I am deeply indebted to Professor Dharni Vasudevan who served as my advisor and who provided invaluable advice, insightful comments, encouragement, and support. I would also like to thank Deborah A. Lange, Executive Director of The Brownfields Center, and Professor Mitch J. Small, CMU, for their helpful suggestions, wisdom and guidance throughout my research. I would also like to thank members of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, who assisted in the compilation of case studies. Finally, I am grateful to National Urban Fellows, Inc. and the Vira I. Heinz Endowments for their generous financial support.

The overall objective of this research is to provide a brief overview of the risk-based approach and evaluate the effectiveness of its use to overcome some of the numerous barriers to brownfield development. This research will: 1) discuss the emergence of brownfields and risk-based methodologies; 2) investigate the current usage of the risk-based approach in brownfields remediation and redevelopment from the national, state, and regional perspective; and, 3) evaluate the effectiveness of their application in returning abandoned industrial sites to productive use.

In order to achieve the goals and objectives stated above, this research analyzes and compares results from a national survey designed by the Brownfields Center at Carnegie Mellon University, annual reports and regional case studies obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). A comprehensive literature review and personal interviews supplement the data. The scope of this research is intended to educate parties engaged in brownfield development, and concerned public citizens, to better understand the dynamics of cleanup standard selection and to determine whether risk-based approaches should be applied more often in the process of brownfield development.

The results of this research are organized into chapters. The purpose for the research, methodology and scope, and organization for the report is provided in Chapter 1. Chapters 2 and 3 discuss the emergence of brownfields and risk-based approaches, respectively. Chapter 4 examines the use of risk-based methodologies from a national perspective. Chapter 5 presents usage trends and detailed program information about a trend-setting state brownfield program in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Case studies from sites in southwest Pennsylvania that facilitate the evaluation of the risk-based approach are examined in Chapter 6. A summary and recommendations are found in Chapter 7.

Many cities struggle with the problem of brownfields -- vacant or underused industrial sites with perceived or actual environmental contamination. Contamination, whether real or suspected, often deters redevelopment due to increased risks, greater liability, and higher projects costs. In addition, the strict liability provisions of federal laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as "Superfund", hold past, current and prospective property owners liable for cleaning up brownfields or any other type of potentially contaminated property. Overcoming uncertainty about the exact nature of a site’s contamination and subsequently, cleaning the site, often requires unknown or potentially high investigation and remediation costs. This creates disincentives for parties who are potentially interested in brownfield development.

The question of "How clean is clean?" is receiving increased attention as stakeholders undergo the costly and time-consuming process of assessing the advantages of cleaning and reusing contaminated property (Chilton, 1998; Payne, 1998). The balance of creating standards that are both cost-effective and protective of public health and the environment links the science of cleanup standards with the policy of land-use decisions.

In recent years, state and local governments have viewed the development of brownfields as a unique opportunity to solve many problems concurrently. First, cleanup activities associated with a development reduce human and wildlife exposure to hazardous chemicals. Other secondary environmental benefits include improved air quality by reducing traffic congestion, and preserved open space and farmland (Bartsch and Collaton, 1997; Simons, 1998). In addition, development of idle properties can produce economic benefits by expanding the tax base and creating potential employment opportunities. In short, brownfield development offers a cost-effective, environmentally sensitive approach to encouraging economic revitalization in communities across the nation (Bartsch and Collaton, 1997; Begley, 1997).

Traditionally, contaminated industrial sites have been cleaned according to the most stringent residential standards, such that children could ingest remediated soils (Pepper, 1997). Increasingly, however, some states are recognizing that such cleanups are prohibitively expensive and sometimes unnecessary, especially if a site's intended end use is commercial or industrial. Thus, state cleanup programs have placed an emphasis on risk assessment and risk management, rather than complete elimination. Many states allow certain contaminants to remain on-site, provided that the potential for human exposure or environmental risk is eliminated; this is known as the "risk-based" approach.

In 1992, the federal government "delisted" the least contaminated properties from the list of Superfund sites (Brewster et al., 1998). While these properties, known as "brownfields", would no longer bear the Superfund stigma, they were still burdened by the threat of potential environmental liability and cleanup costs. With such factors discouraging development, proliferation of the "brownfields" issue resulted (USCM, 1999). The forefront issue surrounding brownfield redevelopment involves removing the barriers that discourage development and returning these abandoned or idle properties to productive use.

