[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EPA'S BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM: EMPOWERING CLEANUP AND ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC
REDEVELOPMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 21, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-140
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-755 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
7_____
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi PAUL TONKO, New York
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio LOIS CAPPS, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
BILL FLORES, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina officio)
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 2
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Witnesses
Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and
Emergency Management, Environmental Protection Agency.......... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Answers to submitted questions............................... 96
J. Meade R. Anderson, Chair, Brownfields Focus Group, Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials...... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Answers to submitted questions............................... 102
J. Christian Bollwage, Mayor, City of Elizabeth, New Jersey, on
behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors........................ 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Answers to submitted questions \1\........................... 107
Clark Henry, Owner, CIII Associates, LLC......................... 64
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Answers to submitted questions............................... 108
Amy E. Romig, Partner, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun, LLP......... 73
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Answers to submitted questions............................... 111
Veronica Eady, Vice President and Massachusetts Director,
Conservation Law Foundation.................................... 83
Prepared statement........................................... 85
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20160421/104837/HHRG-114-IF18-Wstate-BollwageJ-20160421-U1.pdf.
EPA'S BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM: EMPOWERING CLEANUP AND ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC
REDEVELOPMENT
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper, McKinley,
Johnson, Bucshon, Tonko, Schrader, Green, Capps, McNerney, and
Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Rebecca
Card, Assistant Press Secretary; Dave McCarthy, Chief Counsel,
Environment and the Economy; Tina Richards, Counsel,
Environment and the Economy; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator,
Environment and the Economy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary;
Dylan Vorbach, Deputy Press Secretary; Jacqueline Cohen,
Democratic Senior Counsel; Timia Crisp, Democratic AAAS Fellow;
Jean Fruci, Democratic Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment;
Tiffany Guarascio, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Chief
Health Advisor; Rick Kessler, Democratic Senior Advisor and
Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Alexander Ratner,
Democratic Policy Analyst; Timothy Robinson, Democratic Chief
Counsel; Andrew Souvall, Democratic Director of Communications,
Outreach, and Member Services; and Tuley Wright, Democratic
Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. I want to call the hearing to order and
recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement,
although I am not going to take it. I am going to ask unanimous
consent that all opening statements will be submitted for the
record.
Brownfields is an important issue for me. I know it is
important for the ranking member. I know it is important for my
colleague from Oregon. I think it is something that we can do.
We have just got to get these old sites reclaimed, back into
use. I think the testimony today will highlight that this is
something everybody wants to do and move expeditiously.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
The term brownfields usually refers to abandoned or closed
commercial or industrial properties that may be contaminated
because of their prior use. These sites, however, often have
significant redevelopment potential. The economic redevelopment
of these sites means very good things for the local community--
things like jobs, an improved tax base, and being able to rid
communities of blighted properties and clean up entire
neighborhoods. According to EPA, the Agency's Brownfields
Program has grown into a proven, results-oriented program that
has changed the way contaminated property is perceived,
addressed, and managed. This is demonstrated by the numbers. As
of March 1, 2016, EPA's Brownfields Program has assessed 23,932
sites and leveraged 108,924 jobs. The program has also
leveraged almost $21 billion for cleanup and redevelopment. We
will hear today from Mr. Stanislaus more about these statistics
and why EPA believes the program works and maybe find out from
him whether there are things we could do to improve the
program.
The EPA Brownfields Program is also an important tool used
by States, local governments, and private stakeholders to clean
up under-used or abandoned industrial and commercial properties
and to return them to beneficial use. Cleaning up these sites
and returning them to productive use is great for the economy
because brownfields grants can be directly leveraged into jobs,
into additional redevelopment funds, and into increased
residential property values.
I have a number of brownfield sites in my district, ranging
from former family gas stations and the local corner dry
cleaners to a former plating company and a former hospital.
Throughout my district sites are being redeveloped to create
greenspace and to return areas to commercial use. My colleague,
the ranking member Mr. Pallone, has said many times how
important it is that we take a look at the Brownfields Program.
I agree. We need to see what works--and there is a lot to like
about the program--but we find that there are always areas we
can improve upon.
On that note, we also welcome our second panel who will
walk us through how public and private stakeholders can work
together in pursuit of a common redevelopment goal and give us
their perspectives on the Brownfields Program.
We welcome Mr. Anderson from the State of Virginia who is
here on behalf of a good friend of the subcommittee, ASTSWMO.
Mr. Anderson will fill us in on the State role in brownfields
redevelopment.
Also joining us today is Mayor Bollwage, from Elizabeth,
New Jersey. Mayor Bollwage has been very involved in his city's
redevelopment. Mr. Henry is here with us to give his
perspective as a consultant who does urban planning and
redevelopment and as someone who used to run the Brownfields
Program in a major U.S. city.
We'll hear from an environmental lawyer, Ms. Romig, who
understands the legal ramifications and hurdles facing clients
who may be interested in pursuing redevelopment. And last, but
not least, we will hear from Ms. Eady, also a lawyer, who works
for the Conservation Law Foundation.
Mr. Shimkus. With that, I am going to yield back my time
and yield to the ranking member for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Thank you
for holding this important hearing on EPA's Brownfields
Program. I know that this is an issue that Ranking Member
Pallone and I are very passionate about. And I believe that
based on previous experiences in State and local government, it
is an issue that bears much relevance.
I am proud to represent part of the Erie Canal corridor in
New York State, which includes my home town of Amsterdam. This
was a gateway toward western expansion. Mill towns popped up
along the Mohawk River helping to usher in our Nation's
industrial revolution and create jobs.
Sadly, many of these manufacturers are gone, but the
baggage from industrialization, including contaminated land,
still remains. While that is the story from my home county, I
want to stress that brownfields are not unique to one region or
type of community. They can be found in every congressional
district, urban or rural.
The EPA found that approximately 104 million people live
within 3 miles of a brownfield site that received EPA funding,
including 35 percent of all children in the United States under
the age of 5. Brownfields cleanup is critical for environmental
revitalization and economic redevelopment efforts. And
undeniably, EPA's program has been incredibly successful. EPA
grant recipients use funding to inventory success and conduct
cleanup at sites. The program administers two separate types of
grants: direct financial assistance for the assessment, and
clean up of properties and financial assistance to States to
aid them in carrying out their own cleanup programs.
EPA will discuss some of the astonishing statistics on the
success of the program. Since Congress passed a Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act in 2002.
Over 44,000 acres of idle land have been made ready for
productive use. Over 106,000 jobs and $23.3 billion have been
leveraged, cleaning up brownfields properties leads to
residential property value increases of some 5 to 11.5 percent.
And $1 of the EPA's brownfields funding leverages between $17
and $18 in other public and private funding. EPA's research has
shown that redeveloping a brownfield instead of a greenfield
has significant environmental benefits in addition to limiting
sprawl and cleaning up blighted properties who are dealing with
the program that has produced tremendous results. Revitalizing
a brownfield can help a distressed community's economic
comeback, and people are beginning to recognize that
brownfields represent opportunities. But despite these
successes, the program can be improved. This authorization
expired in 2006. There are reforms that can give grant
recipients more flexibility. We can encourage more support,
capacity building and technical assistance for both small and
disadvantaged communities. We can make it easier for nonprofit
stakeholders to get involved. We couldn't put more emphasis on
regional planning to make this program even more effective.
We will hear about the need for more funding, but both
competitive grants and grants to States is required. More and
more qualified applications must be rejected each year because
of insufficient funding. We will hear about the need to
increase the cap on individual projects. Many remaining sites
are increasingly complex and will require more funding to
remediate properly.
Today's caps of $200,000 for assessment and cleanup grants
is just not enough in many cases. But despite these potential
improvements, I want to stress that this program has been
incredibly successful and that is according to representatives
from all levels of Government from urban and rural communities
and from nonprofits and private sector developers. There is
strong consensus on the steps that need to be taken to make
this program work even better. And there is bipartisan support,
I believe, for the program in Congress. This is a winning
recipe to get a reauthorization done. I hope this is something
we can continue to work on this year. For so many distressed
communities and neighborhoods, a brownfield stands in the way
of economic comeback. We can help provide even more
opportunities with just a few widely supported adjustments to
this critical program. I look forward to hearing more about the
EPA's Brownfields Program and its role in economic
redevelopment, planned and sustainable land reuse and
environmental justice.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
looks to the majority side, seeing no one interested in giving
an opening statement, I will turn to the ranking member of the
full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this
hearing. I would also like to thank the witnesses for being
here, particularly Mayor Chris Bollwage from my home State of
New Jersey, who I believe will be testifying on the second
panel.
When we passed the original brownfields bill in the 107th
Congress, I was the ranking member of the subcommittee and the
lead Democrat on the legislation, which was one of the only
pieces of environmental legislation that I can remember
President George W. Bush ever signing into law.
We worked in a bipartisan manner then with my Republican
chairman, the late Paul Gillmor of Ohio. And I would like to
continue this bipartisan effort as we work to improve on the
program, and assure the States and local communities have the
resources they need to revitalize their communities. I hope
that my colleagues on the committee will join me in working to
improve this important program.
The Brownfields Program has been an incredibly important
tool for protecting public health and spurring economic growth
in New Jersey and throughout the country. Brownfields
properties are a blight on the community. Though these sites do
not warrant listing on the national priority list like
Superfund sites, these contaminated properties can have
negative environmental and economic impacts.
The success of this program can't be understated. Removing
public health hazards by cleaning up contaminated sites is
incredibly important for the surrounding communities. Since the
program's inception, thousands of contaminated sites have been
remediated, allowing communities to create new developments
like housing and parks.
EPA has found that cleaning up underutilized or abandoned
brownfields properties reduces health risks, decreases
pollution, and reduces stormwater runoff. Aside from the
environmental benefits, revitalizing these properties can
result in crime reduction, job creation and boosts in the local
economy.
However, as successful as the Brownfields Program has been,
there is still so much important cleanup work to be done. I
expect we will hear from today's witnesses about the staggering
number of brownfields properties in need of remediation and the
increased complexity of the remaining sites.
Many stakeholders have indicated a need for increased
funding and flexibility to allow States and local communities
to use their resources effectively to address the increased
complexity of these cleanups. Through multipurpose grants,
regional planning and increased caps for individual grants,
communities can start to tackle this problem.
Communities also need assistance with capacity building.
Through job training, technical assistance, and education and
outreach, communities can leverage Federal and State
assistance, engage with developers in the remediation process,
and take ownership of their communities' revitalization. We
should be equipping communities with the tools they need to
ensure successful cleanups.
Despite the growing need for resources and broad support on
both sides of the aisle, this successful program has never been
reauthorized. While the program has continued to receive
appropriations, unfortunately, funding levels have declined.
