Linking Cleanup and Reuse
www.epa.gov

THE MDI SUPERFUND SITE AND HOUSTON’S FIFTH WARD

Introduction
Visitors driving along neighborhood roads in Houston in 2004
would not have noticed much activity at 3617 Baer Street. Amidst
homes, vacant lots, a vinegar plant, an electric utility, and a
community school, the 36-acre area remained fenced, enclosing
debris piles, paved areas, and a few remnant structures.
The area had been a hub of industrial activity for decades; metal
casting foundries had created specialty molded steel parts that
served as the foundation for industrial, railroad, and mining
operations across the country. A chemical recycling facility had
left thousands of abandoned catalyst drums behind.
By 2004, the area had been idle for 13 years. Industrial
operations had contaminated soils and ground water, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed the area – the
Many Diversified Interests, Inc. (MDI) Superfund site – on its
National Priorities List (NPL) of contaminated sites in 1999.
In 2004, it did not look like there would be much happening at
the MDI site in the foreseeable future. While immediate threats
to human health and the environment had been addressed, there
were no viable responsible parties. With the site owned by a
bankruptcy trustee and a lien placed on the site by EPA to recover
past site costs, it appeared unlikely that any party would step in to
purchase or clean up the site.
Today, the construction of the MDI site’s $6.6 million remedy
is complete. The site’s fencing now encloses a flat open field
where new infrastructure will soon support a planned residential
development with hundreds of homes. Once hidden behind
rusting warehouses and storage vats, downtown Houston stands
as the site’s prominent backdrop. The site’s redevelopment
will provide jobs, build the city’s tax base, and help sustain the
ongoing revitalization of Houston’s Fifth Ward.

View of the MDI Superfund site and the Houston skyline, 2008

1

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Redevelopment Initiative

This case study explores the working relationships and key
dynamics that have led to the successful cleanup and planned
reuse of the MDI Superfund site. In particular, the case study
describes the Agreed Order on Consent and Covenant Not to Sue,
the first-ever agreement between EPA and a non-liable party for
the cleanup of a Superfund site, which was signed in September
2006. This agreement facilitated the acquisition and cleanup of
the site by a private party.
The case study also explores the roles of the site’s various
stakeholders, including EPA, the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the site’s bankruptcy trustee
and prospective site owners, community residents, and
local government officials. The cleanup and redevelopment
planning process at the MDI site highlights how market forces
and community interests can intersect with federal and state
responsibilities to ensure the protection of human health and
the environment. The end result: site reuses that support local
economic development and protective site remedies that enhance
and restore a community’s quality of life.
In the following pages, the case study discusses the evolution of
remediation and redevelopment efforts at the MDI site between its
NPL listing in 1999 and the completed construction of the site’s
remedy in 2008. This case study is intended to provide relevant
information and lessons learned from the MDI site to parties with
a general interest in Superfund site reuse, as well as parties with
a particular interest in an integrated, non-liable party approach to
Superfund site acquisition, cleanup, and redevelopment.

 TEXAS
Houston

/

MDI Superfund site (OU1), Houston, Texas

Site History, Contamination, and Remediation
From 1926 until the early 1990s, two metal casting foundries and a
chemical recycling facility were located at the MDI site. As this photo
illustrates, the site was covered by operations buildings, laboratories,
warehouses, and other structures used to manufacture specialty molded
steel parts like wheels, rail tracks, and mining equipment.
Site operations and waste materials resulted in the contamination of
soil and ground water with lead and other metals. EPA listed the site on
the National Priorities List, the Agency’s list of top-priority Superfund
sites, in January 1999. The site includes three operable units (OUs):
soils and ground water at the central, 36-acre fenced site area (OU1),
off-site residential yards (OU2), and off-site residential crawlspaces
and additional yards (OU3).
Following a building demolition and salvage operation in 1996 and removal actions in 1998 and 1999 to address highpriority abandoned catalyst drums and contaminated soils and residential yards, EPA selected a remedy for OU1 in the
site’s 2004 Record of Decision. Components of the site’s remedy for OU1 include:
•
•
•
•

the excavation, treatment, and off-site disposal of contaminated site soils;
the off-site disposal of site debris, asbestos materials, and an underground storage tank;
source removal and monitored natural attenuation for the site’s ground water; and
institutional controls (ground water restrictions) to prevent exposure to site contaminants.

