HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT MEASUREMENT TOOL

Indicator ES.3.a Contaminated sites

Descriptive Title: Distribution of brownfields and leaking underground storage tanks

Geographic Unit of Analysis: Point

Download PDF map.

Why Is This An Indicator Of Health and Sustainability?

Brownfields are real property where the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of the property may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.^a A key characteristic of a brownfield site is that it is targeted for redevelopment. An underground storage tank (UST) is a tank and any pipes connected to it that is used for the storage of hazardous substances and that is substantially or totally beneath the surface of the ground.^b  A leaking underground storage tank (LUST) falls under the category of a brownfield, but requires its own regulations because of the potentially significant threat to our drinking water. 

Brownfields with high concentrations of contaminated soil threaten the air we breathe and the water we drink.  Even sites falsely assumed to be contaminated pose a health threat because they can result in reduced property values or sprawled development patterns if left unchecked. Cleanup and reuse can improve quality of life by creating community benefits like parks or by stimulating jobs creation.  Indirect health benefits may include greater location efficiency than alternative greenfield sites; a local reduction in vehicle miles traveled; and, evidence shows, a reduction in crime.^c

Interpretation and Geographic Equity Analysis

Analysis of the distribution of non-LUST brownfields in San Francisco reveals that there is a higher concentration of brownfields along the eastern part of the city, especially in the South of Market (SOMA), Treasure Island, Potrero Hill, and Bayview neighborhoods.  This aggregation of brownfields is likely due to the density of former military and industrial uses in those neighborhoods. SOMA has a particularly high percentage of brownfields participating in the Voluntary Cleanup Program which allows developers to expedite the cleanup process, likely a result of market demands incentivizing more timely cleanup and reuse. 

In contrast, LUSTs are somewhat more evenly distributed throughout the city.  This is most likely because the majority of LUSTs are gas stations which are found across the city, whereas industrial uses that have created brownfields are mostly found on the eastern side of the city.

SF neighborhoods do not each receive their fair share of remediation for contaminated sites. To understand why, one must consider the role of environmental regulation. Historically, federal remediation attempts have sought to incentivize cleanup and reuse of brownfields by addressing issues of liability and risk^d, their biggest deterrents to marketability.  These subsidies are awarded based on threat potential.  Therefore, “low threat” brownfields are waitlisted.  In response, states like CA offer the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), providing motivated parties the option of bi-passing the priority list by funding the cleanup and the costly state oversight themselves.  This option enables these motivated parties to finish the clean-up sooner.  About 15% of San Francisco’s non-LUST brownfield cleanup sites are VCP sites.  The Department of Toxic Substances Control^e, CA’s brownfields remediation lead, has redirected some of its resources from providing clean-up to providing oversight for VCPs.  Consequently, contaminated sites that are of low priority and in areas with low market demand experience compounded difficulty receiving remediation benefits. 

LUST remediation is less dependent on economic trends.  Regulations require all owners of USTs to register with CA’s State Water Resources Control Board.  In addition to managing cleanup funds, the Water Resources Control Board also helps oversee preventative measures passed down from the EPA. Locally, San Francisco’s Environmental Health Department and the Site Mitigation Program provide oversight consistent with state laws, regulations, and ever-changing Water Board policies; and help identify and guide responsible parties through the remediation process. 

Methods

Brownfield sites with Cleanup Status designations of “No Further Action” or “No Action Required” were excluded from the analysis. Leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) where the Cleanup Status designation was “Completed – Case Closed” were also omitted.  

Sites were geocoded and mapped.

Limitations

The term “Brownfields” carries a broad definition, and is not synonymous with contaminated site.  Known contaminated sites may not receive brownfield status until a specific activity occurs, such as a real estate transaction or the filing of a building permit application, which could trigger on-site inspections and initiate a formal mitigation process.  The EnviroStor database does not include permitted Transportable Treatment Units (TTUs) or generators/transporters of hazardous waste. In addition, the EnviroStor database does not include sites where DTSC performed an emergency removal at a former methamphetamine (meth) laboratory. The EnviroStor database does not include ALL contaminated sites throughout California. Other Federal, State, and local agencies maintain lists of properties under their jurisdiction.  The EnviroStor database does not include information regarding disposal of household hazardous waste, such as batteries and waste oil.

Data Source

State Water Resources Control Board’s online GeoTracker system at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/sites_by_county.asp.   

Department of Toxic Substances Control’s online Envirostor system at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public.

Table data is presented by planning neighborhood. Detailed information regarding geographic units of analysis, their definitions, and their boundaries can be found in the HDMT at the following links:

http://www.thehdmt.org/etc/Geographic_Units_of_Analysis.pdf