The USEPA has defined "brownfield" as "an abandoned, idle or under-utilized industrial or commercial site where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination that can make redevelopment of the property financially or logistically prohibitive." (USEPA, 1995). However, environmental contamination and cleanup are only one of several concerns surrounding the development of brownfields. Brownfield development is affected by political, socio-economic, legal/regulatory, financial, and historical issues, as well as infrastructure and urban and land use considerations. Figure 1 highlights the multi-disciplinary and multi-attribute aspects of brownfield development.

Brownfields are significant due to the numbers that exist and the expected benefits a developed brownfield can produce. The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that there are currently 150,000 to 500,000 brownfields nationwide (US GAO, 1995). Brownfield development not only serves as a mechanism for economic development, but also as a means of protecting public health and the environment. Additional benefits of brownfields development include, but are not limited to, environmental cleanup and protection, neighborhood revitalization, job creation, tax base growth utilization of existing infrastructure, and greenspace preservation (Pepper, 1997; Wright, 1997, UCSM, 2000).

2. Barriers to Redevelopment

The barriers to brownfield development include any factor or issue "that makes a brownfield noncompetitive with a greenfield property" (Brownfields Forum, 1995). Figure 2 depicts the impediments to brownfield redevelopment, emphasizing the barriers related to environmental factors, such as standards for cleanup, lack of cleanup funds, uncertain costs and timelines, and environmental regulations. Other concerns related to brownfield development include liability issues, access to capital, community concerns, neighborhood conditions, and market conditions (Brownfields Forum, 1995; OTA, 1995; Davis and Margolis, 1997; USCM, 2000).

The cleanup standards of CERCLA, requiring the removal of any and all contamination, brought on such terms as the "edible dirt era" (Moyer and Trimarche, 1997) and "Garden of Eden standards" (Eisen, 1996). As cleanup strategies change, these terms are being replaced with phrases such as "the risk-based approach", "risk-based methodology", "risk assessment", and "risk-based decision-making". Since these terms are used interchangeably, further explanation is appropriate. A clarification of these terms is found in Appendix B.

The emergence of risk-based strategies first began to address the national problem of leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) (Begley, 1996, 1997; Rocco and Taylor, 1999), however their continued use was based on the cost-effectiveness of these strategies. The USEPA estimates that the average cost to cleanup a Superfund site is $26 million (US GAO, 1995) and the average time from site discovery to the initiation of a cleanup that is 10.6 years (US GAO, 1998). This has caused a need to reevaluate the spending of these dollars, recognizing that limited available resources must be prioritized. Thus, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has adapted their risk-based approach, known as Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA), for the assessment and response to chemical releases (ASTM, 1998).

The ASTM standard provides a basis for the development of a risk-based process, for the cleanup of any site, once it is tailored to applicable state and local laws and regulatory practices (ASTM, 1994,1998; EFAB, 1997). Several states have selected ASTM’s RBCA standard or the Tiered-Approach for Corrective Action (TACO) as the model for their site cleanup approach. RBCA and TACO utilize a three-tiered approach, allowing owners cleanup options that match their remediation objectives. Further explanation of this process can be gained by examining the RBCA flowchart, presented in Appendix C. A detailed understanding of the tiered approach is described in Appendix D.

• Hazard identification
• Dose-Response assessment
• Exposure assessment
• Risk estimation and Risk characterization (Eduljee, 1998).

In the risk-based approach, risk assessment is relied upon to determine whether or not a contaminant poses a risk and to calculate the concentration that is safe to leave on site. In order to analyze issues such as the potential for off-site migration and toxicity impacts to receptors, risk assessments use information such as:

• Physical conditions at a site
• Nature and extent of contamination
• Physical/chemical and toxicologial parameters of a chemical
• Current and future land use
• Exposure pathways
• Dose-response relationship between exposure levels and potential toxic effects (Moyer and Trimarche, 1997; SRA, 1998).

The fate and transport of contaminants is an important component of the risk assessment process as these principles are crucial to the evaluation of future exposure scenarios. Risk assessment requires the determination of a chemical’s behavior as it moves through environmental media such as air, groundwater or soil, in order to predict where a chemical might travel (Figure 3), thus allowing a risk assessor to predict future exposure scenarios. For a "risk" to be present, the chemical, a pathway, a receptor and a route of exposure must all be present. This is a key feature of risk-based assessment, for if one element of the equation can be eliminated, or in the case of the receptor, precluded, then there is no longer a "risk" to human health or the environment.