Throughout all site activities, EPA staff met regularly with the community to share site information and updates and
to incorporate community feedback into the Superfund process. The selected remedy enabled the site to be reused for
residential land uses, which EPA had determined to be the site’s reasonably anticipated future land use. Cleanup activities
at the site began in February 2007, and the construction of the site’s remedy for OU1 was completed in 2008.
For OU2, no further remedial action was necessary following a 2006 removal action. Remedial plans for OU3 will be
finalized in 2008.

2

 Project History
January 1999 – December 2003
Awakening Reuse Possibilities

Timeline of Events

Interest in the cleanup and redevelopment of the MDI site
sparked into life in September 1999, months after the site was
listed on the NPL, when EPA’s Superfund Redevelopment
Initiative (SRI) awarded a $100,000 pilot grant to the City of
Houston to develop a reuse plan for the site. A diverse group
of local stakeholders developed a reuse plan that anticipated
mixed residential and light commercial land uses at the site,
based on the site’s neighborhood surroundings and the growth
of new development projects throughout the Fifth Ward.

1926: Foundry operations begin at the site

Community residents emphasized the importance of both the
site’s cleanup and redevelopment for the community’s health
and economic well-being, according to EPA project manager
Rafael Casanova. “The site had been a fenced-off eyesore for a
long time,” he said. “Residents were looking for a cleanup that
would allow the community to relate to the site again.”
To support the community’s engagement at the site, EPA
awarded a technical assistance grant in September 2001 to
Mothers for Clean Air, a local nonprofit organization, and
initiated a series of community meetings. “The MDI site was
a top local concern,” recalled Jane Laping, executive director
of Mothers for Clean Air, “and so our organization applied for
the grant as a way to share information about the site with the
community and include community feedback in the remedial
decision-making process for EPA.” Site-related outreach and
engagement efforts in the community included theater-based
environmental and public health educational performances
hosted by Mothers for Clean Air and the University of Texas
Medical Branch.
Project GROW, a community-sponsored public art initiative led
by the Museum of Cultural Arts Houston (MOCAH), resulted
in the creation of 400 mural panels by neighborhood children
that were placed along the site’s fences. According to Reginald
Adams, MOCAH’s executive director and a neighborhood
resident, the project made an immediate difference in the
community. “The murals really succeeded in bringing the site
back to the forefront of people’s consciousness,” he stated.
“About half of the murals spoke to the site’s past and the
contamination, and about half of them spoke to the future –
the vision for what could be done with the site.” Jane Laping
also recalled the project’s broader impact. “Above all else, the
community tried to be an active participant at the site,” Laping
stated, “and to do what it could to make the site look better.”

1990: Many Diversified Interests, Inc. acquires the site
1992: MDI files for bankruptcy; foundry operations cease
Jan. 1999: Site listed on the NPL
Sept. 1999: SRI reuse planning grant provided to City of
Houston
Sept. 2001: Technical assistance grant awarded to the
community
Sept. 2002: Community’s site reuse plan completed
Oct. 2003:

Bankruptcy trustee files site auction sale notice

2003-2004: Prospective purchaser education efforts by
EPA and site trustee
June 2004: Draft Agreed Order circulated as part of
purchaser education efforts
July 2004: EPA issues Record of Decision for the 36-acre
site (OU1)
Mar. 2005: Site auction held; Clinton-Gregg Investments
submits bid for site property
June 2005 – June 2006: Agreed Order negotiations
Sept. 2006: Agreed Order signed by EPA and ClintonGregg Investments
Feb. 2007: Site cleanup
begins
2008: Construction of site
remedy completed
2008+: Infrastructure
installation
and site
redevelopment

Removal of concrete and site debris
as part of cleanup activities, 2007

With immediate threats to human health and the environment
having been addressed, EPA’s remedial investigations for the
site’s long-term cleanup were also underway. According to
3

 Rafael Casanova, the community’s reuse report for the site
helped to inform EPA that the site’s reasonably anticipated
future land use was residential, which in turn informed the
selection of the site’s remedy.