Furthermore, the Federal tax incentive has lapsed. These are
incredibly useful tools that encouraged developers to remediate
sites by allowing them to deduct the cost of cleanups.
So we can't continue to expect the same success from a
program that is underfunded and lacking the necessary tools to
be effective. As we work to determine how we can strengthen the
program, we should ensure that funding is part of the
conversation, and we should also support cleanup efforts to
ensure that these efforts are adequately funded.
So I appreciate today's opportunity to learn more about how
we can increase the effectiveness of this program. As many of
you know, I previously--I mentioned I introduced legislation to
reauthorize appropriations and create the needed flexibility
for the Brownfields Program. My legislation aimed to address
some of the concerns that have been expressed by stakeholders,
including increased capacity building, more flexibility in the
use of grants and increased caps on individual grants. I would
like to reintroduce an updated version of that bill soon, and I
hope that we can work together to get bipartisan brownfields
legislation signed into law this year.
I guess I can't help but mention, tomorrow is Earth Day,
and so I think it is particularly great, both Chairman Shimkus
and Mr. Tonko, that we are having the hearing today. I fully
intend to talk about brownfields when I go around the district
tomorrow and over the weekend at our various Earth Day events.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
I want to thank the chairman for calling this hearing on
EPA's Brownfields Program. I would also like to thank the
witnesses for being here, particularly Mayor Chris Bollwage
(``Bowl wage'') from my home State of New Jersey, who testified
before this committee back in 2001 in support of our bipartisan
effort to enact legislation to address brownfields sites.
When we passed the original brownfields bill in the 107th
Congress, I was the ranking member of the subcommittee and the
lead Democrat on the legislation, which was one of the only
pieces of environmental legislation that I can remember
President George W. Bush ever signing into law. I worked in a
bipartisan manner then with my Republican chairman, the late
Paul Gillmor of Ohio, and I would like to continue this
bipartisan effort as we work to improve on the program and
ensure that States and local communities have the resources
they need to revitalize their communities. I hope that my
colleagues on the committee will join me in working to improve
this important program.
The Brownfields Program has been an incredibly important
tool for protecting public health and spurring economic growth
in New Jersey and throughout the country. Brownfields
properties are a blight on the community. Though these sites do
not warrant listing on the National Priority List (NPL) like
Superfund sites, these contaminated properties can have
negative environmental and economic impacts.
The success of this program cannot be understated. Removing
public health hazards by cleaning up contaminated sites is
incredibly important for the surrounding communities. Since the
program's inception, thousands of contaminated sites have been
remediated, allowing communities to create new developments-
like housing and parks. EPA has found that cleaning up
underutilized or abandoned brownfields properties reduces
health risks, decreases pollution and reduces storm water
runoff. Aside from the environmental benefits, revitalizing
these properties can result in crime reduction, job creation,
and boosts in the local economy.
However, as successful as the Brownfields Program has been,
there is still so much important cleanup work to be done. I
expect we will hear from today's witnesses about the staggering
number of brownfields properties in need of remediation and the
increased complexity of remaining sites.
Many stakeholders have indicated a need for increased
funding and flexibility to allow States and local communities
to use their resources effectively to address the increased
complexity of these cleanups. Through multi-purpose grants,
regional planning, and increased caps for individual grants,
communities can start to tackle this problem.
Communities also need assistance with capacity building.
Through job training, technical assistance, and education and
outreach, communities can leverage Federal and State
assistance, engage with developers in the remediation process,
and take ownership of their community's revitalization. We
should be equipping communities with the tools they need to
ensure successful cleanups.
Despite the growing need for resources and broad support on
both sides of the aisle, this successful program has never been
reauthorized. And while the program has continued to receive
appropriations, unfortunately, funding levels have declined.
Furthermore, the Federal tax incentives have lapsed. These were
incredibly useful tools that encouraged developers to remediate
sites by allowing them to deduct the costs of cleanups. We
cannot continue to expect the same success from a program that
is underfunded and lacking the necessary tools to be effective.
As we work to determine how we can strengthen this program, we
should ensure that funding is part of the conversation. We
should all support cleanup efforts, and should ensure that
these efforts are adequately funded.
So, I appreciate today's opportunity to learn more about
how we can increase the effectiveness of this program. As many
of you know, I have previously introduced legislation to
reauthorize appropriations and create the needed flexibility
for the Brownfields Program. My legislation aimed to address
some of the concerns that have been expressed by stakeholders,
including increased capacity building, more flexibility in the
use of grants, and increased caps on individual grants.
I would like to reintroduce an updated version of that bill
soon and hope that we can work together to get bipartisan
brownfields legislation signed into law this year.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
Mr. Shimkus. And I thank my colleague, and he yields back
his time. Chair now recognizes Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response from the U.S. EPA. He has been here numerous times, we
are friends. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATHY STANISLAUS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE
OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Stanislaus. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus,
Ranking Member Tonko, members of the subcommittee. I am Mathy
Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and
Emergency Management.
Brownfields sites, as has been noted earlier, are the heart
of America's urban and rural downtowns and existing and former
economic centers. Reclaiming these vacant and underutilized
properties and repurposing brownfields are the core of EPA's
community economic revitalization efforts through the
Brownfields Program.
Repurposing land can be the impetus for community
revitalization. Our Brownfields Program can help be a catalyst
for redevelopment and revitalization and hinges on the success
of key local partners working together to implement the vision
of local communities. The EPA's Brownfields Program provides
direct funding to communities, States, tribes and not-for-
profits for brownfields assessment, cleanup, revolving loans,
research and technical assistance.
The unmet need for brownfields funding for local
communities to address abandoned underutilized and contaminated
sites continues to rise. The demand for brownfields funding far
exceeds brownfields funding levels, and is exacerbated by the
increased assessment and cleanup costs.
The EPA currently is only able to fund approximately one-
quarter to one-third of the competitive grant applications we
have received.
The program estimates over the past 5 years, an additional
1,767 requests for viable projects scored highly, but were not
selected because of a lack of funding. If EPA had the funding
to select, these grants would have resulted in about 1,800
proposals being funded, which would have resulted in 50,000
jobs, and a leveraging of about $12 billion in public and
private funding.
The Brownfields Program is premised on partnerships between
the public and private sector. With EPA's critical early
resources providing the certainty to leverage funding from
other Government agencies and private sector achieve positive
economic and environmental and social outcomes. As has been
noted earlier, for every $1 EPA invests in communities, it
leverages about $18 of private-sector and other public
resources. More than 113,000 jobs has been leveraged through
EPA's funds, which has leveraged about $22 billion in cleanup
and redevelopment projects.
EPA's research has shown that redeveloping a brownfield
site rather than a greenfield site has significant
environmental benefits, including reducing vehicle miles
traveled, and related emissions from about 32 to 57 percent,
and reducing stormwater runoff by an estimated 47 to 62
percent.
Using Census data, EPA found approximately 104 million
people live within 3 miles of a brownfield site that received
EPA funding, roughly 33 percent of the U.S. population. This
includes 35 percent of all children in the U.S. under the age
of 5. While there is no single way to characterize communities
located near our sites, this population is more minority, low-
income, linguistically isolated, and less likely to have a high
school education than the U.S. population as a whole. As a
result, these communities may have fewer resources with which
to address concerns about the health and the environment.
Preliminary analysis of the data of a subset of communities
receiving grants shows that there is a significant tax revenue
increase from the redevelopment of brownfield sites. Our data
shows that there is an estimated $29 million to $73 million in
additional tax revenue to local governments in a single year
after a cleanup. This is two to six times more than the $12
million EPA has invested in these communities. I know over the
years, there has been support for significantly increasing the
amount of cleanup grants.
Now, provided this increase, we support a modest increase,
but there is a risk of impacting less communities. Based on how
much we increase the size of cleanup grants, we can actually
reduce the number of communities that actually receive grants
in the leveraging of those monies from the private sector and
other public resources by to 60 percent. So 60 percent of
communities may not be getting grants on a yearly basis if all
we do is increase the size of the grants.
In addition, we want to preserve the local communities'
knowledge and information to determine the use that best fits
their vision, and not have a predetermination and division of
the grant resources based on an upfront determination by the
Federal Government regarding resources. We want to preserve the
competition process, which looks at those communities that have
the best plans in place, that have the best partnerships in
place which has been the basis of the success of EPA's
Brownfields Program.
With that, I will close and take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanislaus follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McKinley [presiding]. Thank you, Administrator, it is
always good to see you. Thank you, again, for coming. Before we
get into other questions, I think I was going to reserve this
for the chairman to make his remarks, but perhaps--I do want to
ask something before we get started, and I will begin with the
ranking member. We have got an example, I know, in West
Virginia, of real benefits. You talked about 18 times, we have
got one up in the northern panhandle of West Virginia in
Hancock area that, for $2.5 million, they have invested over--
private sector had put $70 million in. So it is almost a 30-to-
1 odds up there for that. It has really had an impact. So I
want to thank you for working with them on this program. Pat
Ford was the contact up there, if that name rings a bell with
you or not.
But secondly, back to your testimony, in your written
testimony, you talked about 24, 25 percent of the grants went
to towns of 20,000 or fewer. I would be curious to take that
down a little bit further, and to find out, I think, in some
areas of rural America, especially mine, most of the
communities are less than that, significantly less, 1-, 2-,
3,000 people. When the coal mines are shut down and all the
work that was related to those coal mines, they may only have
700 people in the town and they have got--there is no money,
there is no money in that community. Can you share with us a
little bit about the flexibility you have to earmark it towards
rural areas that need help when the railroads--when the mines
shut down, that means the railroad shuts down. And when the
railroad shuts down, we know invariably there are going to be
some brownfield sites associated with where the rail siting had
been. They can't afford to do it. So can you help a little bit
about explaining, maybe really rural areas of 2,000 people or
fewer, do you have any sense of what that might be percentage-
wise?
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure. I would answer in a couple of parts.
One, I think particularly the smaller communities, rural
communities, have asked us and we have--that upfront technical
assistance really is key. The capacity for these rural
communities to be able to compete is really critical. So we
provide a lot of upfront assistance. We have a national network
of technical assistance providers. In fact in West Virginia,
there is a center to provide assistance to the local community,
I think one of the more successful ones in the country. So the
upfront technical assistance is really critical to develop the
capacity or identify opportunities. We also have a non
competitive mechanism where a local community wants to do an
assessment on an individual site. What a lot of local
communities, or smaller communities have said, is that they
don't really want to administer a grant, because there is a lot
of administrative burdens associated with the grants. They
would rather--if they have an individual site, they would
rather assess that site. So we have a contract-based mechanism
to assess a particular site. So we think that is successful as
well.