While a complete understanding of the principles, procedures and science of risk assessment is not the subject of this research, it is recognized that significant scientific and technical uncertainty is present in the process. Criticism of the use of risk assessment comes from two camps. First, there are those individuals in industry who feel risk assessment is overly conservative, creating unnecessary financial burdens. In the other case, individuals among environmental and community groups feel it requires too many assumptions, with too much uncertainty, to effectively deal with the complex issues of human health and the environment (Gerrard and Petts, 1998).

Steve McNeely, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, USEPA, claims that RBCA is a stream-lined approach that, once understood, can be applied to any type of remediation, whether at leaking underground storage tanks, RCRA sites, or brownfields (McNeely, 2000). As discussed previously, risk-based approaches have been effective for the cleanup and removal of contamination from underground storage tank sites. Much of this success is based on extensive knowledge of the degradation rates for petroleum products and studies on natural attenuation. However, contamination on brownfield sites can vary greatly in terms of complexity, physical and chemical characteristics, and thus, the risk posed to human health and the environment. Proponents of the risk-based approach believe that the RBCA process recognizes the need to use a varied approach on each site and tailors corrective action activities to site-specific conditions and risks (Rocco and Hay-Wilson, 1997; Day and Vargas, 1998; Iyang et al. 1998). However, critics argue that to extrapolate indiscriminately from the UST experience to other regulatory situations could be unwise, since compared to petroleum hydrocarbons, less toxicological information exists for chlorinated solvents and other persistent and biaccumulative contaminants (Eisen, 1996; NRC, 1999).

Due to the recent emergence of risk-based approaches, a number of panels have been commissioned to conduct reviews of the regulatory framework and cleanup process. After performing an extensive literature review, the following studies were identified to help understand varying viewpoints with respect to risk-based approaches. While some studies did not focus exclusively on brownfield sites, findings and results of related studies provide unique insight to the redevelopment of brownfields and are worthy of review. Key findings and their relevance to the use of risk-based approaches are summarized in Table 1.

The following analysis is based on information and opinions from those responsible for seventy-two national brownfield pilots. Results of TBC’s national survey were used to establish estimates for the potential benefits of risk-based methods on a national scale; analysis was performed to gather information on the current usage rates of the risk-based approach and its relation to previous use of sites. In addition, usage trends were examined to determine how risk-based approaches related to level of contamination, time of remediation, and remediation costs. Respondents to the survey were asked to:

• Rate the level of pre-development environmental contamination
• Identify the time of remediation on the site
• Identify whether the remediation was based on risk based standards
• Identify whether the cleanup was influenced by the proposed future use of the site

Further information on the survey’s administration, including geographic distribution, survey recipients and collection method is presented in Appendix E. A copy of the complete survey is provided at Appendix F. Survey respondents did not reply to all questions, therefore the number of responses differs for each individual question.

A review of the nation acceptance to the risk-based approach shows widespread variation in the states' approaches to developing cleanup standards. This is primarily due to differing assumptions about the risk associated with contamination (e.g., toxicity, exposure pathways, and other factors), the importance of considering the proposed use of the site, and other considerations such as the effectiveness of engineering controls (Gerrard and Petts, 1998; Breggin and Pendergrass, 1999; Odencrantz, 2000). Figure 5 shows that while some states have not changed their program, maintaining strict "State Superfund" programs for final remediation standards, others have developed more flexible approaches for their brownfield programs based on numeric or risk-based standards. The degree of stringency may vary from state to state depending on the degree of legislative emphasis placed on economic redevelopment of brownfield properties. An absence programs in the West and Plains states is most likely attributed to the low number of vacant industrial sites. A complete listing of states and the status with respect to the use of risk-based approaches across the United States is provided Appendix G.

Brownfields are ‘born" when an industrial facility closes or ceases to operate (Lange et al., 2000). While the amount of environmental contamination is uncertain, understanding the previous use of the site aids in the determination of the type of contamination. Predictive models have been developed which allow decision makers to estimate the probability that particular classes of compounds will be a concern based on the historic industrial use (Stiber et al., 1998). The previous use of most sites can be categorized as heavy industry, light industry, commercial, or manufacturing, as shown in Figure 7. In all of these categories, risk-based standards are the preferred approach for the remediation of contamination. However, non risk-based standards were the preferred standard for residential properties, though in this case the sample size of 2 is very small.

