[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BROWNFIELDS: LESSONS FROM THE FIELD
=======================================================================
(107-6)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 15, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-356 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
STEPHEN HORN, California BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JACK QUINN, New York ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan Columbia
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama JERROLD NADLER, New York
STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SUE W. KELLY, New York CORRINE BROWN, Florida
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana BOB FILNER, California
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JOHN COOKSEY, Lousiana FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,
JERRY MORAN, Kansas California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JIM DEMINT, South Carolina EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska MAX SANDLIN, Texas
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia NICK LAMPSON, Texas
MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
HENRY E, BROWN, JR, South Carolina MARION BERRY, Arkansas
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
C.L. (BUTCH) OTTER, Idaho
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
STEPHEN HORN, California GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SUE W. KELLY, New York NICK LAMPSON, Texas
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas MARION BERRY, Arkansas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska BOB FILNER, California
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana California
DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana, Vice- BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
Chair MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
C.L. (BUTCH) OTTER, Idaho JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas (Ex Officio)
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Abolt, William F., Commissioner of Environment, City of Chicago,
Illinois....................................................... 4
Brown, Jack, Environmental Health Director, Wichita-Sedgwick
County Department of Community Health, City of Wichita, Kansas. 4
Hoover, Thomas R., City Manager, City of Worcester, Massachusetts 4
McCrory, Hon. Patrick L., Mayor, City of Charlotte, North
Carolina....................................................... 17
Pawenski, Christopher S., Coordinator, Industrial Assistance
Program, County of Erie, New York.............................. 4
Williams, James R., Brownfields Manager, Air Pollution Control
Bureau, City of Chattanooga, Tennessee......................... 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, of Oregon................................. 33
McGovern, Hon. James P., of Massachusetts........................ 44
Millender-McDonald, Hon. Juanita, of California.................. 44
Otter, Hon. Butch, of Idaho...................................... 45
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Abolt, William F................................................. 29
Brown, Jack...................................................... 34
Hoover, Thomas R................................................. 37
McCrory, Hon. Patrick L.......................................... 41
Pawenski, Christopher S.......................................... 45
Williams, James R................................................ 48
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Murray, Timothy P., Councillor-at-Large, statement............... 55
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, R. Bruce Josten, statement............. 52
(v)
BROWNFIELDS: LESSONS FROM THE FIELD
----------
Thursday, March 15, 2001
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment, Washington,
D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:32 a.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan,
Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Duncan. I would like to call this hearing on
brownfields redevelopment to order.
First of all, I want to welcome everyone to our hearing
today, and especially welcome our witnesses who have come to us
from around the country.
We are very privileged today to have before us
representatives of communities from all over the Nation who are
doing the real work of putting abandoned property back into
productive use.
There are over 400,000 brownfield sites across the United
States. In fact, I've seen some estimates as high as 600,000 or
650,000 sites.
Even though these sites are often located near existing
highways, railroads, and water infrastructure, relatively few
investors are interested in redeveloping them.
A major reason for the reluctance to invest in brownfields
redevelopment is uncertainty.
It is far riskier to develop a brownfield site than to
develop an open space. A brownfield site may be contaminated,
and if contamination is found the cleanup sites may be very
expensive and it may be a very time-consuming process.
There are ways to reduce these risks, by conducting site
assessments, providing liability protections, by providing
cleanup assistance. These tools have been used by States and
communities to lower the barriers to brownfields redevelopment
and could be adopted in Federal legislation.
This is an oversight hearing today. We are not focusing now
on any specific legislative proposal, but I know there is a
great deal of interest in moving a brownfields bill during this
session. We made a lot of progress on this issue during the
last Congress under the leadership of the former chairman of
this subcommittee, Congressman Boehlert, who has now become the
chairman of the full Science Committee. This remains unfinished
business for the subcommittee.
There are other Superfund issues that need to be addressed,
and I hope that we can look at issues such as natural resource
damages and small business liability to assess the feasibility
of moving forward with the legislative action.