In terms of the grant process itself, one of the things
that we have done is we have separated out new and existing
grantees, and that has resulted in increasing the number of
smaller communities and rural communities receiving grants. So
those are a number of things that we have put in place.
Mr. McKinley. OK. I am just trying to put it in context. We
often talk about the Speaker's home in Janesville, Wisconsin,
being a small town. It is three times the size of my hometown.
I live in the largest city in my district. So I think we have
to understand, there are a lot of small towns. So let me follow
up. Would it be advantageous for some of these small towns to
collectively put together a regional approach towards it and
get funded? Would that help?
Mr. Stanislaus. We have----
Mr. McKinley. We have been that told they couldn't do that.
You and I haven't talked about that, but I want to, give a
chance this morning to talk about that. Would a regional
approach be helpful for small towns to get together so that
they may be collectively come up to 3,000 or 4,000 people?
Mr. Stanislaus. Oh, absolutely. And we could do maybe
better averaging regarding that. We have something called a
Community-Wide Assessment grant. So one or more communities can
say, We want to have a single grant to be administered over a
broad geography, so we can look at that.
We also have an Area-Wide Planning Program, which is
intended to look at not just the sites itself, or not just the
contaminants itself, look broadly at what will it take to
redevelop an area, what will enable market studies, enable
local visioning, enable infrastructure studies. In fact, in our
next round, we are going to do a particular focus on
communities that have closed coal mines and closed power
plants.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. And now let me recognize
Congressman Tonko from New York for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Administrator Stanislaus, thank you for your testimony. As
I indicated in my opening statement, this is a great program. I
would like it to have the additional resources and statutory
changes necessary to make it even greater. I believe that
folding brownfields cleanup into broader regional economic
development efforts can help local, county and regional
authorities to make smart and sustainable planning decisions.
In my district, for example, we are trying to determine
which parts of a waterfront will be developed, and which will
be left green in a long stretch of miles along an intercoastal
waterways system. Brownfields cleanup priorities should be
considered in this effort. New York State's Brownfield
Opportunity Areas, the BOA program, takes a neighborhood or
area-wide approach rather than the traditional site-by-site
approach to the assessment and redevelopment of brownfields.
This allows for more comprehensive planning, and, certainly, a
stronger sense of cleanup. I believe this is similar to EPA's
area wide planning grant. So I would ask you to give us a quick
history of this type of grant, you know, how has it changed
since its inception? And what is the thinking at EPA?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I actually brought the Area-Wide
Planning approach to the EPA from my work in New York on
developing the Brownfield Opportunity Area program. And we
think it is really critical and has been really successful,
particularly with communities with economic distress, to look
at, more broadly, the planning side, the market study side, the
infrastructure study side.
Just to give you a bit of leveraging, the recipients of
Area-Wide Planning grants, to date, have reported that the $12
million in grants have leveraged about $354 million above the
public and private resources. One of the things that we really
emphasize is, use these grants to identify implementing
resources, so let's just not have a plan for plan's sake, let's
figure out, of our plan, what kind of Federal, State and local
resource are there to implement the vision coming out of a
local community.
Mr. Tonko. If I might ask, do you see economies? Have you
witnessed or somehow interpreted economies of scale by doing
perhaps testing, and some of the drilling they need to do in
these areas to determine the response? Has that produced any
sort of economies of scale by doing it in a regional capacity
rather than community by community, doing their individual
thing?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. One thing we have seen from the first
set of grants in the Federal Government is that it is important
to develop a boundary that makes sense. It could be a
geographic boundary, it could be a multi political
jurisdictional boundary, but what works is making sure that
there is a real-working governance structure and a real-working
geography.
We have found early on that if a job is too big, that it
actually impedes success. We ask folks to identify a few
catalyzing sites, identify geography that is manageable, show
success there before you go broader.
Mr. Tonko. What would be too large? Do you have any--could
you share what is too large? Is it beyond a certain mile
measurement?
Mr. Stanislaus. I am sorry. Say that again?
Mr. Tonko. Is there a certain mile measurement along from
distance from each other, or what is too large?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I think, frankly, it is going to
depend on the part of the country. What we found is, we have
large industrial corridors, multiple municipalities work
together historically. That is a natural fit. But if you have
communities that are dispersed by miles, it is very hard for
that to work. So it really depends on a little bit of history,
and a little bit of working relationship on the ground.
Mr. Tonko. OK. And in terms of nonprofits, they can be
partners for local governments and developers to get projects
completed, especially for our many disadvantaged communities.
Are non profits currently able to receive grants for a cleanup?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, no. And clearly, what we have heard
from various not-for-profits, who really serve as an extension
of local government----
Mr. Tonko. What about the ability to receive grants for
assessments?
Mr. Stanislaus. I am sorry, they are only eligible to get
assessment grants.
Mr. Tonko. Are there any concerns as to why non profits
with a good traffic record for cleanup grants should not be
qualified?
Mr. Stanislaus. It is a statutory issue.
Mr. Tonko. What is your sense? Do you think that we should
amend the statute?
Mr. Stanislaus. I do, I do. Clearly, focusing on those not-
for-profits that play a role in redevelopment and have the
local partnerships to enable a project moving forward.
Mr. Tonko. Are there additional tools that EPA has for
capacity building for disadvantaged communities?
Mr. Stanislaus. Additional tools. Well, I think I described
a little bit on the technical assistance program is really
critical. Funding local entities to provide direct technical
assistance to municipalities. So those are the things we have
been doing, doing upfront outreach. So those are the things we
have been doing.
Mr. Tonko. I would just state--and I see that my time is
up--but I would state that a comeback scenario for many of our
disadvantaged communities that has a brownfield cleanup
situation needs additional focus, and the assistance that we
can provide for that would be important. I have many other
questions that I will enter for into the record so that EPA can
respond to those concerns.
Mr. Stanislaus. OK.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Mr. McKinley. Now, for the next round of questions come
from Dr. Bucshon of Indiana, 5 minutes you are recognized.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this will
springboard off Congressman Tonko's questioning. We know that
many of the brownfield sites already cleaned up and redeveloped
are less complicated sites. For sites that are more
contaminated and thus more complicated than others, what can be
done to encourage cleanup and redevelopment of these sites?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I am a big believer, and we have done
studies, independent studies. From a financial-transaction
perspective, the site assessment resources are really critical
to better manage the risk of a site. In terms of how do you
translate this unknown to a known? How do you translate the
contaminants to what does it take to clean up, so then that
could be underwritten in terms of the subsequent financing.
Mr. Bucshon. Are some of the sites federally owned?
Anything federally owned, or I don't know, do the Feds clean
these up themselves? For example, I have an old nerve gas plant
in the northern part of my district, facility--there was a DOD,
and it took years and years and years to get that repurposed
into, now it is an economic development area and it was--is
this program involved in any of that stuff or that is totally
separate?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, that is largely separate. There is a
separate tract of figuring out how DOD properties, or DOE
properties can be transferred by making sure that the Federal
Government addresses this liability, either before transfer or
subsequent to transfer.
Mr. Bucshon. Once the property is transferred, I guess no
one in the private sector would take a transferred property in
that kind of condition, but once that type of property, then
would be in the Brownfields Program? I am just trying to
clarify.
Mr. Stanislaus. No. So typically, in a DOD kind of
property, it is typically transferred to a local government.
Mr. Bucshon. Which this was.
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. And then, either some cleanup is done,
or some parceling of that property to redevelop some parcels
and not others.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
Mr. Stanislaus. And then there are ways of limiting
liability through instruments with the State and through some
insurance products.
Mr. Bucshon. Are there other Federal agencies barriers to
getting some of these sites redeveloped? For example, fish and
wildlife, I can name other agencies. Are those barriers--I know
most of these are industrial buildings that are old factories.
But, I mean, are there other Federal agencies that have to be
interacted with that are barriers to getting some of these
sites cleaned up that you are aware of?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. I don't think necessarily barriers. We
do, in fact, engage with other agencies on the economic
development resources side, like DOT and HUD. We want to make
sure that once the assessment is done, once the cleanup plan is
developed, that the implementing resources like TIGER grants
from DOT, for example, that there is some advantage for
communities who have done the hard work and similarly with HUD,
we have been working with HUD as well.
Mr. Bucshon. How many applications do you get per year
approximately?
Mr. Stanislaus. Oh, can I get back to you, I----
Mr. Bucshon. I know I am putting you on the spot.
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. I have it here, but I will get back to
you.
Mr. Bucshon. OK. You won't be able to answer this either. I
was going to say, approximately, how many grants do you award
every year?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I will give you a percentage. We are
only able to fund about 25 percent to 30 percent of the grants
we receive from applicants.
Mr. Bucshon. So--I mean, it is complicated, right? But how
do you analyze an application to determine whether a project is
going to be successful? Is there, like, some immediate things
that a red flag goes up, just might as well not even try to get
a grant from us? There is probably entry-level type
decisionmaking, and then--I was a doctor, so triaging of
possible sites that might qualify?
Mr. Stanislaus. So are you asking how we evaluate?
Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
Mr. Stanislaus. We publicly announce grant criteria up
front. It looks at the local circumstance, the capacity of the
recipient--of the grant applicants, and we do a national
competition and we score that, and that is how we do that.
Mr. Bucshon. That seems pretty straightforward. I yield
back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. The prerogative. I have one
follow-up with one more question to you, if I could, before I
turn it over to the ranking member.
The brownfield law requires that 25 percent of the funds
appropriated to EPA for brownfield sites, they are to be used
to characterize, assess and remediate petroleum brownfields.
Did you think this petroleum set-aside is still necessary?
Mr. Stanislaus. No.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
Now I recognize the ranking member of the full committee,
Mr. Pallone from New Jersey.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Brownfields
Program, as you said, Mr. Stanislaus, has been a success. The
committee has been able to leverage Federal and State dollars
in cleanup and revitalize contaminated sites. However,
brownfields cleanups are becoming more complicated, resulting
increased assessment and cleanup costs. So I wanted to ask you:
Initially, would an increase in the cap on individual grants be
helpful to communities trying to cleanup these more complicated
sites?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. It's something that--I think a modest
increase makes sense. I am concerned that without an increase
in appropriations, that we will actually have the total number
of communities being reduced. So, I will leave it at that.
Mr. Pallone. Yes. Well, that serves my second question,
because these grants are in high demand, and because of
insufficient funding, many applications go unfunded. So if you
increase the cap with current funding letters--current funding
levels, that is going to mean fewer applications being funded,
correct?
Mr. Stanislaus. That is right.
Mr. Pallone. So, therefore, a simultaneous increase in
overall funding and an increased cap for individual grants
would obviously be the most useful to continue success of the
program?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, and I should note in the President's
budget, he has called for a bump-up in brownfield resources.