At least 13 respondents, who used a risk-based standard, provided a response to the "previous use" of the site that differed from the options provided on the survey. Table 2 lists "other" previous uses of brownfield developments, which were not listed as options on the original survey. This table illustrates that there is a willingness to develop property, regardless of the previous occupant. Furthermore, the risk-based cleanup approach appears to be the preferred method for the majority of these developments, whether the brownfield was a lumber mill or a landfill.

Studies have shown that the level of environmental contamination is one of the greatest concerns to stakeholders involved in brownfields issues (Zhang, 1998). Although many contaminated sites pose some level of risk to human health and the environment, not all sites require remediation. The need for remediation is based on a number of factors including the chemicals present, their concentrations in the various environmental media (soil, groundwater, surface water, and air) and the extent of potential exposure (human health or ecological) to the media.

At sites where there have been releases of hazardous substances, the traditional process of corrective action has taken years to complete (Rocco and Hay Wilson, 1997). As stated previously, the minimization of uncertain costs and timelines can eliminate some of the barriers to brownfield development. Responses from the survey were used to compare and relate time of remediation to the level of contamination for the risk-based versus non risk-based standards. To normalize the data, a log-linear regression model was used. The time of remediation, t, is given by:

Figure 8 illustrates the time for remediation versus the level of contamination for risk-based and non risk-based standards. Figure 8 shows a general upward trend of the log-linear regression model, as the time of remediation increases with the level of contamination for both the risk-based and non risk-based sites. In Figure 8, the intercept and slope values for the risk-based approach are statistically significant from zero (p values = 6.39 x 10^-5, 0.014, respectively) at the 0.05 level. However, due to a small data set, (n=7), for the non risk-based approach, the line is not significantly different (p values = 0.054, 0.265, respectively) from a line with zero slope or from the line for the risk-based approach. The standard error for these parameters is consistent with this level of significance, as displayed in Table 3. Thus, while the sample size is not sufficient to determine that risk-based standards allow for faster cleanups, additional data (i.e. more sites) for the non-risk standard could show that non-risk based cleanups do take longer than sites using the risk-based approach. It might also be determined that sites with higher levels of contamination are more likely to use risk-based standards.

(RB)=risk-based, (NRB)= non risk-based.

The time of remediation, t, is given by: log₁₀ (t) = a + b * level of contamination

Figure 9 examines the selection of cleanup standards relating remediation costs to the level of contamination. Data from the national survey was averaged from a range of development costs to determine the percentage of development costs related to environmental contamination, as dictated by Table 4. To normalize the data, a logistic regression model was performed, where "f " is the fraction of development costs related to remediation, using the equation:

Using the coefficients from this regression (see Table 4), Figure 9 displays the results of the following:

Figure 9 displays an upward trend of the curve, indicating that with increasing levels of contamination, higher costs of remediation as a fraction of the total development costs are expected. P-values, shown in Table 5, indicate the intercept and slope for the risk-based curve are statistically different (p value = 1.27 x 10^-4, 0.031, respectively) from zero at the 0.01 and 0.05 levels. For the non risk-based curve, the intercept is significant (p value = 0.02) at the 0.05 level, while the slope is significant (p value = 0.08) at the 0.1 level. This is due to the small sample size of this group (n=7).

Remediation costs are represented by the percentage of development costs related to environmental remediation. Lines represent a logistic regression model for the risk-based and non risk-based approach

Suggested remedies for future follow-up studies to address these concerns are recommended below. In order to determine the exact number of sites that utilize the risk-based approach, the definition for both risk-based and non risk-based approaches should have been provided. Secondly, questions that asked the respondents to "rate the level of contamination" should have been decomposable, including a specific quantitative description. In other words, the categories for each level of contamination (such as "very low") should have included an example of site that would have been considered "very low contamination" or an actual amount or type of contamination that would have classified it as a site with "very low" contamination. Lastly, the data for the time and cost analysis could have been better quantified. For instance, rather that using a range of the percentage of the total development costs related to environmental remediation (question #28), a more effective approach would have been to use of the actual percentage or to narrow the range. For instance, Figure 9 illustrates that 0.75 as the estimated fraction for several levels of contamination. In actuality, the percentage of development costs related to environmental remediation might have been as low as 51% or as high as 100%. The time of remediation is also questionable. While respondents provided an actual number, in years and months, the survey should have been more specific by describing what the time frame included, such as detection, investigation, and all phases of remediation.