The reuse planning process also sparked broader interest in the
future use of the site, with several developers contacting EPA,
the City of Houston, and the site’s bankruptcy trustee, the courtappointed entity responsible for managing the MDI company’s
assets. Given the interest in the site, the U.S. bankruptcy court
determined in late 2003 that it would be sold at auction.
Despite the pending auction, the site’s redevelopment remained
a distant dream. Without a responsible party to clean up the site,
the conventional wisdom was that EPA would need to clean up
the site before redevelopment could begin. As Chris Amandes,
an attorney for Clinton-Gregg Investments, the eventual buyer
of the site, indicated, “My client saw an interesting opportunity,
but because timeframes for the site’s cleanup had not yet been
finalized, we had to go back to the drawing board.”
It looked like the site’s cleanup and redevelopment would be
placed on hold indefinitely. But during EPA informational
sessions with the City of Houston and other stakeholders, local
developers identified another option, a possible way forward. A
non-liable party could acquire, clean up, and redevelop the site.
It had never been done before. A lot of questions would need to
be answered. But everyone agreed that it might work.

Four of the 400 site murals created by neighborhood children as part
of the Project GROW public art initiative

Community Profile (Part I)
The MDI Superfund site is located on Baer Street in Houston’s
Fifth Ward, just east of downtown. Originally settled by former
slaves after the Civil War, the Fifth Ward is a historically
African-American district that has long been home to Houston’s
minority and immigrant populations. In recent decades, the
community has been in extended decline, wrestling with
widespread poverty and social and economic challenges.
Today, due to Houston’s economic growth and the Fifth
Ward’s proximity to downtown, much of the district is in the
midst of rapid transition, with older homes, vacant areas, and
former industrial facilities being replaced by new residential
development. Areas located west of the MDI site now include
hundreds of new townhouses and single-family residences,
with more units under construction.
The district’s changing fortunes have created both opportunities
and challenges for the community, with interest in new jobs and
neighborhood infrastructure balanced by housing affordability
concerns. The residential redevelopment of the MDI site takes
place in this context.

4

 January 2004 – March 2005
Learning a Different Language

In early 2004, as discussions moved forward, project
stakeholders worked to understand each other’s perspectives
and priorities and build relationships. For EPA, key areas
included defining the cleanup roles and responsibilities of
a non-liable party, also known as a bona fide prospective
purchaser (BFPP), at the site, how this approach might best
work within the context of the Superfund program, and how to
work with a BFPP to ensure the long-term protection of human
health and the environment. For prospective purchasers, key
areas included confirming the components, requirements, and
timeframes for the site’s cleanup, addressing liability concerns,
and addressing financial issues.
“The process was a great learning experience,” stated EPA site
attorney Barbara Nann. “At first, EPA and the parties interested
in the site’s redevelopment were speaking different languages.
We were coming at it from a Superfund program perspective
and the developers were coming from a real estate perspective.
The process helped EPA staff figure out how we could bridge
this gap and provide information and tools that would ensure
the site’s cleanup and help support the site’s reuse.”
Attorney Chris Amandes agreed. “We worked with EPA and
state staff [TCEQ] on a lot of different areas, and they were very
responsive,” he said. “Everyone was figuring this process out as
they went along. No one had done this before. We were sharing
ideas. EPA and other parties were sharing ideas. Everyone was
very open to different options and ideas, and we kept building
on this energy to find solutions that worked.”
Based on these discussions, EPA Region 6 staff worked to
develop a draft Agreed Order on Consent and Covenant
Not to Sue document with input from the U.S. Department
of Justice, TCEQ staff, and a team at EPA headquarters that
ultimately served as the framework for the site’s cleanup and
redevelopment. A team of EPA headquarters and Department
of Justice staff worked with EPA’s regional site team to review
Superfund guidance to create an agreement that enabled the
cleanup of the site consistent with national EPA policy. Helen
Keplinger, an attorney in EPA’s Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, recalled that “the Agreed Order was an
effective and also less complicated route for the site. With an
Agreed Order, EPA retained authority for the settlement, and it
was an enforceable agreement that could be signed with a bona
fide prospective purchaser.”