As we discuss the best approach to follow and before we sit
down together and draft language to encourage brownfields
redevelopment, I think it is appropriate for the subcommittee
to hear from people out in the field who are actually
redeveloping brownfields to ensure that whatever legislation we
craft addresses their needs.
We will hear from Mr. William Abolt, who is commissioner of
the Chicago Department of Environment; Mr. Jack Brown,
environmental health director from Wichita, Kansas; Mr. James
Williams, the brownfields program manager from Chattanooga,
Tennessee; Mr. Thomas Hoover, who is the city manager of
Worcester, Massachusetts; and Mr. Christopher Pawenski, who is
coordinator, industrial assistance program, Buffalo, New York.
We then later will hear from Mayor Patrick McCrory of
Charlotte, North Carolina, who will tell us about Charlotte's
experiences with brownfields redevelopment.
The witnesses that we have before us today are out in the
field taking risks, overcoming obstacles, and achieving
successes. I know we can learn a lot from them. We want to hear
about what you've done right, what you've done wrong, and the
ways that we can help you here in the Congress, and what your
needs are now. I've read all the testimony. We're going to hear
about the Heart of Wichita's program, in which they've done
some very successful things. We're going to hear about some
innovative things that have taken place in Chattanooga and some
things the State of Tennessee hopes to do, and, of course, to
all of these witnesses we do appreciate your coming in.
Now I'd like to recognize my good friend, the ranking
member of the subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A lot of folks think of brownfields as an urban issue. I
represent a District with one urban center, but it is a very
large District with a lot of small cities and a number of
counties. Brownfields are very much an issue in my District,
particularly after having had a lumber and wood products
industry dispersed throughout many of the rural areas. We find
that a lot of brownfield sites are in very small cities, towns,
and even rural areas, so this is a problem which impacts all
Members of Congress and is a very important issue.
I think that there is virtually consensus--unusual for this
Congress--on something. The consensus is that there should be
financial assistance to communities for the assessment and
cleanup of brownfields in order to put these sites back into
use. There is, I believe, a consensus that we should protect
prospective purchasers, innocent landowners, and contiguous
property owners from liability. Those provisions I think could
be part of successful brownfields legislation.
There is one item that I'm hoping the witnesses can help us
work through on the so-called issue of finality. The question
is, when sites are cleaned up under the aegis of a State agency
what role does the Federal Government play?
My own personal first shot at this is that if the Feds
approve the plan and approve that it was executed properly they
wouldn't get another bite at the apple. Sometimes the State,
under State law, conducts an inadequate cleanup without the
involvement of the Feds, and the site continues to threaten
adjacent property owners or human health. In some cases in the
northwest, the plumes will move toward our rivers; imperiling
the river's resources. In these cases there is a question about
how and when the Feds come back in and how that is dealt with.
The protections would still extend, in my vision, to the
innocent landowners and purchasers, but we would still have the
authority to go back after the original polluters.
This is an issue where there is some disagreement and there
has been provided some contention in the past. I'm hoping that
the witnesses today can help us find our way through this issue
so we can find a consensus and add it to the other areas where
I believe there is already broad consensus.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Horn?
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a key measure of our environmental programs, and I
look forward to the testimony and the questioning.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. Blumenauer. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Dr. Ehlers?
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate your holding this hearing. I have been a
strong supporter of brownfields for some time. It is absolutely
essential if we are going to protect our green spaces that we
activate a good program for dealing with brownfields, and I
hope eventually rewrite Superfund so that we can take care of
the problem, there, as well.
I thank you for holding the hearing.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Kelly?
Mrs. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say that I think this is an issue of critical
importance for our Nation, as a whole.
As we talk about the need for saving green spaces, we also
need to look at what we have in terms of spaces that we might
be able to rehabilitate for human habitation and for use and
put as tax ratables on our communities' rolls. I think making
progress on this issue is something that will require local as
well as State and Federal working together, partnerships. And
so I am delighted that you, as panelists, are here today to
talk about this with us, and I thank you very much for allowing
me to be here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much. You've made a good
point there. We're looking for the proper partnership between
the local and State and Federal Governments, and that's what
these witnesses I think are going to talk to us about.
