Transcript Karolina Brownfields Redevelopment Site

Karolina Brownfields
Redevelopment Site
Ostrava, Czech Republic
Thomas C. Voltaggio
Senior Advisor
Dawson & Associates
[email protected]
1
Introduction
• Project request to USEPA spring 1994
– Evaluate remediation options for Karolina facility
– USEPA Region III assigned project under broader
USAID funded “Project Silesia” program
• Team consisted of Superfund Director Voltaggio
and included Steven Hirsh, Dawn Ioven and
Kathryn Davies – all experienced Superfund staff
• Team Communicated frequently with Czech
colleagues and consultants
• EPA team reviewed and evaluated sampling and
analysis report prepared by Czech consultant
2
Role of USEPA
Region III Team
• Utilize EPA’s experience to present information
which would facilitate the decision-making
process for site remediation and redevelopment
– Performed a risk assessment
– Identified suggested cleanup options along with cost
estimates paying close attention to the proposed
development plan for the Karolina site
– Suggested additional information needs
• Developed a matrix of cleanup options which met
the following criteria
3
Factors
•
•
•
•
•
•
Health and environmental protection
Cost
Technical feasibility
Future use of the land (City Master Plan)
Czech cleanup requirements
Community acceptance
4
The Karolina Site
During the Socialist Era
5
The Karolina Site
During the Socialist Era
6
The Karolina Site
After Demolition
7
The Karolina Site After Demolition With
Outline of Development Plan Area
8
The Karolina Site With
Rendering of Development Plan
9
Future Use Areas
Overlain on Site
Map from the
Development
Plan
Notes:
- Areas D, F, L and J are
Residential Areas
- Area G is a Park
10
Site Showing
Master Plan Use
Categories
Overlain by
Concentrated Tar
Contamination
Area
Notes:
- Areas D, F, L and J are
Residential Areas
- Area G is a Park
11
Residential
Residual Risk
Levels Overlain
on Site Map
Notes:
- Red hashed areas denote
10-3
- Green hashed areas
denote
10-4
- Entire site exceeded 10-6
12
Long term
Commercial
Residual Risk
Levels Overlain
on Site Map
13
Technologies Initially Evaluated
• Thermal treatment of Coal Tar and
contaminated soils
• Offsite disposal of Coal Tar and
contaminated soils
• Construction of onsite landfill for
contaminated soils
14
Constraints on Alternatives
• Cost is a major factor. Cleanup costs would come
from a limited “National Fund” established when
Czech industry was privatized after the fall of the
Iron Curtain
• Thermal treatment and offsite disposal of large
amounts of wastes could be prohibitively costly
• Onsite landfills significantly reduce the
developable area to a point where development
would not be feasible
15
Difficult Issue for
Czech Government
• Almost entire site exceeded 10-6 cancer risk
level
– Costs estimated at over $450 million
• These costs were considered initially to be
beyond levels contemplated by the Czech
Government
• EPA team evaluated alternatives using 10-4
cleanup levels
– Still within EPA’s risk range for Superfund cleanup
• A number of options emerged
16
Initial Alternatives
• Excavate and thermally treat tar and site
contaminated soils to 10-4 or 10-6
– Costs estimated to be $170 M and $472 M
• Liquid tar burned offsite; excavate site soils
above 10-4 and construct onsite landfill
– Cost estimated to be $65M
• Liquid tar burned offsite; excavate site soils
above 10-4 and send to offsite landfill
– Cost estimated to be $94M
17
New Alternative
• EPA team suggested:
– Thermally treating the coal tar from within the
Coke Plant Area
– Isolate the Coke Plant area with a slurry wall or
sheet pile
– Excavate and place soils with risk level > 10-4
within the slurry wall
– Cover the Coke Plant area of the site with a liner,
clean fill, and a multilayer cap
– And …
18
New Alternative (continued)
• Revise the development plan to:
– move the proposed locations of residential
areas to areas outside the Coke Plant area
– move the central square and park to be
situated over the capped Coke Plant area
19
EPA Team
Proposal for
Readjusting
Residential
Use Areas
20
EPA Team
Proposal for
Readjusting
All the Future
Use Areas Based
on Cleanup
Alternative 4b
Notes:
- Areas D, F, L and J are
Residential Areas
- Area G is a Park
21
Subsequent Steps
• EPA team presented report to the Czech
Government in September 1995
• After much discussion, Czech government
decided to clean to 10-6 risk level
• Equivalent of $100 million were obtained from
the “National Fund”
• Tender was offered for the cleanup
22
Subsequent Steps (continued)
• OKD-Rekultivace (a subsidiary of the
company who was a major PRP of the site)
was awarded the cleanup contract
– Cleanup order issued by the Czech government
– Cleanup performed between 1997 and 2004
• A thermal desorption unit was used to clean
site soils to levels determined by the Czech
government to be protective of residential use
23
Subsequent Steps (continued)
• Cleanup cost less than the EPA estimates
due to:
– Wage rates, transportation and other costs
substantially lower than US levels
– Cleanup contractor utilized many miners and
workers, as well as equipment and expertise
idled after privatization
24
Development
Progress
 Work under the
development phase
began in 2007.
 It is called “New
Karolina”
 The developer is a
Dutch company Multi Development
25
Looking Back …
• The contribution of the EPA team needs to be put in
context of the world as it existed in 1995
• Brownfields was a twinkle in Tim Field’s eye
• This was a Superfund level cleanup in a country just
emerging from the socialist era
• The EPA team provided a level of comfort to the
Czech government trying to balance environmental
needs with the need for development
• The EPA team was very proud of its contribution to
this effort
26
Thank You!
Questions About this Project?
Tom Voltaggio
[email protected]
27