EPA and Reuse
Efforts to address future land use considerations at the
MDI site fit well with emerging nationwide interest in the
revitalization of contaminated areas, including Superfund
sites. With the creation of EPA’s Superfund Redevelopment
Initiative in 1999 and its Land Revitalization Agenda in
2003, EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
launched a new EPA focus on promoting land reuse and
revitalization at contaminated sites. In 2001, Congress
also passed the Brownfields Revitalization Act, which
was designed to make the acquisition and redevelopment
of contaminated properties like Superfund sites easier by
addressing the liability concerns associated with these sites.
As a result of the new law and EPA priorities, EPA regional
and headquarters staff were able to bring cutting-edge reuse
tools to the negotiating table. When the MDI site was brought
to EPA’s attention, a headquarters team was already working
on guidance for EPA to work with non-liable parties at
removal action sites – sites requiring an immediate response
to protect human health and the environment. National
Priorities List Superfund sites had not been contemplated
because of their complexity and stigma.
Scott Sherman, EPA Associate Assistant Administrator and
former Associate General Counsel for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, described the mission for the legal
team on the development of the novel agreement. “The
Agency’s policy approach was clear - we should no longer
let Superfund sites linger unaddressed and underutilized,” he
said. “The challenge was to find a way to develop the legal
mechanisms needed to move this project forward and then
get everyone comfortable with the approach.”
“We had a work group that was focusing on these issues,”
recalled EPA’s Helen Keplinger, “and the MDI site presented
itself as a real-world case study to work on at the same
time.” The Agreed Order for the MDI site became the model
for BFPPs doing remedial work at Superfund sites. The
headquarters team also applied lessons learned from the MDI
site to their policy work and subsequently issued the 2006
BFPP Removal Action Model Agreement. Both agreements
have helped EPA draft agreements with non-liable parties for
the cleanup and redevelopment of several Superfund sites.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s regional and headquarters
offices were involved throughout the process, representing
EPA during the site’s bankruptcy proceedings and advising on
legal aspects of the Agreed Order. According to Assistant U.S.
Attorney Judy Robbins, the development of the draft Agreed
Order was the critically important step that enabled the site’s
5

 cleanup and redevelopment. “There was no mechanism in place
to enable a non-liable party to work with EPA at a Superfund
site at the time,” she stated. “EPA and the other parties came
up with a wonderfully creative idea, and the Agreed Order
provided a framework that all parties could work with.”
The resulting document was similar to a standard Agreed Order
on Consent, with several important differences. The Agreed
Order:
•
•
•
•

It worked.
In March 2005, several months after EPA provided the draft
Agreed Order to the site’s bankruptcy trustee, the 36-acre MDI
site property was sold at auction. Clinton-Gregg Investments
acquired the site for a bid valued at $7.8 million – an agreement
to clean up the site at a cost estimated by EPA to be $6.6 million
and a cash payment of $1.2 million for the bankruptcy trustee
and administrative costs.

was designed for a non-liable party;
removed the site’s liens;
provided a covenant not to sue for the purchaser; and
addressed the site’s potential purchaser as a BFPP.

“We knew that the site would be auctioned, and that a buyer was
likely, so the Region worked as proactively as possible to draft
a document that the site’s bankruptcy trustee could share with
potential buyers.” EPA’s Helen Keplinger said. “The Region
thought that a summary of Superfund responsibilities and
requirements attached to the site might be a helpful resource
for potential buyers and attract interest.”

View of the MDI site looking north following cleanup, 2008

EPA Settlement Tools: An Overview
EPA negotiates cleanup-related activities at sites through two types of agreements: judicial consent decrees and administrative
settlements. These agreements document the contribution that a party will make at a site, such as work, cash payments, or other
types of assistance (e.g., site access). Because they are legally enforceable documents, the agreements provide EPA with an
efficient mechanism to seek performance should a party fail to meet specified obligations.
A consent decree is a legal agreement entered into by the U.S. and a potentially responsible party (PRP) and lodged with a federal
district court. Consent decrees are the only settlement type that EPA can use with a liable party for remedial action at a Superfund
site. They may also be used for remedial investigations, removal actions, remedial designs, and to recover cash expended by the
U.S. during cleanup-related activities at a site. The U.S. Department of Justice assists EPA in reaching settlement with PRPs and
representing U.S. interests.
An administrative agreement is a legal agreement entered into by EPA and a PRP to reimburse EPA for costs already incurred or
for costs to be incurred at a Superfund site. Unlike a consent decree, an administrative agreement does not require approval by a
court. An Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) is a type of administrative settlement that EPA uses for removal activities,
site investigations, remedy design work, and for cash settlements with PRPs that had a nominal role at a site (de minimis parties).
The U.S. Department of Justice often assists EPA in negotiating AOC settlements.
At the MDI site, a special type of administrative agreement – an Agreed Order on Consent – was used. This legal agreement
allowed Clinton-Gregg Investments, Ltd., the bona fide prospective purchaser at the site, to perform complex cleanup work
beyond what is contemplated by law for a bona fide prospective purchaser so that the company could benefit from federal liability
protections.