We do proceed in the order in which the witnesses are
listed on the call of the hearing, and that means, Mr. Abolt,
you will be first, and you can begin your statement, please.
STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM F. ABOLT, COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENT,
CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS; JACK BROWN, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DIRECTOR, WICHITA-SEDGWICK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
HEALTH, CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS; JAMES R. WILLIAMS, BROWNFIELDS
MANAGER, AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BUREAU, CITY OF CHATTANOOGA,
TENNESSEE; THOMAS R. HOOVER, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF WORCESTER,
MASSACHUSETTS; AND CHRISTOPHER S. PAWENSKI, COORDINATOR,
INDUSTRIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, COUNTY OF ERIE, NEW YORK
Mr. Abolt. Good morning, Chairman Duncan. I'd like to thank
you, the ranking member, and the members of the committee for
the opportunity to come talk with you today about Chicago's
brownfields program and what Mayor Daley has done to apply the
idea of recycling well beyond cans and bottles and apply it to
the communities in which we live.
Under the Mayor's leadership, he has implemented one of the
most comprehensive brownfields programs in the Nation based on
that idea of recycling our land, and that program is a program
that was created out of necessity. We simply cannot have
development in the City of Chicago without addressing the
fundamental problem of environmental contamination. In fact,
our specific strategy of bringing industrial jobs back to the
City and making sure that we have jobs for all Chicagoans is
based on brownfields redevelopment.
We have been successful in cleaning up a number of sites.
At this point we have over 20 sites completed and 70 underway.
Over 1,000 acres are in the process, 2,200 jobs have already
been created, and several million dollars have been added to
the city's tax rolls. We have been able to do that by getting
down to the business of cleaning up sites, identifying and
eliminating obstacles to those cleanups, and, finally, through
partnerships. Brownfields simply cannot be cleaned up without
partnerships--strong partnerships with the Federal Government,
particularly USEPA, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development; Department of Energy and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, but also with the private sector and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, at least in our case.
We are now trying to take our program one step further and
not just focus on cleaning up problems of the past, but how to
develop in a way that we learn the lessons of those past
problems and begin to chart a new course for industrial and
energy development in the City of Chicago, and we hope cities
throughout the United States.
I want to provide for you three specific examples of
projects that we've undertaken that I think indicate are good
examples of what has worked for us and I think what works for
others.
Those three examples focus first on a model of green
development in the City of Chicago, where we've looked at our
problems of environmental contamination as opportunities and
used changes in the energy marketplace to bring new
development, new design, and over 100 jobs to a site that was
excessively contaminated.
Secondly, I want to talk about how the City, in cooperation
with Governor Ryan and the State of Illinois, is taking
ecological and industrial restoration--we're trying to bring an
entire region back together.
And then finally I want to talk about tackling some of the
small neighborhood brownfields that may not seem like a lot
when looked at, in the city as a whole, but can be absolutely
devastating unless we clean them up for neighborhoods.
The first project was a contaminated site with over 500,000
cubic yards of construction demolition debris on it that had
gotten out of control. The owner declared bankruptcy and got
out of the business of crushing rock. The City, out of
necessity, took ownership of the site, opened it up as a rock
crushing facility, took all of the recycled material, used it
in our own infrastructure projects, and saved the City
government over $1 million, and then focused on how we could
turn that eyesore into an asset.
Working with our local chapter of the American Institute of
Architects, our local utility, and Department of Energy, we
attracted to that site a new manufacturer of solar panels
through a City commitment to buy and establish renewable power.
The building, itself, that was left on the site is about to
open up in about the next 60 days, and is really, we think, a
national model of how to do energy efficient and
environmentally friendly design.