Mr. Pallone. Now, stakeholders have also mentioned that
greater flexibility in the use of grants would be beneficial.
One such example is EPA's multipurpose pilot grants, which
allow recipients to use the funds for a range of brownfield
activities. And one of the potential benefits to this grant
structure is expediting the timeframe between assessment and
cleanup. So let me just ask you about that. To date, how many
multipurpose grants have been awarded by the EPA?
Mr. Stanislaus. Let me get back to you with a number, but
my overall experience has been, which we were surprised by, is
actually, where a grant recipient identified a single site for
assessment and cleanup has actually been a bit slower than we
anticipated. So we are looking at providing a grant, a
multipurpose grant for multiple sites. Some sites may need
assessment, some sites may need cleanup. So we want to continue
to explore various vehicles of multipurpose grants. But we are
not sure necessarily that one grant for one side for a site
assessment and cleanup necessarily saves time. We are still
looking at that.
Mr. Pallone. That was my next question, if you had any
preliminary data that shows that this type of grant is
beneficial to developers and communities. Can you comment on
that, or are you still looking into it?
Mr. Stanislaus. I think, in principle, it would, but we
just--so there are two competing issues: Would providing a
grant for assessment of a cleanup on an individual site save
time from two competitions? And we are finding that our data
shows that that is not necessarily the case. We also have this
issue of having money that is out there--we are fairly
obligated if money is out there for too long to take it back.
So there is tension that we have to resolve.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Before my time is up, I wanted to turn to
administrative costs because currently, brownfields grants
funds cannot be used for administrative costs. However,
allowing recipients to use a portion of EPA funds to offset
some of the administrative burden could help communities,
particularly rural and financially disadvantaged communities.
Did you want to comment on that?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, I think we have heard repeatedly from
grant recipients, particularly smaller communities that it is a
burden. I think that is a sensible approach to figure out a way
of not burdening them with the administrative costs.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Well, I am encouraged to hear about the
success of the program, and EPA's commitment to cleaning up the
contaminated sites. As I said, look forward to working with the
EPA to help strengthen the program and ensure that States and
local communities receive adequate resources to administer and
support these cleanup efforts. I mean, obviously in my State,
both Superfund and brownfields have been tremendously helpful.
I can point to so many cases in my district where they have not
only cleaned up sites, but revitalized the economy and, you
know, created jobs and the list goes on and on. So, again, Mr.
Chairman, I hope that we can work on a bill together that would
reauthorize this and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I now recognize the vice chairman
of the subcommittee, Mr. Harper from Mississippi, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you. Mr. Stanislaus, it is good to have
you back.
Mr. Stanislaus. Great to be back.
Mr. Harper. You are a regular here, so thank you very much
for your insight. At a hearing on the Brownfields Program held
at the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, you
explained that the Brownfields Program is a good model of
leveraging. Can you explain to us what that means and explain
why that is the case and how EPA maximizes leveraging Federal
dollars?
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure. One from a transactional perspective,
being able to reduce risk early through site assessment allows
the unknown of total cost to be a known, so that that can be
quantified for underwriting and bringing private resources to
the table, that is one thing that we do.
Mr. Harper. OK.
Mr. Stanislaus. The second is, we have been pushing the
idea of preference and priority, which is, that if the
community has done the hard work and the planning, they should
get some benefit, for example, DOT TIGER grants recognizes
upfront planning. So that is some of the things we have been
doing.
Mr. Harper. Thank you. Will expanding the eligibility for
what entities can receive brownfields funds decrease the number
of grants awarded?
Mr. Stanislaus. Expanding the eligibility? Can you expand?
Mr. Harper. Basically, if we expand the eligibility for
what entities can receive these, how--what impact, if any, do
you think that would have on the overall leveraging of Federal
dollars?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, if I understand your question, so,
you know, we go to the national competition, and we pick the
most qualified, not just the success of the program--if your
question is about increasing the size of the grant--is that
your question?
Mr. Harper. Or, for instance, expanding it to include
nonprofits, what waterfront grants, those type things.
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. I think not-for-profits, there are
benefits, particularly for smaller communities, which really
rely on not-for-profits on economic development and housing
development work. So the natural extension provided the
capacity gap that some smaller communities may not have, so we
do view that as a positive.
In terms of an upfront determination of waterfront grants,
we actually think there are unintended consequences of dividing
grants too early in the process, as opposed to having the grant
applicants demonstrate who are the best qualified.
Mr. Harper. Do you think that grants and nonprofits
organizations require more project management resources?
Mr. Stanislaus. More project management resources? Clearly,
be it a local government or a potential not-for-profit, they
need to demonstrate capability and capacity.
Mr. Harper. Sure. There is a bill pending in the Senate
right new on brownfields, Senate bill No. 1479. Some of the
changes in that bill require EPA to consider certain types of
grants, for example, those waterfront grants and clean energy
grants. Rather than directing EPA to consider certain sites for
brownfields funding. Shouldn't local communities decide the
best in use for redevelopment project?
Mr. Stanislaus. Absolutely. I have gone on record and said
that before.
Mr. Harper. Does EPA already have authority to issue grants
to these types of projects?
Mr. Stanislaus. Absolutely.
Mr. Harper. Does EPA support the concept of multipurpose
grants? Are there problems associated with awarding grants
funding for both assessment and cleanup activities
simultaneously under the same grant?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, we have a grant cycle right now. I
think we were looking at how do we provide even more
flexibility. We don't believe we need statutory authority for
that, though.
Mr. Harper. Does EPA support the broadening of grant
eligibility so that governmental entities that took titles of
the property before the date of the brownfields law in 2002,
but which did not causes or contribute to the contamination,
are they eligible to receive brownfields grants funding?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, I think that makes sense,
municipalities have raised that as an impediment to
redeveloping their downtowns.
Mr. Harper. How would EPA ensure that these governmental
entities did not cause or contribute to the contamination?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I think in the same way that we do
now, we actually do a record search, and we require a
demonstration of their linkage to the property.
Mr. Harper. And would these governmental entities have to
demonstrate that they conducted the appropriate due diligence
or appropriate inquiry?
Mr. Stanislaus. That is right.
Mr. Harper. With that, I will yield back.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. And now we recognize for 5 minutes
the Congresswoman from California, Ms. Capps.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman McKinley and Ranking
Member Tonko, for holding this hearing, and thank you,
Assistant Administrator Stanislaus, for your testimony today.
The Brownfields Program has been an important one for
cleaning up contaminated properties, reducing exposure to
harmful contaminants, and revitalizing our communities. My
district's experience with the Brownfields Program goes way
back to the awarding of initial pilot redevelopment projects in
the beginning. As you know, I represent a district in
California that is comprised of many coastal communities. As
you can imagine, keeping these waterfront properties free of
contamination is not only a concern for public health and the
environment, it is also an economic concern.
My first question to you, Mr. Stanislaus, do coastal
communities have unique challenges when cleaning up
waterfront--brownfields property?
Mr. Stanislaus. Unique challenges? I think waterfront
property, I think, vary depending on the kind of contaminates.
I have to think there are some unique opportunities given their
waterfront and the transportation access, also.
Mrs. Capps. So are there tools or resources that are
available to communities who have these particular, and maybe
unique challenges in their brownfields?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, I would say the Area-Wide Planning
program is one of the grant programs, because waterfronts tend
to be pretty large in terms of the opportunity, so area-wide
planning allows infrastructure studies and market studies.
Mrs. Capps. OK. What kind of public outreach does the EPA
engage in to make sure that residents, my constituents are more
informed about brownfields and the availability of remediation
process?
Mr. Stanislaus. I am sorry. Can you say that again?
Mrs. Capps. Well, are there public outreach programs that
you are engaged in that would ensure that the residents, my
constituents and various people, become more informed about
what brownfields are and that there is remediation, a process
available?
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure. So we provide a grant to entities
around the country, it is to do that direct outreach in
technical assistance to communities in addition to what we do
ourselves. In terms of the cleanup itself, the cleanup is
administered by State cleanup programs, and we separately fund
States and tribes for that.
Mrs. Capps. OK. I am pleased to hear that you are engaged
in this, because I think that some people don't even know that
they are sitting on top of a brownfield, or they are associated
with it that might be eligible for some special benefits.
Another issue I would like to talk about is the sustainable
reuse of brownfield sites. I think it is very important
communities are able to revitalize these underused, or
abandoned sites, in a sustainable way. So are there ways, and
what are they, that you have promoted sustainable reuse of
brownfields, such as green building stormwater management, and
how have these sustainable uses benefited communities?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, I would begin with, I think,
brownfields by itself is very sustainable because they are in
kind of population centers and lower air emissions and lower
water kind of impact. In terms of promoting some of the items
you suggested, we actually highlight some of the best practices
used at all the sites, like green infrastructure, for example.
And there have been a few sites, like in Monroe, Michigan,
where there is actually an assembly plant for wind energy.
Mrs. Capps. OK. The reuse.
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
Mrs. Capps. I appreciate your testimony here today in
answering questions, especially as we deal with the effects of
climate change. It is so important that we think about
sustainability of development projects. I am happy to hear that
EPA has been working to promote sustainability in the
Brownfields Program while, at the same time, protecting public
health of course and revitalizing our communities.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to yield back, or
yield to someone else.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. Not seeing any more on this side,
the enlightened side of the argument. We will move to the other
side, the hopeful side.
Mr. McNerney. Idealistic.
Mr. McKinley. Five minutes to Mr. McNerney from California.
Mr. McNerney. I appreciate the hearing.
Mr. Stanislaus, would it be fair to say that every single
congressional district in this country has real estate that
would qualify for the Brownfields Program?
Mr. Stanislaus. I can't imagine that is not the case.
Mr. McNerney. That is right. So, Mr. Chairman, I think we
have a good case that we could make to our colleagues to get
this program funded.
Moving on, I am really interested in your leverage state.
You said you can leverage sometimes 1 to 18. That is
phenomenal.
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. How do you do that?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I think it is the sweet spot of
Government. So, I think that it provides the upfront money to
deal with the uncertainties. And when you deal with the
uncertainties, more private capital and even public economic
development research can be brought to the table.
Mr. McNerney. Well, you also mentioned you want to preserve
the competitive process, but there is probably a lot of
potential projects that don't have the resources to put
together a quality proposal. Are there means within the program
to help some of these communities?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. So we fund--because we cannot directly
assist communities to write a grant application that we are
going to have to judge, so we fund entities around the country
to provide assistance to actually help in preparing those
applications.
Mr. McNerney. Very good.
Mr. Stanislaus. And identifying how they should best put
together a competitive application.
Mr. McNerney. Is that a successful operation?
Mr. Stanislaus. Oh, it is very successful. I can give you a
list of what each of these recipients have been doing.