6

 Community Profile (Part II)
Set within the context of recent rapid redevelopment in Houston’s Fifth Ward,
community residents express mixed feelings about the process that has led to
the residential redevelopment of the MDI Superfund site.
The site reuse plan developed with community input by the City of Houston
in 2002 informed the site’s cleanup and the owner’s future plans for the site.
However, according to Jane Laping at Mothers for Clean Air, the community
planning process also created expectations that have been difficult to meet.
“The community spent a lot of time on the plan,” Laping stated, “and there was
interest in some public land uses that have not been included in the owner’s
plans for the site.”
Once Clinton-Gregg Investments acquired the site in 2006, the company could
develop its own redevelopment plans. According to Shannon Teasley, the City
of Houston’s brownfields manager, the City of Houston supports the reuse of
the MDI site and has approached the site as it would any other property in the
southern Fifth Ward – as a property located near downtown with significant
value that should be returned to use to benefit and revitalize the community.
The City of Houston also has limited land use planning tools – city ordinances
and existing property deed restrictions – and no zoning with which to guide
redevelopment activities in the Fifth Ward. For EPA and TCEQ, according to site
project managers Rafael Casanova and Alan Etheredge, it has been challenging
to help residents understand that the agencies’ involvement in future land use
considerations at the site is limited to ensuring the protection of human health
and the environment.
As a result, the site owner’s engagement with the community to discuss
redevelopment plans for the site has been voluntary. Residents note that
company owner Frank Liu has met several times with community members to
discuss the site’s redevelopment, and that these meetings have been positive
and have helped to address concerns and uncertainty about the site owner’s
plans. According to MOCAH’s Reginald Adams, “the bottom line is that the
developer will accelerate the process of getting this property back on the tax
rolls. You don’t have to like the way it’s happening, but at the end of the day
it’s good for the community.”
Jane Laping takes a long-term perspective on the site’s cleanup and
redevelopment. “The site is perceived much more favorably in the community
today than it was several years ago,” she stated. “It looks so much better, and
the community knows that something good can happen there. Residents are
hoping that the community will be able to be a part of that.”

The site’s surroundings (from top to bottom):
roadway east of the site; electric utility and former
community school west of the site; view of downtown
from nearby Swiney Park; and old and new housing
adjacent to each other in the Fifth Ward

7

 June 2005 – October 2006
Creating an Agreement

Once Clinton-Gregg Investments (CGI) submitted its bid for
the MDI site property at auction, a new chapter in the cleanup
and redevelopment of the MDI site began. CGI entered into a
year of negotiations with EPA and TCEQ to finalize the Agreed
Order; the negotiations were extended by several months while
EPA staff assisted with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in
fall 2005.
The negotiations resulted in the Agreed Order’s finalization
in September 2006. The process, according to TCEQ project
manager Alan Etheredge, worked very smoothly. “It was an
open, forthright negotiation,” he recalled. “There was a lot of
incentive for a win-win here. It was in everyone’s interest.”
In addition to the general components described above, EPA
and CGI addressed a series of key requirements and areas of
shared interest in the Agreed Order.
Site responsibilities. The Agreed Order confirmed that CGI
assumed responsibility for the cleanup of the central, 36-acre
fenced MDI site, also known as Operable Unit 1 (OU1). EPA
retained responsibility for the cleanup of OU2 and OU3, which
encompass off-site residential yards and crawlspaces.
Remedy confirmation and clarification. The parties agreed
to a Statement of Work and General Work Provisions that
confirmed that CGI would perform the remedy selected by EPA
in the site’s Record of Decision. The documents also clarified
cleanup components and timeframes, with CGI prioritizing the
cleanup of site soils so that the site’s redevelopment could move
forward in the shorter-term. These documents were provided as
appendices to the Agreed Order.
Ground water monitoring: site access and transferable
covenants not to sue. The site’s ground water remedy –
monitored natural attenuation – will take place over the longterm. CGI requested the flexibility to be able to redevelop the
site property while monitored natural attenuation was ongoing,
which posed potential liability challenges for future property
subdivision sales at the site. EPA needed to maintain access to
the site and ensure that monitoring wells would be located at
the site for the duration of the site’s ground water remedy.
Two breakthroughs in the Agreed Order negotiations addressed
these priorities. The Agreed Order would provide protection from
liability – a covenant not to sue – for future property purchasers
at the site. And the Agreed Order would stipulate the location
of monitoring wells in a public right-of-way or designated area
to which EPA will maintain a right of access. For CGI attorney
Chris Amandes, this was one of the most significant and unique
parts of the agreement. “The covenant not to sue provision for
future purchasers enabled the site’s redevelopment to be able to
8

