2. Dishing the Dirt on Clean Soil: Reuse Opportunities Hennepin County Soil Reuse Study USEPA Brownfields 2015 Chicago, Illinois September 3, 2015 Hennepin County Environment and Energy Department Land and Water Unit Gilbert Gabanski, P.G.

3. Soil Reuse Study – An Overview Minnesota Brownfields funded by Hennepin County Hauling and landfill disposal of impacted soil are eligible cost under brownfield cleanup grant programs Significant cleanup cost component at brownfields Marginally impacted soil typically disposed at landfills, most cannot be reused offsite for regulatory and liability reasons Analysis of potential cost savings associated with off-site reuse of marginally impacted soils from brownfield sites

4. Why This Study? – Potential Benefits of Soil Reuse Significant cost savings – individual site cleanups More efficient use of public brownfield grant funds, private capital Conservation of landfill space Reduction of carbon footprint for cleanups – reduced hauling distances, fewer greenhouse gases, consumption of less fuel BUT – no documentation of the magnitude of potential benefits

5. Study Overview - Three Components Case Study Sites: Cost Analysis – Potential Savings Environmental Impact Analysis Policy and Legal Analysis Barriers to soil reuse

6. Background Info - Hennepin County, MN 25% of MN contaminated sites 1,364 Voluntary Cleanup sites (41% of MN sites) 3,066 LEAK sites (19%) 20 Superfund sites (14%) 278 dump sites (8%) 4,708 sites of concern Hennepin County Largest in population - 1.2 million 22% of the state population 611 sq. miles 45 cities One third of all state jobs

7. Hennepin County Brownfield Program Environmental Response Fund (ERF) Funding Source: Mortgage Registry and Deed Tax Revenue 1/100 th of 1% of each property transaction amount and principal (0.0001) Example: Purchase a $100,000 property – pay $20 into ERF Currently generates approximately $2.4M/year Funding to date: Approximately $3M/yr. 2001 to 2014 Granted $47.3M to 337 projects

8. Hennepin County Brownfield Program Environmental Response Fund (ERF) - Metrics Grants by activity: Cleanup - $37.3 M (79%) – mostly soil remediation Asbestos/lead paint abatement - $6.1 M (13%) Assessment - $3.9M (8%) Grants by Project type: Commercial /Industrial - $11.8M (25%) Mixed residential/commercial - $7.7M (16%) Residential - $17.2M (37%) Open Space / Infrastructure - $10.5 M (22%)

9. Hennepin County Brownfield Program Environmental Response Fund (ERF) - Metrics Leveraged $1.7B in private development costs $437M+ increase in property values $65M+ increase in property taxes Created or retained more than 12,000 jobs 3,500 affordable and 6,500 market rate housing units (created or renovated) $53M in public investment from DEED, TBRA, and EPA

10. Hennepin County Brownfield Program Other Funding Sources EPA Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund (BRLF) 7 Loans to date $3.6M (currently have $1.45M available) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Funded by Principal and Interest from 5 RLF loan repayments ($1.9M) – 4 of 5 paid in full Five areas of funding including Soil Brokering (soil reuse) Close Out Agreement (COA) Principal/Interest Funded by 1 RLF loan ($1.1M) - returns $77K/yr. (until 2025) Assist municipal partners on assessments EPA Assessment Grant - $400K awarded in 2014

11. Minnesota Public Financing for Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup Grants available from: MN Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) Approximately $8M/yr. 1995 - 2014 Granted $142M to 450 projects Private Investments - $4.6B Metropolitan Council (7 county metro area) - Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) Approximately $5M/yr. 1996 to 2014 Granted $107.5M to 396 projects Private Investments - $3.5B

12. Soil Categories -Definitions Unregulated fill - no debris, staining or chemical odors, contaminant concentrations less than or equal to the MPCA's generic residential (Tier 1) Soil Reference Values (SRVs) for metals and semi-volatile organic compounds Debris-Containing Fill - contains debris, meets the above definition of unregulated fill Regulated Fill - contaminant conc.s above unregulated fill, but less than or equal to the MPCA's generic industrial (Tier 2) SRVs for metals and semi-volatile organic compounds Regulated Fill Revised – contaminant conc.s above generic, use-based site cleanup standards, may be managed on-site consistent with site-specific, use-based cleanup standards, as authorized by an MPCA approved Response Action Plan Marginally contaminated soil - fill material determined through laboratory analysis to meet the MPCA definitions of “unregulated” or “regulated” fill, or fill material meeting site-specific risk-based criteria for on-site management.