Besides 100 jobs in solar manufacturing, it will also house
Mayor Daley's community gardening program, which trains about
25 hard-to-employ people a year in community gardening skills,
puts them to work in neighborhoods throughout the City, and
then places them in permanent jobs.
So the idea is to take a site, recycle it and bring back
green jobs to the site. Look what we can do with a property.
The second one, in the summer the Mayor and the Governor
announced a program to take the southeast side of Chicago, over
20 square miles, and bring back both ecological and industrial
resources. It is the home of our former steel industry, as well
as over 3,000 acres of wetland. The Mayor and the Governor have
committed over $40 million to bring those properties back
together, to reconnect the hydrology, and to recognize that
ecological restoration of parcels can actually be an amenity
that attracts additional businesses.
Since their announcement, Ford has announced that it is
coming to town and creating over 1,000 jobs there. We are going
to take a site with the State that was very close to becoming a
Superfund site and, with the cooperation of Illinois EPA and
USEPA, we are, instead, turning it into the largest solar-
generating station in the United States, with solar panels made
from the site I just described and a large landfill site.
The third is a program to successfully tackle neighborhood
brownfields through cleanup and redevelopment of abandoned
service stations. We had about 500 abandoned service stations
in the City of Chicago. Using a combination of City funding and
enforcement tools, we have been able to turn around over 100 of
those sites already, some cleaned up by the City and others
cleaned up by the private sector. They have been used for
everything from parks to property to day care to new retail
development.
All of those projects have been achieved through a variety
of tools, including Federal, State, local, and private
investment. We have learned several lessons from it. I want to
share a couple of those lessons with you and then I will close.
First, the assessment grants that have been provided to us
from the Federal Government are particularly valuable in
figuring out what the cleanup cost of properties are going to
be. There is some opportunity to eliminate some of the
duplicated costs between State and Federal requirements. We
would like the committee to look closely at that so that
Federal dollars can go much further, and we can look at more
sites.
Second, the issue of financing cleanups. We need to
recognize that not every brownfield site works as a strict
economic deal. There is an incremental cost that needs to be
covered, probably by governmental funding and action. It can be
provided through either dollars or through tax incentives, but
we've got to address the fact that some of these development
deals are upside-down, and we should look at that upside-down
problem as an infrastructure problem.
Cleaning up a site is no different than building a sewer or
building a road. If we eliminate the obstacles and provide the
resources, we can get sites cleaned up.
Finally, we've got to deal with the issue of Superfund
liability, we believe, particularly for municipalities. We have
found that a key to the success of our brownfields program is
based on one idea, and that is the City's willingness to step
into the chain of title to relieve liability for property
owners.
We do believe that if cities take that step and do all the
right things in cooperation with the State and the Federal
Government, they need to be provided some level of protection
in cooperation with the State and Federal Government. I think
if we do that we'll see more brownfields cleaned up and we'll
eliminate the kind of amazed looks that we still get from
private and government parties who just can't believe that the
City would take the step of stepping into the chain of title.
Again, I thank you very much for the opportunity to be
here. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Abolt. Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I am Jack Brown, environmental health director, city
of Wichita, Kansas, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before this committee.
I'd like to share with you what I consider one of the early
brownfields projects in the United States. Many years ago--it's
not that many years ago, but about eight to ten years ago our
city was faced with a challenge from a legacy of industrial
practices resulting in groundwater contamination.
As you well know, environmental contamination has a
dramatic impact on the value of real estate, creates
uncertainty in the marketplace, and when the issue of cleanup
costs and liability appear it really creates problems in terms
of dealing with these sites.
In 1990, our city was faced with pollution that turned out
to impact 8,000 acres of land in our downtown and surrounding
residential areas. This particular parcel of land or parcels of
land had a tax base of about $86 million.
When we looked at this site, we were just in the beginnings
of a $300 million downtown revitalization. Well, the fact that
we found this contamination pretty well put that on hold.