occur while remediation is ongoing,” he said. “This had never
been addressed before, and the agreement at the MDI site was
the first place where this need was addressed.”
EPA oversight costs. CGI agreed to reimburse EPA for the
agency’s oversight costs associated with the site’s cleanup, to a
maximum of $210,000.
Financial assurance. The Agreed Order included flexible
financial assurance requirements that enabled the company to
reduce the amount of financial security provided for the site’s
remedy as cleanup progressed. In turn, these additional funds
could then be made available for site infrastructure and the
site’s redevelopment.
Contribution protection. In addition to addressing CGI as a
non-liable party and a BFPP, the Agreed Order also provided
CGI with liability protection from past parties that had
completed cleanup activities at the MDI site.
Community relations. CGI agreed to participate in a series
of public meetings with EPA to share information with the
community regarding the site’s cleanup and redevelopment.
Noncompliance penalties and work takeover. The Agreed
Order includes financial penalties if CGI does not meet cleanup
milestones, and stipulates that EPA may assume responsibility
for the site’s cleanup if CGI is unable to complete the cleanup.
EPA could also hold a future site owner responsible for the
site’s cleanup if CGI were to transfer ownership of the entire
36-acre site property to another entity.
One key issue – addressing potential liability for past TCEQ
cleanup costs – could not be addressed through the federal
Agreed Order. Because there were no BFPP provisions in
Texas and TCEQ had spent $1.5 million as part of earlier site
cleanup activities, CGI could have been liable for these costs
when it acquired the MDI site property. TCEQ worked closely
with EPA and decided not to pursue CGI for past costs. TCEQ
issued a letter addressing its past site costs in early September
2006, stating in part that “the agreement that you [EPA]
have worked out … seems to be in the best interests of the
surrounding community and will allow the site to be cleaned up
without significant additional expenditures by EPA or TCEQ.”
According to TCEQ project manager Alan Etheredge, TCEQ
fully supported the Agreed Order. “We recognized the value
of the process,” he stated, “and we recognized that an unusual
range of factors had come together to help make the site’s
cleanup possible.”
With the Agreed Order and TCEQ’s letter finalized, CGI closed
on the MDI site property with the site’s bankruptcy trustee in
October 2006. The negotiations were complete, and attention
turned to planning for the site’s cleanup and redevelopment.

 October 2006 – 2008+
Turning Plans into Reality

The cleanup of the 36-acre portion of the MDI Superfund site
began in February 2007, following several months of cleanup
planning and design. EPA project manager Rafael Casanova was
pleased with the cleanup’s rapid onset and pace. “Going from
the negotiations to cleanup so quickly made a big difference in
the community,” he stated. “People were able to see positive
changes in a short amount of time.”
Remaining site debris was cleared and disposed of off-site.
Contaminated soils were excavated to depths of up to two feet.
Remaining concrete pads were crushed for use as recycled
roadbed material. Ken Haltom, construction manager for CGI’s
cleanup contractor, estimated that more than 60,000 square feet
of concrete were removed from the site. “It just kept coming
out of the ground,” he said. “Some of the footers extended
down more than 14 feet.”

By early 2008, the construction of the site’s remedy was
complete. CGI owner Frank Liu continued to meet with the
community to discuss his company’s evolving plans for
the site’s residential reuse, indicating that the installation
of new infrastructure would be the next step at the site. In
four years, the MDI Superfund site had evolved from a
contaminated, stigmatized site into a 36-acre property poised
for redevelopment.
Today, the site’s journey and story continues, facing new
challenges and opportunities. Coming months and years will
reveal how the site’s residential reuse may both benefit and
pose challenges for surrounding neighborhoods, and how site
reuses can mesh with and reflect the history and culture of
Houston’s Fifth Ward.