Mr. McNerney. Very good. City of Stockton, California, has
been my district, and it has benefited from the Brownfields
Program significantly, seed money, eventually lead the
revitalization, the seed money you talked about, properties
along the Stockton Deepwater channel.
I understand, also, that the EPA has relatively new
repowering America's land initiative which focuses on renewable
energy, and it looks like there is about 150 programs that have
gone through that. What is the advantage for a renewable energy
business to use that program?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, it makes all the sense in the world
where you have contaminant problems--particularly a
contaminated property where other kinds of redevelopment are
more challenging. What we have done is we partnered with the
Department of Energy Renewable Energy Laboratory and we mapped
contaminated sites around the country for wind energy
opportunity and portable tech energy opportunity. And also,
these happened to be in proximity to transmission line
corridors as well. So we see it is a great fit between
renewable energy and a use of a property that may not otherwise
be used for other kinds of uses.
Mr. McNerney. Very good. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield
back.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you very much. Now we are staying on
that side of the aisle. We will go down for the next 5 minutes
of questioning, Mr. Green from Texas.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and our witness, for
being here today. I represent an area in Houston, Harris
County, Texas. We have a number of former industrial sites. A
very urban area that grants through Brownfields Programs have
been instrumental in transforming some of those underutilized
and abandoned sites in the productive properties in the
community. However, many small and disadvantaged communities
don't have the capacity to undertake these revitalization
projects like a city like Houston can do.
Mr. Stanislaus, in your testimony, you mentioned EPA data
shows that funding and technical assistance are reaching small
and disadvantaged communities. How much of this assistance is
reaching the disadvantaged community? Do you have any examples
of locations where EPA has worked with those smaller,
disadvantaged communities?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, I could follow up with specific
examples after this hearing. But I think we have done a pretty
good job of trying to make sure that all communities
participate in the grant program. But in addition to the grant
program, what many mayors or town managers of smaller
communities say is, in some case providing the ability to move
that one property. And so, we have contract assistants to
assess that one property that has been pretty successful. You
also have a technical assistance program that I think these
communities have found really valuable.
Mr. Green. What type of assistance--could you describe some
of the assistance supported provided by EPA under the
Brownfields Program?
Mr. Stanislaus. So some of the technical assistance, it
includes, in some cases, actually doing a site assessment,
understanding the potential contaminants at a site. In other
cases, through the TAB program, we fund recipients to help
communities understand the requirements of our grant program,
kind of Brownfields 101, understand transactions and how to
actually go from a vacant, underutilized property and walk them
through each step of the transaction and redevelopment.
Mr. Green. Well, I have a great example in my community.
Again, it is a very urban area, we had a location for our city
bus barn for the last 50 years up until about 20 years ago. And
the lead contamination in that soil was so bad, but it was
remediated. In fact, it was left open, a very urban area with a
great deal of green space that nobody could go on. But after a
period of time now, it is actually a community college, covered
up the soil, and it is very viable in a very urban area, so I
appreciate that.
The Area Wide Grant program, the AWP, I understand AWP
grants have been successful in providing funds to support
communities with the developing plans identifying
implementation strategies for area wide revitalization. How has
this program been successful in revitalizing economically
distressed communities?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, what it does, particularly for
economically distressed communities, it allows communities to
what I call go beyond the fence line. Look at the state of
infrastructure, look at the infrastructure investment needs,
look at the current market and future market conditions, look
at implementing resources that are available at the Federal,
State and local government. And again, to recite the stat I
gave out earlier, allot $12 million to EPA recipients, Area-
Wide Planning recipients, there is leveraged $354 million in
other resources for redevelopment.
Mr. Green. And how do partnerships with nonprofits and
other organizations help ensure successful remediation? In my
case, it is mostly with local governments.
Mr. Stanislaus. I think it is critical, particularly in
smaller communities that need that capacity assistance. Not-
for-profits could be a local economic development entity, could
be a local housing development entity, a local industrial
development entity, which are not-for-profits to enable the
whole process to move forward.
Mr. Green. OK. There are concerns that some sites are
cleaned up and new developments may no longer take into account
the needs of long-time residents of the area, particularly
affordable housing with an economically distressed community. I
think it is an important consideration for revitalization
should how these project serve communities. In what ways is EPA
working to encourage community engagement to ensure that the
needs of the residents are met?
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure. At its heart, the Area Wide Planning
program is designed to enable community vision, inclusion of
local residents who have been fighting, for many times years,
around that particular site. We have also invested a lot in the
tools for equitable development. How do we make sure that, for
example, affordable housing, and generally the needs of job
creation or housing is part of the visioning of a brownfield
redevelopment scenario.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. McKinley. I thank you.
Now they called the votes. Thank you very much for your
testimony, Mr. Stanislaus.
Mr. Stanislaus. Are you telling me to leave? Is that what
you are saying?
Mr. McKinley. But you will be back. You are a fixture
around here. Wasn't it nice no one had to yell at you today?
So the second panel, and then we are going to break for
votes and come back after that. So if I could have the five
panelists for the second panel, if they could take their seats,
please.
In respect for the time, because the clock is ticking over
there on the call, we get 10 minutes left to go. We have Meade
Anderson, Brownfields Program Manager with the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, which he is testifying on
behalf of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials. We have Christian Bollwage, who is the
mayor of the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey; Clark Henry is the
owner of the CIII Associates, LLC; Amy Romig, partner at Plews,
Shadley, Racher & Braun. And Veronica Eady, Vice President and
Director of the Conservation Law Foundation.
If it's all right with you if we just get it started and--
--
Mr. Shimkus. No, just go vote.
Mr. McKinley. Then we will come back. Hold tight. Thank you
very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Shimkus. I am going to call the hearing to order.
Again, thank you for your patience. Fly-out day. This
subcommittee, we have to get the rooms----
Come on in, Mayor.
We want to get the rooms when we get them because of these
important issues. So patience. We will have members coming and
going. But it was also the last vote on the floor, so a lot of
them are getting back to their districts. So your testimony is
still important, and we appreciate you being here. So I will
just introduce folks----
Unless, Mr. Schrader, do you want to say anything, since
you weren't here for opening statements? Do you want to----
Mr. Schrader. No, Mr. Chair. And I apologize for not being
here earlier. And I had a chance to converse with, you know,
some of our participants. I really appreciate what they are
doing. It is a timely issue and a big issue of my State where
we have a Superfund site that we are trying to get to
resolution on. So this is a great hearing, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. And I look forward to visiting that site
sometime soon.
Mr. Schrader. Yep.
Mr. Shimkus. So with that, I will just do the
introductions.
Each person individually, you will do your 5-minute opening
statement. Your full statement is submitted for the record. And
then we will go to questions afterwards based upon the
testimony.
So I would like to first start with Mr. Meade Anderson,
Brownfields Program Manager, Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, on behalf of the Association of State
and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
Sir, welcome. And you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF J. MEADE R. ANDERSON, CHAIR, BROWNFIELDS FOCUS
GROUP, ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS; J. CHRISTIAN BOLLWAGE, MAYOR, CITY OF
ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY, ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF
MAYORS; CLARK HENRY, OWNER, CIII ASSOCIATES, LLC; AMY E. ROMIG,
PARTNER, PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN, LLP; VERONICA EADY, VICE
PRESIDENT AND MASSACHUSETTS DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION LAW
FOUNDATION
STATEMENT OF J. MEADE R. ANDERSON
Mr. Anderson. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking
Member Tonko, members of the subcommittee.
My name is Meade Anderson. I am chair of the Brownfields
Focus Group with the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials, ASTSWMO. I am here today to testify
on behalf of ASTSWMO.
ASTSWMO is an association representing waste management and
remediation programs of 50 States, five Territories, and the
District of Columbia. Our membership includes State program
experts with individual responsibility for the regulation or
management of waste, hazardous substances, including
remediation tanks, materials management, and environmental
sustainability programs.
I would like to preface my remarks with commenting that our
organization does enjoy a positive working relationship with
the U.S. EPA. Our collaborative efforts and problem-solving
approaches to brownfields issues with the EPA Office of
Brownfields and Land Revitalization should not be
underestimated. I think what you are going to hear from me
today is almost an echo of everything that we have heard
earlier, and maybe a little bit more.
ASTSWMO is a strong supporter of the Brownfields Program.
For the past 14 years, this program has contributed greatly to
the economic development and revitalization of the country.
State and territorial programs provide significant support to
the localities, such as small and rural communities that apply
for grants. These programs also help ensure that funding is
leveraged to the maximum extent possible to assist in the
revitalization of these sites. The vast majority of these
cleanups are managed under the State voluntary cleanup
programs, which are typically supplemented by the 128(a)
brownfields funds that we are going to be talking about today.
Some of the benefits include providing funds for complete
environmental assessments of properties, supporting local
community officials in the preparation of grant applications
that you have heard earlier, providing workshops for the
organizations that are in these districts, and meeting with
community officials. Just like a couple of weeks ago, I was
meeting with a town that has five employees. They don't have
the ability to have a brownfields expert on staff and
supporting the voluntary cleanup programs that I have mentioned
that provide the foundation for setting the remediation goals
and the institutional controls to make sure the properties are
safe for reuse.
Since the brownfields law's beginning, 128(a) fundings have
been provided to the States and--States, territories, and
tribes with the national funding level at just under $50
million for the last 14 years, whereas the number of applicants
has continued to more than double. In 2003, 80 States,
territories, and tribes received the funding of $49.4 million.
By 2016, 164 entities requested funding, including 50 States,
four territories, the District of Columbia, 109 tribes, eight
of which were new applicants. The awards in 2003 averaged
$618,000. However, by fiscal year 2016, the average award had
dropped to approximately $293,000, less than half what had been
awarded when the program started.
As you have heard today, we are now facing more challenging
sites than ever. Over the last 10 years, we were able to clean
up many of the more easily to clean up sites and revitalize
them, bringing benefits to the States and the communities.
However, what remains is more challenging. And the
redevelopment has been hampered by the complex issues of the
contamination and the challenges of the community as a whole.
These properties are financially upside down due to
suspected environmental contamination. Yet many of these sites
are situated in key locations in our small communities, cities,
and towns. The more challenging sites require a unique
collaborative approach of the stakeholders working in
partnership with the community, local, State, Federal
governmental organizations, business partners, NGOs, and
individuals from the community itself. The State's Brownfields
Program plays a significant role in ensuring these sites are
cleaned up to standards that are safe for their reuse.
Earlier we talked about the leveraging that goes on, and
the University of Delaware has published two well-respected
studies. The Economic Impact of Delaware's Economy: The
Brownfields Program is one of them, that you get this $17.50
return on a dollar's investment that goes into these brownfield
sites. These two documents are referenced in my written
testimony.