Lenders, realtors were all telling us that no one was buying
property because of the Superfund liability issues, and we
looked at the options that were available to us. There were
potential environmental threats, health threats. Our
revitalization had been stalled, property values were going
down. The city was faced with a situation that we would be
losing revenue from our tax base.
As a consequence, it is a story that has been told before,
but we established a number of agreements with the State and
EPA, local lenders, and developed a financial plan to address
the cost of the cleanup--the investigation and the cleanup--
through tax increment financing, all the time wanting to look
at the ultimate payer of these costs as being the polluters
that caused the problem.
We made these agreements. One of the most unique aspects of
our early program was to establish, much as the representative
from Chicago stated, some type of local initiative and local
responsibility for some of this liability, and we established
an agreement with many of the lending institutions in our
community to honor a certificate and release of environmental
liability.
What this meant was that we would grant an innocent
property owner a liability release for the contamination, and
they could go on as soon as the banks accepted this to purchase
property and expand existing properties, whatever the case may
be. It pretty well cleared liability issues.
We have been in this project for several years. We are
starting cleanup. We have made settlements with a number of the
responsible parties in the area. And we feel we have done a
very good job in taking an area that was depressed, didn't look
like it had much future because of this contamination, took a
local initiative, and we able to turn it around.
We have now developed an Old Town area with restaurants,
stores, that type of thing. We have a couple of Federal
facilities. The Federal Government has looked at this project
and said, ``We accept this approach.'' We have also had a State
office building that has been located in the area.
As a consequence of all of that, we have expanded our
brownfields program. Well, we've expanded that particular
program to another area of our community known as the ``north
industrial corridor.'' The success of this original project,
which is called ``Gilbert & Mosley'' project, led to the EPA
allowing us to de-list an NPL site and apply the same model in
that particular area.
We now have roughly ten square miles of the center of our
city under this, what I consider one of the original
brownfields programs.
In addition to that, these concepts of addressing liability
issues have been expanded into our brownfield program and, as
the chairman mentioned, the heart of Wichita program is our
latest initiative. Basically, it is a package of 50 different
recommendations that have been made to our City Council, and
they have accepted it. It is everything from changing codes to
dealing with environmental issues, putting together financial
packages to revitalize and redevelopment not only our downtown
area, but approximately an area that is the old Wichita, five
square miles of downtown Wichita.
We've been very successful in that program, at least in the
initial phases, and look forward to dealing with EPA in terms
of the assessment grants. That's very critical, as has been
mentioned. The assessment grants and cleanup grants and funding
in those particular areas will be a vital part of our heart of
Wichita program.
Still, I think there are some things that remain to be
done. Clarify authority for cities on this liability release
when we're dealing with this contaminated sites. There needs to
be more funding, as we've said--maybe a little less
bureaucracy--and allow cities to continue to take these
initiatives and be able to solve their own problems.
I think that that concludes my remarks. Some of the remarks
made by the representative from Chicago are along the same
lines as mine. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, for the
invitation to be here today. As a proud Tennessean, I applaud
you, Congressman Zach Wamp, and the distinguished members of
this subcommittee for this opportunity to address you to
provide positive evidence of the impact Federal, State, and
local dollars have had on the brownfields reclamation process
in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
I am James R. Williams, and I am the brownfields program
manager for the city of Chattanooga. Both our Mayor Jon Kinsey
and County Executive Claude Ramsey send their regrets that they
are not able to be here today to testify.
I wish to speak about our local brownfields efforts. In
1998, city and county governments designated our local Air
Pollution Control Bureau to establish a local brownfields
program. This program, focused primarily on the inner-city
neighborhood of Alton Park, was created to address tax revenues
lost when industry left this neighborhood, the need to develop
industrial sites for economic development, the need to create
jobs, and the need to mitigate the environmental risks
associated with idle, vacant properties.
Both governments, working in a bipartisan way and
committing funding, received additional funding from a
partnership developed by five local utility providers.
Throughout the United States, cities are taking on the
challenge of smart growth. Redevelopment of brownfields sites
is an integral component of smart growth. Redevelopment of
these sites reduces contamination and preserves undeveloped
greenfields sites and reduces the need for additional
infrastructure while expanding the local tax base.