S e ve n t h

Hous ton,

Site Reuse Plans: An Overview

a t

5t h

Te xa s

C

O M P A N Y

With the site’s remedy in place, the redevelopment of the MDI Superfund site can move
forward. Site owner Clinton-Gregg Investments is in discussions with several residential
and commercial developers to plan for the site’s future. The project is called Seventh at
5th, referring to a sustainable development approach that considers long-term, seventh
generation impacts as well as the site’s location in the Fifth Ward.

Y B E R K

&

Clinton-Gregg Investments views the site’s redevelopment as a long-term investment,
according to company owner Frank Liu. Site reuses will include approximately 600-700
homes in a grid pattern, as well as a lake and linked park areas. “We are aiming to create
a project that is pedestrian-friendly, environmentally friendly, and mixed-income,” Liu
states, “a development with a real sense of place.”
- Z

Seventh at 5th, fo
industrial tract loc
environmental rem

L A T E R

Liu indicated that the 2002 reuse plan developed by the community and the City of Houston
helped establish the foundation for the site’s reuse, with the document’s focus on mixed
residential and commercial land uses helping EPA to identify that the site’s reasonably
anticipated future land use would require a residential cleanup standard.

The site is bound b
number of deterio
a new school, . Co
design of two plan

P

At the same time, Liu indicates that the site’s cleanup costs and the project’s profitability will
require that the project focus on higher-density residential land uses. Liu has met multiple
times with the community to share his company’s redevelopment plans for the site. Some
potential preliminary site designs provided by new urbanist land use planning firm Duany
Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ) outline opportunities for multiple neighborhoods at the
site, with linkages to surrounding areas and a proposed neighborhood commercial center
south of the site.
D

U A N Y

The first option ex
block structure, al
linear green/pede
structure using th
neighborhoods ea

Thinking back over his company’s experience at the MDI site, Liu reflects that “I would
like to work on more redevelopment projects at Superfund sites in the future. EPA and
the community have been great to work with, and my hope is that the site’s cleanup and
redevelopment will be a benefit not just for the Fifth Ward, but for the entire City of
Houston.”
Next steps for the site’s redevelopment include the installation of infrastructure in 2008,
with residential construction likely to begin in 2009, according to Liu.

Both plans include
the site, residence
explicitly sustainab
urbanity and stabi
eration.

DPZ’s conceptual residential reuse plans
for the site

9

 Lessons Learned
Site Specifics

The Bigger Picture

Participants involved at the MDI site agree that a combination
of significant factors contributed to the site’s successful cleanup
and planned redevelopment.

While these conditions created an ideal climate for the cleanup
and planned redevelopment of the MDI site, there are also a
range of broader lessons learned that can help guide similar
projects at contaminated sites across the country.

• The property’s large size and central location, as well as
the strength of Houston’s real estate market, meant that
the site had significant value, which in turn provided a
way to fund the site’s cleanup;
• With the site in bankruptcy and a long-term Superfund
cleanup on the horizon, conditions were optimal for a
private-sector, non-liable party to take the lead;
• The site’s status as an NPL Superfund site meant that EPA
had extensively documented the site’s characteristics,
conditions, and contamination, which provided critically
important information for parties interested in the site’s
potential reuse; and
• EPA had selected a remedy for the site that would be
consistent with the property’s reasonably anticipated
future land use.

Think of pieces as well as the greater whole.
If a contaminated site does not benefit from location or market
advantages like the MDI site, local government and community
stakeholders can still play an important role in positioning a
site for cleanup and redevelopment. Common strategies focus
on tackling site cleanup and redevelopment one step at a time,
rather than addressing an entire site at once. For example,
parties may acquire smaller, high-value portions of a site, phase
a site’s reuse over time in coordination with its remediation,
form partnerships, and access incentives designed to attract
investment.
Engage communities and local governments.
Community-based reuse planning processes can be most
effective when they engage diverse stakeholders, including
site owners and prospective purchasers, are based on detailed
site and community information, and lead to implementable
strategies and next steps. As organizations responsible for
their communities’ general welfare, local governments are
particularly well-positioned to host these projects and use
planning tools and incentives to foster positive site outcomes.
Build on past experience.
Parties at the MDI site were charting new territory in addressing
stigma and liability issues. Today, thanks to the BFPP provisions
of the 2001 Brownfields Revitalization Act, environmental
insurance, and EPA tools like Ready for Reuse Determinations,
established resources are available. Prospective purchasers
can contact EPA site teams to learn more, or see the Resources
section on page 11 for additional information.
Consider state and federal site issues.
State-level issues at the MDI site were addressed through a
TCEQ past costs letter. At contaminated sites in bankruptcy
in some states, it may be possible to address past costs and
potential site liabilities as part of the bankruptcy’s original
language, simplifying the process.