To summarize, ASTSWMO believes in a robust Brownfields
Program at all levels of Government working in concert with the
private sector, is essential for the Nation's environmental,
economic, and social health. And without adequate funding for
the State, territorial, and tribal brownfield and voluntary
cleanup programs, brownfield goals cannot be achieved. Where
the current level of funding is inadequate, we want to ensure
that it is at least protected to a minimum.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
[The statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. I thank you very much. I want to turn to the
ranking member of the full committee.
Do you want to introduce the next person to testify or are
you----
Mr. Pallone. Oh, sure.
Mr. Shimkus. I recognize the ranking member.
Mr. Pallone. Mayor Bollwage is the mayor of Elizabeth,
which is one of the largest cities in New Jersey. And I have
known him for a long time. And he has been mayor for many
years. And he has been definitely a progressive mayor who has
really done a lot to revitalize Elizabeth.
If you go to Elizabeth today, compared to 20 years ago, you
just see all the changes that have occurred that are all
positive. The major downtown area, a lot of people shopping in
town. So many improvements. So--but and a lot of that--some of
that has related to the Brownfields Program as well. So that is
why he is here today.
Thank you, Mayor.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mayor. Welcome. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF J. CHRISTIAN BOLLWAGE
Mr. Bollwage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here.
And, Ranking Member Tonko, thank you.
And, Congressman Pallone, thank you for those very kind
words, and always look forward to working with you on the
issues that benefit New Jersey.
As you--my name is Chris Bollwage. I am the mayor in the
city of Elizabeth. I have also been the chair of the Conference
of Mayors Brownfields Task Force for some 20-plus years. And
since the 1990s, the U.S. Conference has made the redevelopment
of brownfield properties a top priority. And all of you can
understand why that has happened.
There are an estimated \1/2\ million brownfields. And
businesses were unwilling to touch these properties out of fear
of liability. The congressman asked a question of the first
panelist, is there a brownfield in every congressional
district? And the U.S. Conference of Mayors did a study years
ago that shows that every congressional district in this
country has at least one brownfield incorporated.
I testified before Congress numerous times during the 1990s
on the importance of this legislation. Urban sprawl has left
almost every community with an abandoned site in the Nation.
The brownfields law has had a very positive impact on our
economy. EPA estimates over 24,000 brownfield assessments,
1,200 cleanups have been completed, 113,000 jobs created, $22
billion leveraged.
In our last survey, 150 cities developed nearly 2,100
sites, comprising 18,000 acres. And 106 cities reported 187,000
jobs were created; 71,000 predevelopment and 116,000 permanent
jobs.
And briefly, in our city, Congressman Pallone referred to
it, we have Jersey Gardens Mall. It was built on a former
landfill, 166 acres. Now has 2 million square feet of shopping,
over 200 stores, six hotels, movie theater, with 1,700
construction jobs, 4,000 permanent jobs, $2.5 million in tax
revenue in the first 8 months. Would not have been done without
a brownfield assessment grant.
Jersey Gardens Mall, now called a Simon mall, recently
announced it is going to add 411,000 square feet with an
expansion completed in 2017. We have a workforce innovation
center providing job placement, soft skills training, and ESL
education to residents. It also features a 4.8 megawatt super--
SunPower rooftop solar system which began producing power in
February of 2012, and it can now produce power for 564 homes
equivalent.
The brownfields law and program has a proven track record
of leveraging private sector investment and creating jobs.
Unfortunately, the EPA has had to turn away a lot of highly
qualified applicants, as evident by the questioning and the
testimony of the first panel. The challenge that our
communities face now is that many of the easy brownfield sites
have been developed and what now remains are the more difficult
brownfield sites, the ones that we like to call medium to dark
brown brownfield sites.
The Conference of Mayors believe that some minor changes,
some of the recommendations that we include for the new
brownfields law: Fully funding the Brownfields Program,
allowing reasonable administrative costs, clarifying
eligibility of publicly owned sites acquired before 2002,
removing barriers from mothballed sites, and encouraging
brownfield cleanups by good Samaritans.
Other recommendations include creating a multipurpose task
force grant--a multipurpose grant to make the program more
flexible and market friendly. The way the program works now is
if a city applies for various grants, identifies the properties
where the money will be spent. The problem naturally with that
scenario is the flexibility enough for real marketplace
situations. A city may have multiple developers and businesses
who are interested in several brownfield properties.
What cities could use is a multipurpose grant to allow them
to assess multiple properties and do cleanup on the properties
chosen for redevelopment. If a city has to apply for a grant,
wait 6 months to a year to see if they get funding, it
naturally hinders our opportunities.
Increasing cleanup grant amounts would also be beneficial.
I know we differ from the EPA on this, but in the Conference's
opinion, many of the easy brownfields are already being done.
What is tougher are the brownfields that are more complicated
due to a variety of factors, including the level of cleanup
needed. And for some of the cleanup grants, we would like an
increase in the amount to be $1 million. In special
circumstances, $2 million.
I would like to thank you, Chairman, and the members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. Brownfields
development is a win/win for everyone involved. And the
reauthorization of this law could be a top priority of this
Congress.
I thank you for the opportunity. And I am available for
questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Bollwage follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mayor. And it is great to have you.
I would now like to turn to Mr. Clark Henry, owner of CIII
Associates. Again, your full testimony is already in the
record. You have 5 minutes. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF CLARK HENRY
Mr. Henry. Great. Thank you very much, Chair Shimkus and
Ranking Member Tonko, for having me here. It is an honor to
speak to you as well with both the people to my left and right.
It is an honor to share this table.
I have been working on brownfield redevelopment for the
past 15-plus years, both as a public service--public servant
working for the city of Portland, Oregon managing the
Brownfields Program, as well as a consultant working with
municipalities very small from the Village of Sutherland,
Nebraska to the City of Boston, Massachusetts, as well as
community-based organizations, developers, and property owners
all over the country.
I am intimately aware of working with the Brownfields
Program and the power that it has. My overwhelming support for
this program and the reauthorization is demonstrated in the
success that we have had in Portland and across the country. I
have administered over $2 million of EPA assessment in
brownfield cleanup grants, worked very closely with the job
training grantees, as well as revolving loan fund recipients;
all of which have leveraged multifamily housing, additional
commercial developments, light industrial developments, and job
creation.
I lightheartedly refer to the brownfield effect. With the
EPA Brownfields Program involved, is we have brownfield
jujitsu. We turn what are liabilities into assets. We kind of
reverse the negative effect that they have on our communities
environmentally and economically at the same time. The theme
here too is how these grants help local municipalities and the
Federal Government serve as really strong partners for private
sector redevelopment.
The Brownfields Program has been, in my observations,
nationally the best model of how this has been working. I do,
as well as previous testimony, have some recommendations how we
could further refine some of this. The area-wide planning
program that Administrator Stanislaus brought to the EPA from
New York and is administering in the EPA now, I believe, should
be made a permanent part of the Brownfields Pprogram. It is
really a response to how we put properties and entire districts
and corridors in the pipeline for development.
It never shocks me when you start planning for a brownfield
property that no onehas been interested in for decades, you
start planning for it, and everybody wants it. So perception
here on both sides is really important.
The nonprofit eligibility too, for me, I think is a very
important addition. They are not only more than capable of
administering these grants; they are really essential private
sector partners, particularly in the creation of workforce
housing.
I do believe that allowing some small portion of
administrative costs is a very positive change under the grant.
Though I do believe that local municipalities should bear the
burden of operating programs, but when we allow them--when we
allow some administrative costs, we go from administering a
grant to running a program. And in my experience with the city
of Portland and having the time to broker relationships between
developers and property owners and advocate for and help
projects get through regulatory process at the State level, the
outcomes are very compelling, and you speed things up and you
make things happen that otherwise wouldn't.
I am a strong proponent for renewable energy on these
facilities. Not necessarily allocating specific resources for
that, but I really do believe that they provide substantial
benefit.
I think we do need to clarify the liability for public
municipalities, not just making them available--or eligible for
ownership after 2002, but under circle of liability,
involuntary acquisition, such as through tax foreclosure, they
are protected under statute, but for voluntary they are not.
And I believe that widening that would really help
municipalities take on projects that they are hesitant to now.
The multipurpose grants allowing us to move from assessment
to cleanup, from my perspective, I was dying for these things
at the city of Portland and it would have sped some things up.
Though it might not be universally applicable, I really do
think it should be an option. And I would love to see the
Federal tax incentive brought back that expired in 2011.
And then the last little change isn't necessarily a change
to the administration or the grant program itself, but it is
considering what happens after community planning processes are
assessed and some cleanups are done. And exploring partnerships
with these new--with new organizations and community-based
organizations is really essential here. And then there are some
new tools because the JOBS Act and the SEC rules allowing
crowdsourcing and crowdfunding on an equity base is--has some
really strong potential to actually leverage financing for a
project otherwise is inaccessible.
And I conclude by really encouraging the reauthorization.
And I really want to say that this is working for the
environment, society, and economy together to make our--bring
our municipalities stronger as well as a stronger United
States. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Henry follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much for your testimony. And
thanks for the recommendations. That is kind of what we are
looking for too in all this process.
So now I would like to turn to Amy Romig, a partner at
Plews, Shadley, Racher, and Braun.
Ms. Romig. Perfect.
Mr. Shimkus. And you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF AMY E. ROMIG
Ms. Romig. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me here today so that I can share my
views on the EPA's Brownfields Program.
So based upon the committee questions for the first
panelist, Mr. Stanislaus, I am very pleased to see that all of
the committee members obviously support the Brownfields
Program, because this program is essential and vital to the
redevelopment of our economies in our small towns and cities.
As Chairman Shimkus said, I am an attorney with the law
firm of Plews, Shadley, Racher, and Braun in Indianapolis,
Indiana. And I represent private businesses, not-for-profit
entities, and other private shareholders who develop these
types of brownfield properties. We have also represented
various cities and towns within Indiana who have taken
advantage of the Brownfields Program. And we also represent
economic development associations that would love to be able to
take advantage of the Brownfields Program.
The Brownfields Program is important to private
shareholders because it allows knowledge to be found about
these sites that prohibits their development at this current
point in time. I will be quite frank. When it comes to
investors, they want to make money. And they are looking at
buying properties that they can develop that will be
profitable. And, quite frankly, they shy away from those
properties that have unknown risks. They have to be able to
make the calculation: Can I make money on this? And if you have
unknown environmental liability, they simply won't make that
investment.
So by giving this money to the cities and towns, you are
increasing the knowledge base that helps overcome the burden of
developing these properties. It makes it much more likely that
investors will take these risks and invest their money.