Before continuing with specific aspects of our program, I
think it is necessary to develop a context for its develop.
Chattanooga's successful air pollution reduction actions are
widely recognized as the springboard to current local
sustainable development initiatives. Over the last 30 years,
our city has cleaned up its environmental act, and many events
helped to make this change, but it was one process of visioning
that acted as the main catalyst. Visioning, or ``charrette,''
is the process of facilitated public dialogue designed to bring
together various community stakeholders with different points
of view and establish understanding where differences exist.
The result is community census.
Census developed through the visioning process allows the
creation of a set of goals and projects and provides guidelines
for those whose test it is to implement them. The visioning
process enables the developments of plans of action necessary
to experience real results.
My complete written testimony cites successful examples of
our local brownfield redevelopment efforts generated through
our local visioning processes; however, for the sake of
brevity, I will forego the specific details of these successes
in my verbal testimony today.
If smart growth in the form of environmental protection and
community development is our destination, then economic
development is the vehicle for getting there. The bad news is
that the redevelopment of the 400,000 to 600,000 brownfield
sites in this country is a major effort. The good news,
however, is that there is private investment capital available
for the task. Smart growth and economic development are co-
related. It brings groups who may have been antagonists in the
past toward working together for common goals.
In Chattanooga we are fortunate to have a legacy of
successful brownfield projects throughout our greater community
to provide the foundation for our recently-created brownfields
office. Clearly, it was visioning that was our common thread of
success, and this process now guides the implementation of our
program.
In the last 18 months, our program has secured two Federal
EPA grants, the 200,000 brownfields demonstration assessment,
and the new 100,000 Superfund redevelopment initiative grants.
Additionally, and most important, the brownfields program
is a partner in the successful 35 million Hope Six
revitalization grant awarded to our local housing authority for
Spencer McCallie Homes, a public housing development in the
heart of our pilot community.
This partnership of Federal dollars targets a community
that has a diverse mix of brownfield redevelopment channels
such as abandoned manufacturing sites, old residential
neighborhoods, and a need for economic stimulus in the
community.
This three-square-mile area has many, many acres that could
be developed for residential, industrial, or commercial use.
Located within the communities are employment centers that have
had recent expansions of operation; however, it still remains
one of the most economically depressed areas in our city.
As part of the grants' work plans, we recognize a need for
a complete comprehensive redevelopment and revitalization of
this community. Fortunately, our planning process received full
support and commitment of the mayor and county executive, our
City Council, and the Hamilton County Commission. Our elected
officials worked in a bipartisan way to fuel a resident-driven
revitalization plan.
Over the past year, John Kinsey initiated a public meeting
in this target community attended by over 250 persons. The city
and county then funded a four-day charrette. The consultant
team facilitated a visioning planning process with over 500
diverse stakeholder participants, including the participants
from State of Tennessee and USEPA region four. Our resulting
master plan was adopted by the City Council in October.
Without this citizen involvement, without the partnering
between various levels of government, serious conflict,
mistrust, and delaying interventions may have occurred, which
would have made it difficult for a positive change to occur;
however, currently new investment has begun in this community,
with the stage being set for more. Our processes enhance
accountability, empowerment, continued involvement, which is
the Chattanooga way.
The goal of our program is to facilitate these brownfields
using brownfields remediation and reuse of active community
participation and involvement. Our charrette was an important
first step. Now the stage is set for the next critical
elements, which are securing additional funding and developing
clarity about liability issues.
Uncertainty is the single impediment to the brownfields
development. Unfortunately, current environmental law creates
uncertainties about potential liabilities. This uncertainty may
be minimized somewhat through intensive, up-front environmental
investigations. Even if the investigations are conducted, there
is no guarantee that redevelopment will occur unless there is a
potential way to know the negative impacts; thus, the
uncertainty creates inaction, capital goes elsewhere, leaving
brownfields sites undeveloped.
