment: Smart Growth America and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) are two programs focused on sustainable development and redevelopment. Smart Growth America is a nonprofit organization that empowers communities to build economically prosperous, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable communities (Smart Growth America, 2022). LEED is a green rating system that is available for all types of buildings, communities, and homes. An LEED designation is globally recognized as a symbol of achieving sustainability (U.S. Green Building Council, 2021).

Discussion: Regulatory and Policy Implications

In our first collaborative article, we found that Europe has a high level of commitment to sustainable development, which is maintained through diverse funding sources and a supportive policy framework (Morar et al., 2021). Unlike Europe, which has a strong policy framework that can support cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields, the U.S. relies on regulatory frameworks for land reuse that tend to focus primarily on economic development. While there are a handful of national efforts for sustainable brownfields redevelopment, few national, regional, state, or local policies exist to advocate for public health-focused brownfields redevelopment. To broadly promote public health and sustainability in brownfields redevelopment, existing brownfield inventory tools could be enhanced to include public health and sustainable development benchmarks and end points. An enhanced inventory tool could tabulate quantitative contaminant data. As previously mentioned, these data often are not publicly available or statistically analyzed in an efficient format to enable exposure and health risk assessment as a component of public health evaluation and tracking.

Currently there are two popular, free brownfield inventory tools online: The Kansas State University Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) Brownfield Inventory Tool (BiT) (Kansas State University, n.d.) and the ATSDR Brownfields/Land Reuse Site Tool (ATSDR, 2020d). The BiT resource was designed for U.S. EPA brownfields grantees and aligns with reporting requirements of the Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES), an online database that does not have a public health focus (U.S. EPA, 2021f). The ATSDR Brownfields/Land Reuse Site Tool can cross-reference with the ATSDR Comparison Value Viewer, which provides protective screening levels for regulatory and public health contaminants. If contaminant levels are found to be at or above screening levels, further investigation or action could be taken at the site to prevent potential human exposure to chemicals.

Neither BiT nor the ATSDR Brownfields/Land Reuse Site Tool are required for use by U.S. EPA grantees or other regulatory agencies. Either tool could be modified, augmented, or combined to create a simple data entry system (i.e., site inventory) that quantifies and documents brownfield contaminant levels and catalogs public health and sustainability plans or efforts. An enhanced tool ultimately could enable robust estimates of health risk reduction associated with site cleanup. This information could inform developers, environmental and health agencies, researchers, and policy makers about optimum conditions for maximum health risk reduction at brownfields and other hazardous waste sites for different types of brownfield sites (e.g., former dry cleaners, former gasoline stations). In addition, public health (e.g., risk-based) indices could be integrated with other social and economic indicators to obtain more reliable and comprehensive monitoring and assessment of community health improvement in areas affected by brownfields.

U.S. EPA and other regulatory bodies in charge of brownfields redevelopment could support and expand methods to allow public health, sustainability, and economic evaluation for brownfields redevelopment using qualitative and quantitative techniques. For example, the U.S. EPA EJScreen tool (U.S. EPA, 2022) employs GIS techniques, demographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau, and limited county-level health statistics to highlight potential environmental justice areas. EJScreen also highlights spatial relationships between proximity to hazardous waste sites and many demographic or social indicators.

In the absence of a national epidemiological surveillance program in the U.S., only limited community-level health effects data are available to support observational epidemiological investigations. Having local health data could help define risks and spur risk-ranked redevelopment while at the same time increasing public awareness and advocacy for site development that improves the environment and health of the community.

Conclusion

U.S. EPA and other federal agencies have made significant strides in funding the redevelopment of brownfields. Redevelopment has turned vacant, potentially contaminated, and underutilized sites into public assets that contribute to improvements to the economy and to health. Using U.S. EPA Brownfields Program funding, over 30,000 sites that reported to ACRES have been assessed for environmental contaminant status and reuse potential, but only 6.5% of these have been cleaned up (U.S. EPA, 2021f). With an estimated 450,000 brownfields in the U.S., there is potential to discover, inventory, assess, cleanup, and redevelop the remaining sites using the accumulated technical and regulatory knowledge gained to date. At the same time, environmental and public health benefits of site redevelopment can be assessed and quantified.

There are few policies or programs dedicated to incorporating public health improvements and sustainability through brownfields redevelopment. The focus in the U.S. is still largely on economic development. Areas with multiple brownfields or high rates of vacant properties can experience disinvestment, crime, environmental injustice, and poorer health status in general (Cain, 2016; Lee & Mohai, 2011; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011). A broader focus on public health improvement and sustainability could reduce the inequity and health disparities typically seen in areas with distressed environments.

To increase redevelopment of brownfields and protect public health, more consistency across state and federal programs to release comprehensive and summarized site contaminant information could provide accurate, risk-based, quantitative information to development entities and the public. The data could also contribute to a national data bank to fully quantify contaminant risks of brownfields. Funding for brownfields redevelopment is essential to clean up brownfield sites across the nation, revitalize the economy and health and well-being of communities, and reduce or eliminate inequities and disparities in pollution burden. At the same time, funding for research that leads to better understanding of the public health indicators and measurable outcomes of community-level public health impact can help drive sustainable community redevelopment efforts, ultimately leading to improved health equity and overall healthier communities.