Page 148 - Beyond Decommissioning

Relevant factors for redevelopment 129

needed for cleanup and redevelopment work. Private developers determined to
acquire an old property often are turned down by lenders concerned about potential
liability in the case of foreclosure, loss of collateral value, and the effect of cleanup
costs on the project’s sustainability. The possibility of hidden or unexplored contam-
ination has frequently deprived developers of traditional credit means.
Quite recently, commercial opportunities have appeared whereby a redeveloping
company has bought a property while contractually relieving the former owner from
their liabilities. One such example is the redevelopment project at Lumberton, NC,
United States. North Carolina Renewable Power (NCRP) converted an unused
35-MW coal-fired power plant into a 25-MW renewable energy (biomass) power
plant utilizing poultry litter (a mixture of manure and bedding) and wood waste. This
conversion reduces harmful emissions, namely sulfur dioxide by 78% and nitrogen by
33%. The plant is situated in a rural area with the highest poverty rate in NC. The area
lies in the “American Broiler Belt,” a region with prevalent large-scale poultry pro-
duction. The poultry litter is hazardous waste, and water runoff from it contaminated
local waterways and damaged the ecosystems. Until the new power plant was
installed, the burden of waste disposal fell on the farmers. But the use of poultry litter
as fuel will help local farmers remove a significant pollution source from the commu-
nity. Additional benefits included new jobs, including 28 to operate the power plant
and 105 for wood waste and poultry feedstock. The project also created some 300
direct construction jobs (AMCREF, 2015).

5.10.3 Unclear procedures

Much confusion concerns the identification of toxic substances at older sites, instru-
mental detection limits, the best treatment options, the level of cleanup required, and
the involvement of regulatory reviews and approvals. It is often difficult to provide a
satisfactory answer to the question of elected officials, developers, investors, environ-
mentalists, and concerned neighbors of contaminated sites: “How clean is clean
enough?” While some of their concerns stem from a lack of understanding of technical
and scientific topics, others stem from the vagueness of this arena. Other stakeholders
raise legitimate questions about the wisdom of enacting variable cleanup standards
that depend on the way the site will be used in the future (e.g., based on doses to
the critical group of users) rather on firmly established parameters (e.g., concentra-
tions of contaminants). This uncertainty often paralyzes developers or creates a con-
frontation (often ending in a legal case) between environmentalists and promoters of
redevelopment.
Developers are also concerned that even if they clean a property to today’s stan-
dards, there is no assurance that today’s “clean” will be considered clean enough
in the future (see the Nuclear Lake case in Section 7.8). They also fear that changes
in environmental standards and improvements in technology (e.g., more sensitive
instruments) may force them to revise their cleanup plans halfway through a project,
adding more costs and delays. Unfortunately, environmental laws have shown for
years to be moving targets.