Introduction to Contaminated Site Management - Dealing with Contaminated Sites: From Theory Towards Practical Application - page 61

Assessment today is to move towards more consistency in the Risk Assessment
tools used by the EU-member states (Swartjes et al. 2009 ).
Since geographical, cultural and social conditions indeed vary, a worldwide
complete harmonisation of Risk Assessment tools is not applicable. However, for
the sake of scientific integrity, a stronger convergence of Risk Assessment tools
that do not include geographical, cultural, social or policy elements would be
favourable ( standardised Risks assessment tools). Risk Assessment tools that do
include geographical, cultural or social elements must be applied with a certain
level of flexibility so as to account for these geographical, cultural or social ele-
ments ( flexible Risks assessment tools). Alternatively, guidance could be developed
which would describe the requirements for these flexible Risk Assessment tools,
which would take into account a higher degree of consistency on the part of the
scientific elements of these Risk Assessment tools (Swartjes et al. 2009 ).
1.7.14 Brownfields
The CABERNET (Concerted Action on Brownfields and Economic Regeneration)
network defines Brownfields as 'sites that have been affected by the former uses of
the site and surrounding land; are derelict and underused; may have real or perceived
contamination problems; are mainly in developed urban areas; and require interven-
tion to bring them back to beneficial use' (Oliver et al. 2009 ). The US Environmental
Protection Agency uses a different kind of definition in which the redevelopment
or reuse is central, namely, 'a Brownfield site means real property, the expansion,
redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential
presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant' (US EPA 2009 ). In
Fig. 1.10 an example of a Brownfield in San Francisco, California, USA is shown
as an aerial view.
Since the general approach for contaminated site management would imply long
development time frames, large uncertainties and an over-proportional budget, a
specific Risk Management approach is followed for these Brownfields. It is often
claimed that Brownfield redevelopment is primarily financially driven. The gen-
eral idea, however, is to make site redevelopment profitable, while at the same time
protecting human health. Therefore, economic and socio-cultural factors are given
greater weight than in 'normal' cases of soil contamination.
O'Reilly and Brink ( 2006 ) developed a simple screening procedure for
Brownfield sites in New York State, USA, in which they classify human health risks
in three categories on the basis of the concentration and toxicity of the contaminants,
the location of the contaminant, the exposure route (oral, inhalative or dermal) and
the type of site user (construction/utility worker, residents, industrial employees,
visitors/shoppers). A popular, but very informative overview of Brownfield revi-
talisation, including examples from the city of Stuttgart in Germany, the Nantes
metropolis in France, the cities of Tilburg and Hengelo in the Netherlands, the
Medway Council and Torfaen County Borough Council areas in the UK, is given