State Voluntary Cleanup/Action Programs (VCPs or VAPs) are the primary mechanism used by the states to encourage redevelopment of brownfields. In addition to risk-based cleanup standards, VCP’s also share many features including release from liability, financial assistance, stream-lined cleanup procedures (Eisen, 1996). Figure 10 illustrates that the earliest form of a state VCP was established in the late 1980’s. Since that time, 47 states have adopted some form of VCP or VAP (Bartsch and Anderson, 2000). At least 22 of these programs were established by statute, while other states established programs pursuant to the State’s voluntary cleanup statute (Breggin and Pendergrass, 1999). The majority of VCPs serve as both the state regulatory and the brownfields program. In fact, approximately 75% of the sites chose to go through the program because of an impending property transaction or because the site is a brownfield (Matviya, 2000). The remaining sites (approximately 25%) are active businesses requiring a cleanup, and rather than face regulatory enforcement actions, chose to use the voluntary cleanup program.

In concept, the site-specific standards of Act 2 are comparable to RBCA’s site-specific target levels (SSTL) under Tier 2 and Tier 3. Since there is no hierarchy among the standards, Act 2 is not strictly "tiered" like RBCA. Yet, Act 2 allows for flexibility in determining the cleanup standard at a given site.

The responsible party will usually look at eliminating or reducing exposure using simple conservative modeling (similar to Tier 2) before moving to a more complex deterministic or probabilistic determination (Tier 3). Whether formally or informally, a responsible party will compare the actual site concentrations to the statewide generic standard before moving to more complex risk-based determinations. The risk-based approach, implemented in a tiered-fashion, involves increasingly sophisticated levels of data collection and analysis. Act 2’s MSCs contain screening level concentrations to determine whether the site conditions satisfy the standard, and if so, no further action is needed. However, if the constituent’s concentration exceeds the target level at the point of compliance, then either remedial action or a site-specific standard should be utilized.

The ultimate objective of the legislation is to remove barriers to cleanup (De Rose, 1997, 1999). Pennsylvania's VCP creates incentives to encourage responsible persons to voluntarily develop and implement cleanup plans without the use of taxpayer funds or the need for adversarial enforcement actions. Prior to the establishment of Act 2, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania required owners, regardless of their role in the contamination, to cleanup the site to pristine conditions.

In 1995, The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania signed the Land Recycling Program into law. This program was created to streamline the process for remediating industrial sites and turning brownfields into income producing business, while preserving greenspace. The Land Recycling Program is comprised of three acts, however, this research deals exclusively with the Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (henceforth referred to as Act 2) and the respective cleanup standards. Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) states that the four cornerstones of Act 2 are 1) uniform cleanup standards based on the different uses, 2) standardized review procedures, 3) releases from liability, and 4) financial assistance. (Pennsylvania Bulletin, 1997).

Under Act 2, property owners must select and attain compliance with one or more specified cleanup standards (PADEP, 1997). Categorical standards include the special industrial area standard, background standard, statewide health-based standard, site-specific standard, or a combination thereof (see Table 7 for a brief description of each of these standards). Owners who satisfy requirements of the VCP are shielded from state environmental enforcement actions for the unanticipated future cleanup of contaminants. Furthermore, owners receive protection from lawsuits brought by citizen groups and contribution actions brought by third parties responsible for site contamination. However, VCPs do not deem a party exempt for all contamination at a site. In Act 2, liability protection is limited to the contamination identified and the discovery of contaminants not covered by a VCP can lead to federal or state environmental enforcement actions. Therefore, a thorough site characterization is critical to identify specific contaminant concentrations and the extent of the contamination; PADEP has emphasized the importance of the site characterization process, as demonstrated by Act 2’s site characterization flow chart, found in Appendix H.

* All standards can be selected for cleanup of brownfields

Before discussing the most frequently chosen cleanup standard, it is helpful to gain an understanding about the type and frequency of contamination at Act 2 sites. Table 8 shows that contaminants at Act 2 sites range from solvents and metals to asbestos. Based on the frequent use of petroleum, oil and lubricants, BTEX, TPHs, and VOCs are common contaminants found at approximately 60%, 33%, and 30% of the sites, respectively. Heavy metals, such as lead, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, and nickel, occur at over half the sites (53%). The least occurring contaminants are pesticides and asbestos (6% for each). In most cases, multiple contaminants are present.

Note: This table includes all contaminated media (ground water, soil, buildings, etc.)

Frequency is based on a representative number of sites (n=15) from PADEP file reports.

All sites are located in Southwest Pennsylvania.

Note: This table includes all contaminated media (ground water, soil, buildings, etc.)

Frequency is based on a representative number of sites (n=15) from PADEP file reports.