We heard a lot from Mr. Stanislaus about the leveraging
that happens. And this is precisely what happens when you put
this money in the investment of knowledge, is that you make
private people willing to invest even more of their money in
these projects.
I would like to give an example of one of the projects that
my firm worked on. There was a blighted piece of property on
several acres along an interstate in Indianapolis, and the
neighboring properties were getting run down. No one wanted to
be around this property. And the State of Indiana and the city
of Indianapolis invested a couple of hundred thousand dollars
in helping clean it up so that an out-of-state business would
come in and invest in a truck stop.
Over the last several years, more than $8 million has been
reinvested in property taxes, now that they are being paid on
this property, and sales tax because people are coming to this
property. And, quite frankly, the value of the surrounding
properties has increased and more development is occurring in
this area simply because the State and the city invested a
little bit of money. That is a 20-fold increase in the
profitability of the seed money that the Brownfields Program
put into this site. And more sites like this can happen if you
increase the flexibility and the money available to these
communities.
We have heard a lot about how can you improve the
Brownfields Program. And, quite frankly, we do a really great
job in Indianapolis. But the smaller towns don't do as well
because they do not have the sophistication or the knowledge.
While Indianapolis can afford to have a brownfields
coordinator, the smaller towns can't. The person who is
handling these things is often an engineer who is worried about
how do I get the trash picked up and how do I keep the roads
going?
So by allowing some administrative costs to your opening up
the program to these smaller communities who need the most
help, this will allow these communities to have more
information about their sites because knowledge is power, as I
talked about before. And it will help them make the contacts
and meet the developers that will bring money to their
communities.
One of the other issues that is really problematic and
hindering brownfield development is transactional costs in time
of both money and in time, because time is money. If I am a
developer and I can go develop a greenfield site and get a
return on my investment in 6 months, that is much more
attractive to me than working through the Brownfields Program
trying to get the State and the various agencies to approve my
permits and not getting a return on my investment for several
years. And the reason this is happening is, quite frankly, that
the agencies don't have the resources.
Our Indiana Department of Environmental Management does a
great job and they have a lot of skill and sophistication, but
they have limited resources. So by allowing the Brownfields
Program to use some of the money for administrative costs, you
are going to provide and overcome the problems with time.
Because, quite frankly, more people will be allowed to have
this knowledge and it will speed the process up and it will
make it more attractive to developers.
With that, I would like to thank you again for inviting me.
And when we are finished with testimony, I would be pleased to
answer any questions you have.
[The statement of Ms. Romig follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you for coming. I just--I represent
Danville, Illinois and Marshall, Illinois, which is closer to
Indianapolis than my own house. So I do appreciate, and,
unfortunately--well, fortunately, have to fly into Indianapolis
sometimes to get to the eastern part of my district. So I know
the community better than I used to.
So now let me turn to Veronica Eady, a vice president and
director of Conservation Law Foundation. We are glad to have
you here. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF VERONICA EADY
Ms. Eady. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation. I am
really pleased to be here and speaking to the committee.
Conservation Law Foundation, founded in 1966, is a member-
supported environmental advocacy organization. We are
headquartered in Boston with five offices throughout New
England and we protect New England's environment for the
benefit of all people. We use law, science, and the market to
create solutions that preserve our natural resources, build
healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy. And while I
am a lawyer, we are fully multidisciplinary. We employ
economists, scientists, planners, and investment fund managers.
We support--and I will refer to my organization,
Conservation Law Foundation interchangeably as CLF. CLF
supports, without reservation, EPA and its Brownfields
Programs. Nonprofit organizations have long played a critical
role in facilitating the cleanup of brownfield sites. My own
organization has convened community planning charrettes helping
residents to articulate their vision for longstanding
contaminated sites. We have also provided technical assistance
to city and towns, helping them understand their legal options
under State and Federal brownfields law.
And as a founding member of the Massachusetts Smart Growth
Alliance, CLF is working in broad coalition with other
stakeholders to secure funding that would replenish
Massachusetts' Brownfields Redevelopment Fund, which is kind of
the corollary to the EPA program.
Massachusetts has many brownfield sites that have
contamination that predates the industrial revolution. And I
want to take a moment to talk a minute about the city of New
Bedford, which is one of my favorite cities in Massachusetts,
iconic and, of course, the site of Herman Melville's Moby Dick.
Last year, CLF undertook a comprehensive investigation into
the nature and extent of contamination in New Bedford and what
potential exposure there might be for residents. We focused on
an environmental justice analysis, which involved studying
census and other demographic data, to determine whether low-
income communities and communities of color bore a
disproportionate environmental burden.
We spoke with nearly 2 dozen residents, city officials,
environmental regulators and others. And although New Bedford
has received State and Federal brownfields funding in the past,
one city official commented that the biggest environmental
justice issue still facing the city continues to be the lack of
funding available to identify more unaddressed contaminated
sites.
New Bedford's pollution dates back to the mid-1700s when
the economy shifted from agriculture to whaling and whaling-
related industry, such as oil processing, soap making, and ship
building. These early industries likely admitted into the
environment oils, arsenic, mercury, cyanide, biological waste,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other caustic substances
that were disposed directly into the soils and waterways. After
that we had the textile industry a century later. That was
displaced by the electronics industry. So we have layer and
layer upon pollution in New Bedford.
New Bedford's population is about 9,500. New Bedford's
median income is less than 50 percent of the State average.
Some of the poorest residents literally live across the street
from sites that have been mothballed because the industrial
operations have long decades gone, nowhere to be found, and the
city is left holding the bag.
In some cases pollution has migrated into the homes of
people. In some cases--in one case in particular, 84 homes had
to be relocated. And these homes were on a site where
currently, even today, there are two public schools on the
site. The Department of Public Health had to come in and do an
assessment to find out if there was any special--you know, any
spikes in cancer rates and things like that resulting from the
contamination. And, of course, New Bedford is only one of many
similarly situated cities and towns in the country.
Brownfield redevelopment is for many cities and towns the
only form of developable property, particularly in New England,
because of limited inventories of undeveloped land. And in
order to develop these brownfields, they need access to
funding. Access to further brownfield funding and technical
assistance would be a major step for these communities.
New Bedford does have some good news. There have been some
brownfield sites, many, actually, that have been redeveloped.
And there are a couple that are noteworthy. I will just name--
one was a supermarket development that went into a former mill
site and created 600 jobs. There is a marine commerce terminal
project that will facilitate renewable energy and that is going
to create 200 permanent jobs.
So in conclusion, I want to once again say how fully CLF
supports EPA and these programs. I appreciate you being here--
or your invitation to me, and I look forward to questions.
[The statement of Ms. Eady follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
Now I will start with a round of questions. I will
recognize myself for 5 minutes. And the first question will go
to Ms. Romig.
In your written testimony, it takes on what is probably a
fairly common notion that the Brownfields Program creates a
windfall to private developers and investors. Would you please
explain why that you believe that is not true?
Ms. Romig. These developers and investors still have to put
their own time and money into these projects. They have
significant skin in the game. And when they are tackling these
sites, these sites are more expensive to deal with than if they
were dealing with a greenfield.
So the Brownfields Program provides a little bit of seed
money, but it is certainly not making anyone rich. They are not
making a tremendous amount of money on it. And in fact, a lot
of these projects, they don't make as much as they might
possibly make if they were developing a greenfield. So they are
still investing a significant amount of time and money of their
own. So it is not a windfall.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. And I appreciate that time is money, how
quickly can you develop a site. Also, everyone has talked about
risk. Right? There is some risk. And I think we in Congress are
starting to understand that a little bit more as far as risk
and reward and time and all the other stuff. And this is a
perfect example.
Let me go to Mr. Anderson. As you know, the brownfields law
requires, and this was asked earlier to Mr. Stanislaus, that 25
percent of the funds appropriated to the EPA for activities
authorized under CERCLA or Superfund 104(k), be used to
characterize, assess, and remediate petroleum brownfields. Do
you still--do you think that this petroleum set-aside is still
necessary?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. And it is difficult to--you know,
when you get an assessment grant, as a city does, and you are
trying to go through the property, if you are trying to
designate exactly 25 percent, it really hampers you. If you
have got the flexibility of the full amount and--you are going
to run into petroleum on almost all these brownfield sites
regardless. So I don't think it is necessary any longer, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. And I think that concurs with what Mr.
Stanislaus also testified.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. Mayor, in your testimony states that the,
quote/unquote, easy brownfield sites have already been
developed and what now remains are more difficult, and you used
the terminology ``darker brown,'' which I am going to start
using. I think it is a good terminology. Your testimony notes
that minor changes to the brownfields law would help spur on
additional redevelopment projects and economic growth. Can you
walk us through some--your opinion regarding what type of
changes would be helpful?
Mr. Bollwage. The most important one would be clarifying
some eligibility, as well as flexibility on the grant funding.
If the moneyis targeted for assessments or targeted for
cleanup, oftentimes the developer comes in and the money could
be used in a better way in some other category. And I think
giving us flexibility would help us tremendously.
Mr. Shimkus. So explain flexibility. Tell us where are you
constrained and what more flexibility----
Mr. Bollwage. The assessment grant that we have had in the
city of Elizabeth was used excellent to develop an
identification of 50-some-odd brownfield sites. Now that we
have identified the brownfield sites and there is still
assessment grants out there, it is important to know that we
could still apply for assessment grants, but we understand what
is in all of those properties.
So if we can use assessment money for cleanup costs, or if
we can use assessment money for some type of infrastructure
that is necessary to get to the brownfield site--when we built
the Jersey Gardens Mall, it was on a 166-acre site. The
developer came to me and said: You know, I will remediate this
mall, but you need to build the road to get there. And the road
to get there cost $10 million. So I built a road in 1996 to get
to a dump. And I could see the campaign literature against me
that I built a road to a dump and then nothing happened. So the
flexibility would be important, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. We did have a bridge to nowhere debate
here----
Mr. Bollwage. That is another State, though.
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. In Washington, too. So Mr.
Pallone remembers that.
And my last question will go to Mr. Henry. In your written
testimony, you discussed the need for area-wide planning. Can
you walk us through what that means when you say area-wide? Why
you belive it is important to make it a permanent feature of
the Brownfields Program.
Mr. Henry. Absolutely. You know, in the early days of
administering these grants and working through doing
assessments and cleanup planning, you know, when you are doing
an assessment and trying to plan for a cleanup, the most
important thing that you--that the brownfield community
realizes, you have to know what you are planning for. You have
to understand what kind of redevelopment you are looking at.
And then you also recognize that just by doing one
property, you are probably operating in a corridor or a
district with multiple properties. And by knocking down this
one domino, you are probably catalyzing some additional
investment. But you really also have to take into account--and
some of these--and it ties also into the other complications,
that the easy sites are gone. The other--some of these other
complications are related to adequate infrastructure, other
partnerships that could be out there and what is the community-
supported vision?
