Karolina Brownfields Redevelopment Site Ostrava, Czech Republic Thomas C. Voltaggio Senior Advisor Dawson & Associates 1
Introduction Project request to USEPA spring 1994Project 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 staffTeam 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 consultantsTeam Communicated frequently with Czech colleagues and consultants EPA team reviewed and evaluated sampling and analysis report prepared by Czech consultantEPA 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 redevelopmentUtilize 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 criteriaDeveloped a matrix of cleanup options which met the following criteria 3
Factors Health and environmental protectionHealth and environmental protection CostCost Technical feasibilityTechnical feasibility Future use of the land (City Master Plan)Future use of the land (City Master Plan) Czech cleanup requirementsCzech cleanup requirements Community acceptanceCommunity acceptance 4
The Karolina Site During the Socialist Era 5
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 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 Residential Residual Risk Levels Overlain on Site Map Notes: - Red hashed areas denote Green hashed areas denote Entire site exceeded
Long term Commercial Residual Risk Levels Overlain on Site Map 13
Technologies Initially Evaluated Thermal treatment of Coal Tar and contaminated soilsThermal treatment of Coal Tar and contaminated soils Offsite disposal of Coal Tar and contaminated soilsOffsite disposal of Coal Tar and contaminated soils Construction of onsite landfill for contaminated soilsConstruction 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 CurtainCost 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 costlyThermal 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 feasibleOnsite 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 cancer risk levelAlmost entire site exceeded cancer risk level –Costs estimated at over $450 million These costs were considered initially to be beyond levels contemplated by the Czech GovernmentThese costs were considered initially to be beyond levels contemplated by the Czech Government EPA team evaluated alternatives using cleanup levelsEPA team evaluated alternatives using cleanup levels –Still within EPA’s risk range for Superfund cleanup A number of options emergedA number of options emerged 16
Initial Alternatives Excavate and thermally treat tar and site contaminated soils to or 10 -6Excavate and thermally treat tar and site contaminated soils to or –Costs estimated to be $170 M and $472 M Liquid tar burned offsite; excavate site soils above and construct onsite landfillLiquid tar burned offsite; excavate site soils above and construct onsite landfill –Cost estimated to be $65M Liquid tar burned offsite; excavate site soils above and send to offsite landfillLiquid tar burned offsite; excavate site soils above and send to offsite landfill –Cost estimated to be $94M 17
New Alternative EPA team suggested: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 > 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 1995EPA team presented report to the Czech Government in September 1995 After much discussion, Czech government decided to clean to risk levelAfter much discussion, Czech government decided to clean to risk level Equivalent of $100 million were obtained from the “National Fund”Equivalent of $100 million were obtained from the “National Fund” Tender was offered for the cleanupTender 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 contractOKD-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 useA 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: 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 Work under the development phase began in 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 1995The 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 eyeBrownfields was a twinkle in Tim Field’s eye This was a Superfund level cleanup in a country just emerging from the socialist eraThis 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 developmentThe 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 effortThe EPA team was very proud of its contribution to this effort 26
Thank You! Questions About this Project? Tom Voltaggio 27