All sites are located in Southwest Pennsylvania.

Table 9 shows that groundwater is a concern at 60% of sites, however, soil contamination existed at all sites. Many brownfields sites contain existing infrastructure from a previous use, thus, contaminated buildings may also pose a concern (13% of sites). Lead-based paint and asbestos are the most common concern with existing buildings. While the PADEP maintains standards for groundwater and soil, the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) determines the standards for air exposure for the protection of workers during the remediation phase. A more detailed version of Tables 8 and 9 is found in Appendix I.

In the context of carcinogenic substances, cleanup standards are determined by the proposed future use of the facility, i.e., whether it is for industrial, commercial, or residential purposes. PADEP requires that carcinogenic hazardous substances must be cleaned up to a risk range of 1 x 10^-4 to 1 x 10^-6. In other words, soil and groundwater standards for cancer causing hazardous substances must be established at exposures where no more than one person in 10,000 to one person in 1,000,000 is at risk of cancer after a lifetime of exposure to the hazardous contaminants at the site. The cumulative, or combined risk, for all the chemicals located at a particular site, may not be greater than 1 in 10,000. For non-cancer causing chemicals, PADEP dictates that the target hazard quotient should be 1.0. This is defined as the ratio of a single substance exposure level over a specified period, to a reference dose for that substance derived from a similar exposure period.

Act 2 allows for the use of presumptive remedies, such as engineering and institutional controls, in order to achieve selected standards. Engineering controls are measures designed to contain the contamination at the site, such as placement of a parking lot over contaminated soil. Institutional controls are managerial controls, such as fences and warning signs, and land use restrictions. Control measures have been deemed the "ultimate relaxation of cleanup standards" (Eisen, 1996). In Pennsylvania, engineering and institutional controls may be used to meet any of the standards. However, the State will "disapprove a site-specific remediation plan that consists solely of fences, warning signs or future land use restrictions unless the site-specific standard is developed on the basis of exposure factors which are no less stringent than those which would apply to the site at the time the contamination is discovered" (Pennsylvania Bulletin, 1997). For the background standard, PADEP does not allow the use of managerial controls to meet the standard; however, engineering and institutional controls may be used to maintain the background standard after a remediation has occurred.

A detailed review of the Land Recycling Program’s annual reports reveals that the statewide health standard is the most favored cleanup standard (Figure 11). The statewide health standard (SWHS), the most stringent of all the standards, is selected over 74% of the time. The least conservative standards of special industrial areas are selected 5% of the time, while site-specific standards and background standards are chosen 13% and 8%, of the time respectively. John Matviya, Environmental Cleanup Program Manager for Southwest Pennsylvania, attributes the popularity of the statewide health standard to site/property marketability (Matviya, 1999). He states that companies are "willing to clean up whatever it takes" to meet statewide health standards in order to avoid deed restrictions and guarantee the future transfer of the property.

Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Annual Reports

Figure 12 shows consistent trends since the inception of the program in 1995. Statewide health standards have been the standard of choice over the past four years. Figure 12 also illustrates that 539 sites have been given an Act 2 approval and the quantity of completed cleanups has increased each year. While this can be attributed to many factors, such as more developers being interested in brownfield sites or the documented success of the program, more sites are coming forward to cleanup their property.

Analysis of the case studies is divided into two sections: 1) a brief description of the chosen sites, and 2) relevant findings from a comprehensive file review.

At Site 1, an instrument manufacturing facility, some fine gray material was found while digging a sewer line trench. The area was believed to be the old paint storage room, and the material was presumed to be lead. Sample results indicated that all contaminants for both groundwater and soil were below the statewide health standard. Data indicted that the matter had not impacted the underlying soils. At this point, those responsible for the cleanup at Site 1 could have just left the material there, performing no type of remediation, as the situation was expected to be non-threatening and no risk was involved. Instead, site owners opted to cleanup the gray material, and excavated and removed 200 tons of soil.

A research lab, owned by a university, chose to use a combination of two standards – statewide health standard (for residential) and background. Owners of this site was going to sell the property and selected these standards on the basis that the proposed future use was residential/commercial. Although the site did not originally meet the SWHS for residential levels, they opted to cleanup to the most stringent direct contact criteria, requiring a cleanup of three additional areas. A cost estimate was performed indicating additional cleanup costs would be approximately $4500. Table 10 compares the initial concentration to the residential and non-residential MSCs, demonstrates that the site was in compliance for non-residential levels.