So in an area-wide planning process, we recognize that
developers and organizations and the stakeholder group, in
general, was looking for a vision that really indicated the
city is a solid partner and willing to make the investments,
like building roads and putting in additional infrastructure.
Area-wide planning queues up multiple sites and entire
districts for that investment and involves the community in
helping decide what that vision is.
Mr. Shimkus. And that, should we also maybe link them up in
the development program?
Mr. Henry. Yes. And so--yes, it is--whether the assessment
comes first or area-wide planning--it has happened in different
ways--but they are very complementary.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. Excellent. Thank you.
My time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the ranking
member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And, again, welcome to all of our witnesses.
Mr. Henry, what has your experience with area-wide planning
been?
Mr. Henry. My first experience, I supported EPA's
brownfield office in supporting the first round of area-wide
planning grantees, helping them transition their plans into
more implementation-based documents and strategies. And then I
recently concluded a brownfield area-wide planning project in
Redmond, Oregon, and one in Hickory, North Carolina.
Mr. Tonko. And when you get into an area-wide planning, I
can imagine there might be some burdens and there are certainly
benefits. Can you identify each of those, maybe from experience
what some have been?
Mr. Henry. Of the burdens and benefits?
Mr. Tonko. Yes.
Mr. Henry. So with brownfields, there is a really large
perception issue. And when you go into public and you say: We
are going to identify brownfields and we are looking at your--
and you show a map and they have people's properties up there,
red flags go up in their heads. So one of the burdens you have
to do is say, we are really not--we are not here to pin you and
say that you have contamination.
First, the definition of a brownfield doesn't say you are
contaminated and it doesn't say you are liable for it. And so
you really have to--there is a lot of communication that has
to--you have to undertake to make sure they understand you are
creating a vision and you are helping them realize their goals
as well.
And the benefit is, once you have effectively communicated
that strategy to them, they are very solid partners to the
municipalities and their neighbors. And there are people who
will get in a room and hash out a strategy that previously you
didn't want to talk together.
And the plan is that these are also implementation
strategies at their core. This is about getting investments. So
you are creating partnerships and staging projects on
particular properties as catalysts in supporting that show a
whole spread of things that can happen on these brownfield
properties.
Mr. Tonko. In terms of value added, what does area-wide
planning has the greatest value added provide?
Mr. Henry. I think it magnifies the effect of the
Brownfields Program in general.
Mr. Tonko. OK.
Mr. Henry. And we stop talking about individual properties
and we start talking about entire communities and
neighborhoods.
Mr. Tonko. And in terms of coming together as an area, is
it a common contaminant--if there is a contaminant, is it
common use?
Mr. Henry. Sometimes you look at--some of these area-wide
planning projects are occurring in industrial areas that are
trying to modernize and address--and so the environmental
issues and infrastructure issues won't be a burden for new
industry moving in. Other times these are automobile--these are
like commercial corridors with a lot of automobile-related
brownfield sites, like small infield gas stations and
automotive. But, no, you are almost always talking about
multiple types of contamination.
Mr. Tonko. OK. And, Ms. Eady, I am grateful, certainly, for
your cause to recognize the role that these cleanups play in
promoting environmental justice. Many brownfields are in
distressed communities that need additional technical
assistance and capacity building to get the projects done. Can
you explain the role that nonprofits currently play in
remediating our brownfields?
Ms. Eady. Well, a lot of nonprofits are--play the role,
kind of as Mr. Henry described, leading these planning efforts
and things of that sort. But we have directly provided
technical assistance to cities and towns, whether it is in
describing the liability protections or what the appropriate
end uses are for the level of contamination in the property.
We are working in coalition with a bunch of groups in a
mill town in Massachusetts where there are some community
development corporations that are involved in other kind of
quasi-nonprofit/quasi-public organizations to do broad planning
efforts like the type that would be done in area-wide planning.
Mr. Tonko. Do you think that there is a larger role for
nonprofits to play in working on the assessment and cleanup
efforts?
Ms. Eady. I think that there is absolutely an expanded role
that can be played. And I think that were nonprofits to have
access to EPA public brownfield funding, I think that the role
would probably expand and evolve.
My organization has a lot of close ties, particularly at
the community level. And I do believe that if funding were
available, we would be able to strike partnerships with some of
these communities and play the more scientific role and
advisory role.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And if I could just have you across
the board state what you think the caps ought to look like. And
I would offer the caveat that we wouldn't reduce the amount of
award winners but appropriately increase the overall pot. But
what do you think we should do with the caps? If you could do
that across the board, please. And start with Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. What did we use earlier? A million, I
believe, was one of the proposed caps. A million would probably
be a good cap. That is a lot of money to spend, and you do have
to have quite a bit of prior planning. But when you get these
coal gasification sites, like you mentioned in your roundtable,
they are very challenging to deal with and they can cost much,
much more.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. It is good to see you again, by the
way.
Mayor?
Mr. Bollwage. Yes. Mr. Tonko, in my testimony I said a
million dollars. And then also for special circumstances to go
to $2 million.
Mr. Tonko. And, Mr. Henry?
Mr. Henry. Yes. I believe with the caveat that the number
of recipients wouldn't be decreased, I think a million dollars
is a reasonable number.
Mr. Tonko. Ms. Romig?
Ms. Romig. I find a million is reasonable as well.
Ms. Eady. Yes. I agree, and also as Mr. Henry provided.
Mr. Shimkus. Just pull that mike over again.
Ms. Eady. I agree, and also with Mr. Henry's proviso that
it doesn't shrink the number of grants.
Mr. Tonko. I hear you. We don't want to do that.
Ms. Eady. In a perfect world, yes.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Well, you sound like you are getting along.
So that is great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of our full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to first ask
Mr. Anderson a question and then go to Mayor Bollwage.
Mr. Anderson, you note in your testimony--I know you
touched upon this, but I wanted to ask it directly. You note in
your testimony that the average grant award has declined. Do
you think an increase in the cap on individual grants would
assist communities, particularly as they try to revitalize
sites with more complicated cleanups? I know you answered it,
but I would like to ask you that directly.
Mr. Anderson. The caps for the individual communities or--
--
Mr. Pallone. On individual grants, yes.
Mr. Anderson. I think it will help the communities--you
know, it is hard to say. Most of the communities are going to
go for the maximum amount because of the difficulty in getting
to that point. So why would you go for less than whatever the
maximum is for a specific grant, such as $200,000? Some of the
grants that I did mention are the 128(a), which is a subset.
And those have decreased as more entities have come to the
table, the States, the tribes, and the territories. But I hate
to say it: More money does help.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Now let me go to Mayor Bollwage. You
mentioned your town, Elizabeth, received a grant under the
regional pilot program in the 1990s. Correct?
Mr. Bollwage. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. We heard from Mr. Stanislaus earlier that the
EPA has started another pilot program, the multipurpose grant
program to give communities more flexibility. Do you think that
having that greater flexibility, like that afforded to
communities with the multipurpose grants, would assist them
better in cleaning up the contaminated sites?
Mr. Bollwage. Yes, I do, Congressman. Also, you know, the
city of Elizabeth is currently using two 2011 EPA community-
wide assessment grants for hazardous substances and petroleum
in our midtown redevelopment area. So in answer to your
question, I believe yes.
Mr. Pallone. I mean, I think that the flexibility is
valuable. Then the most important issue, which was mentioned
repeatedly today, is the need for adequate funding. I just like
you to comment on, you know, higher funding levels for the
program, and, you know, what it would mean to Elizabeth in
redeveloping brownfield properties.
Mr. Bollwage. Congressman, higher funding levels could
allow for some reasonable administrative costs, which was
testimony not only here, but also by Mr. Stanislaus. Also, one
of the testimonies on this panel was addressing mothballed
sites, which are clearly forgotten. I don't know New Bedford as
well, but we have them in Elizabeth as well where they are just
totally forgotten and they sit there. Additional funding would
help us address mothballed sites. And also, the clarifying of
the eligibility of the publicly owned sites before 2002,
financing would help address that issue as well, Congressman.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks a lot.
Ms. Eady, would you agree or comment on what the mayor
said?
Ms. Eady. I agree with the mayor. And I was just thinking
about what other contexts additional funding, particularly to
the nonprofit sector, would be helpful. And in thinking about
New Bedford, one of our partner organizations in New Bedford
called the Buzzards Bay Coalition was given a technical
assistance grant to work on one of New Bedford's Superfund
sites. This was the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site. And with
the technical assistance grants that they were able to get,
they were able to directly support the local community so the
community understood the process, which, of course, is very
complex, and, you know, that they understood the science.
And I think that that is a--really a critical role. And it
is really important to bring the community along, and
particularly in New Bedford where, because there is so much
contamination, there is this really amazing level of distrust.
And I imagine that this is not unique to other parts of the
country.
And so I think that with nonprofits able to access funding,
we could play an important role so that communities wouldn't
be--would be less likely to oppose redevelopment projects.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks a lot. You know, I was--I
really enjoy hearing how the Brownfields Program has helped so
many communities. I don't know if I mentioned to my colleagues,
I don't actually represent Elizabeth where Mayor Bollwage is,
but just south is Carteret, which is a much smaller town.
But if you think about it, Mayor, I mean, same phenomenon.
I mean, you know, how many sites in Carteret have been cleaned
up? And there again, it is a much smaller community that
doesn't--you know, probably even has less resources because of
its size. And when we talk about adequate funding, it is so
important not only for Elizabeth, for a lot of the smaller
towns.
Because New Jersey, Mr. Chairman, has--you know, we have a
lot of towns. And people think of Newark and, you know, larger
cities. But, I mean, most of the towns I represent have less
than 40,000 people, but yet they have the same situation as
Elizabeth. So----
Mr. Bollwage. Carteret has done a remarkable job on the
waterfront with the brownfields from the petroleum industry
years ago, and they have created into warehouses. And Mayor
Reiman is extremely proud of his efforts in Carteret.
Mr. Pallone. Yes. I know, it is true. And we have more
brownfield sites than any other State. I guess that is no
surprise.
Mr. Shimkus. I thought you would have had that all cleaned
up by now. All these years you have been here, I thought you
would have had that fixed.
Mr. Pallone. We keep trying.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
We want to thank you for coming. And even though there is
just a few of us left, you do have the chairman of the
subcommittee, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and the
ranking member of the full committee. I think that shows our
interest and the importance of this issue. We look forward to
working together as we move forward.
And with that I will adjourn the hearing. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Mr. Bollwage's answers to submitted questions for the
record have been retained in committee files and also are
available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20160421/
104837/HHRG-114-IF18-Wstate-BollwageJ-20160421-U1.pdf.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]