13. Site Data Collected 11 sites selected and evaluated Soil volumes by soil category and management strategy On-site reuse, off-site reuse, landfill disposal Cost to haul and dispose or haul and place Distance to reuse on-site, cost to place and compact Distance to landfills and reuse locations Truck capacity, gas usage (MPG) Grant funds awarded: total, soil-disposal

14. Off-Site Reuse – Cost Analysis Findings Four of eleven sites – unregulated fill Cost savings ranged from $49,736 - $1,066,540 Cost savings represented 42% - 99% relative to landfilling alternative Cost savings at both large and small scale sites Cost savings increases with soil volume, distance “savings”

15. On-Site Reuse – Cost Analysis Findings Eight of eleven sites Cost savings ranged from $21,293 to $6,249,674 Cost savings represented 78% - 92% relative to landfilling alternative Opportunity for cost savings great, but limited by time, space constraints

16. Grant Funding – Cost Analysis Findings 9 sites received cleanup grant funds Total grant funds awarded: $5,326,281 Overall, 52% of grant funds were used for landfill disposal Individual sites - from $206,429 to $2,176,077 was used for landfill disposal (42% to 100% of the grant award) Opportunity for savings

17. Environmental Impact Analysis Compared estimated CO2 production between soil management strategies CO2 production was estimated using hauling distance, fuel usage (mpg), number of trips, and CO2 production rate based on truck type. Off-site reuse - “CO2 Savings” depends upon volume and reduction of hauling distance - landfill vs. reuse location Off-site reuse - absolute savings: 5,600 kg – 217,500 kg CO2 per site This represents 21%-88% savings compared to CO2 production for the landfill disposal alternative

18. From Case Studies – Factors Limiting Reuse Identifying reuse location in time frame for source site redevelopment Lack of space to stage, segregate, screen and store soil for reuse Debris in otherwise re-useable unregulated or regulated fill Geotechnical quality of unregulated and regulated fill

19. From Case Studies - Factors Favoring Reuse Opportunity for significant cost savings (large volumes, long hauling distance) Motivated development team Problem solving relationship between regulatory staff and consultant leads to individual site solutions

20. Legal and Policy Analysis Reviewed policy, statute and rules that affect soil reuse in MN Pathway for soil reuse and barriers along the pathway Current MPCA guidance provides an initial foundation for an effective regulatory framework Concluded that adjustments are needed to current policy to encourage reuse in-lieu of landfilling

21. Liability Exposure CERCLA/MERLA RCRA/MPCA Solid and Hazardous Waste Statutory Authority (Minn. Stat. Chap. 116) Petroleum (Minn. Stat. Chap. 115C; Minn. Stat. Chap. 115E; and as a pollutant or contaminant under Minn. Stat. § 115B.17) Solid Waste Rules (Debris in Soil)

22. Legal and Policy Barriers for Soil Reuse Non-Petroleum Liability Assurances for soil reuse – not currently available Current MPCA petroleum assurances do not apply to soil reuse Debris containing unregulated fill goes to landfills – current MPCA Solid Waste Rules disallow reusing fill with debris Current MPCA Regulated Fill Use guidance does not allow for intermediate staging of soils or staging at the receiving site Regulated fill cannot contain contaminant concentrations above Industrial SRVs for SVOCs and metals – prevents reuse

23. Further Data Needed to Understand Soil Reuse Benefits Data supports that grant dollars are used to landfill soils that could otherwise be reused off-site, BUT we don’t have sufficient supporting data. Recommendation: require detailed, unit-cost data be collected and submitted for grant- funded cleanups (DEED, Metropolitan Council, Hennepin and Ramsey County).

24. Next Steps Request State and local grant programs to collect soil reuse data for grant sites Work with MPCA to pursue improved liability options Work with MPCA to pursue improvements to Off-Site Use Guidance for Regulated Fill Intermediate soil staging facility pilot?

25. Project Team M I N N E S O T A B R O W N F I E L D S PO Box 16244 | St. Paul, MN 55116 651.307.4371 | www.mnbrownfields.orgwww.mnbrownfields.org http://mnbrownfields.org/soil-reuse-study-report/ Hennepin CountyMinnesota Brownfields Mary FinchMartha Faust Gil GabanskiDeborah DeLuca John Evans Steve Heurung Dave Jaeger Jill Maullo Jamie Radel

26. Information www.hennepin.uswww.hennepin.us - search for ERF Gilbert Gabanski, P.G. Hennepin County Environment and Energy Department Land and Water Unit 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1842 612-348-4843 gilbert.gabanski@hennepin.us