The Agreed Order for the MDI site

10

Contact and work with site owners, PRPs, and trustees.
Contaminated sites like the MDI site that are owned by a
bankruptcy trustee can provide an opportunity for outside
non-liable parties to take the lead on a site’s cleanup. At sites

 with a solvent owner or potentially responsible party, these
entities may be able to take the lead on a site’s cleanup and
redevelopment.
Develop partnerships to tackle uncertainties and share
expertise.
Each party involved at the MDI site had valuable expertise to
bring to the table, but no one had ever created an agreement
that would enable a non-liable party to clean up and redevelop
a Superfund site. Everyone shared ideas and relevant expertise,
identified possible options and next steps, and addressed
challenges flexibly and creatively. The process enabled
uncertainties to be addressed and led to new approaches that
met the needs of all parties.
Recognize opportunities provided by the Superfund program.
As illustrated by the timing of events at the MDI site, prospective
purchaser interest in a site may expand once contamination
and cleanup information is available. Superfund sites are
among the most comprehensively documented and evaluated
areas of land in the United States. At most sites, a completed
remedial investigation/feasibility study or draft proposed
plan will provide prospective purchasers with extensive site
information.
Develop an integrated approach to the cleanup and
redevelopment of contaminated sites.
Consideration of future land use opportunities can help inform
both cleanup plans and the implementation of site remedies. At
the MDI site, EPA developed a remedy that recognized that the
site would likely be used for residential land uses in the future.
Once the site’s remedy was underway, reuse considerations
informed the future location of ground water monitoring wells
and the need to remove buried concrete and debris that, while
not contaminated, would hinder redevelopment efforts. At
other sites, detailed site reuse plans have provided additional
benefits that save time and reduce redevelopment costs. For
example, future infrastructure corridors or building footers can
be installed in coordination with site cleanup activities.

Conclusions
Today, the MDI site stands as an example of how redevelopment
interest can fund the cleanup of Superfund sites, saving
millions of taxpayer dollars. Over the next few years at the site,
new neighborhoods will be built, replacing vacant buildings,
debris piles, and chain link fences that once stigmatized the
community. A group of site stakeholders with complementary
interests came together and created an innovative agreement
that has led to a new future for the site and addressed the site’s
contamination, protecting human health and the environment.
At the same time, the project also illustrates the challenges
of integrating broad community priorities with private-sector
development plans, and the importance of community, local
government, and site owner involvement to help address these
challenges. Looking to the future, all parties are hopeful that
the site’s cleanup and reuse will benefit future site residents and
the surrounding community and contribute to the long-term
social, economic, and environmental health and vitality of the
Fifth Ward district and the City of Houston.

Sources
Images and maps for this case study were obtained
from EPA Region 6, the City of Houston’s Planning and
Development Department, Clinton-Gregg Investments, and
a February 2008 site visit.

Resources
2008 EPA MDI site status update:
www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/pdffiles/0605008.pdf
Superfund Redevelopment Initiative:
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/index.html
2001 Brownfields Revitalization Act and BFPP
information:
www.epa.gov/brownfields/html-doc/2869sum.htm
Environmental insurance information:
www.epa.gov/brownfields/insurebf.htm
Seventh at Fifth – site redevelopment information:
www.dpz.com/projects.aspx
MOCAH Project GROW Initiative:
www.mocah.org/projects/project-grow/index.html
Mothers for Clean Air:
www.mothersforcleanair.org
11

 Linking Cleanup and Reuse
T H E M D I SUPERFUND SITE AND HOUSTON’S FIFTH WARD

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Superfund Redevelopment Initiative
Washington, DC
October 2008