Legislation has been drafted by the State of Tennessee to
minimize uncertainty caused by State environmental laws and
regulations. The legislation is designed to clarify the
liability for future owners and current owners. Prospective
purchasers and developers will be able to enter into a firm
voluntary agreement with the State of Tennessee to accept
responsibilities. If cleanup criteria is predicted on future
land use patterns, mechanisms can be made available to ensure
that the land use will be limited. State voluntary agreements
foster these new uses of brownfield sites.
The role of the Federal Government is to facilitate
business, communities, and local governments in accepting their
responsibility for smart growth redevelopment of brownfield
sites. It is critical for the Federal Government to expand its
role. Current agreements between prospective purchasers and the
State to conduct voluntary cleanups are not protected from
future additional requirements by the Federal Government. This
creates another form of uncertainty that inhibits
redevelopment.
The Federal Government can support the efforts of State and
local government through grants for the creation and operation
of municipal brownfields programs to jump start brownfield
redevelopment. Private investors will also be able to redevelop
sites through normal means, while some sites have negative
value. The great majority of these sites would never be
redeveloped without investment of public dollars.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to appropriate
money targeted specifically for brownfield develop. Further
existing programs should make brownfield redevelopments a
priority.
In summary, the development of our local brownfields has
occurred in a variety of ways. Environmental factors, alone, do
not necessarily control our processes. There are factors beyond
environmental contamination that drove these projects. In most
cases, economic factors were prime determinants of each
project. Our local brownfields projects offer the best
opportunity to not only recycle land, but better utilize
existing infrastructure. Each of our successes have had the
positive components of partnership with all levels of
government, public and private investment, combined with a
successful public input process.
Each of these assessments require the necessity of
coalition building and utilize the charrette's process. This
same methodology will continue to be the prototype for our
local brownfields program. Our design is simple: bring the
community together, hear a plan, and establish coordinated
solutions, which is the Chattanooga way.
Again, on behalf of the citizens and elected
representatives of the city of Chattanooga and Hamilton County,
I thank this subcommittee for this opportunity, and I will be
pleased to answer your questions.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.
We've moved a little faster than expected through the first
part of the hearing, and so I would like to ask unanimous
consent--Congressman Wamp wanted to introduce Mr. Williams, and
he got here for just about all of Mr. Williams' testimony, but
I would like to call on Congressman Wamp at this time for any
remarks he wishes to make.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, for the courtesy. I
will be brief.
This subcommittee is really fortunate to have Chairman
Duncan as its chairman in the future. He is really a great
leader, and what he did for aviation over the last six years
I'm sure he is going to do for water resources.
Thank you for hearing Secretary Whitman's call for action
on brownfield redevelopment, and thank you for allowing a
distinguished Tennessean to come and testify today and
recognizing that we have--Earl Blumenauer knows, because he has
been there--in the city of Chattanooga some great brownfield
redevelopment opportunities.
This particular community that James Williams grew up in
and his family has served in so well was contaminated in large
part by the Federal Government, so it is a perfect brownfield
redevelopment opportunity. We have had a national priorities
listing site there to clean up Chattanooga Creek. That was
initiated in this subcommittee when I served on the
subcommittee several years ago.
I'm not going to introduce him because it would be like
introducing the Chicago Bulls after the game. I had a group at
the Capitol I was taking through. Chairman Duncan knows all too
well, when you've got a bunch of constituents you've got to try
to be there for them.
Thank you for the courtesy, and thank you, James Williams,
for your leadership back home.
He used to block my little brother's shots in basketball
games as they went to regional championship, and his team
prevailed. He's a distinguished basketball player and graduate
of Vanderbilt University. He has served our city very well in
banking and small business, and now in government, handling our
brownfields redevelopment opportunities.
We believe we have a lot to offer and we believe that the
Secretary is exactly right in moving forward with this most
important program of brownfields opportunities all across the
country.
I hope this subcommittee is instrumental in shaping new
policies that will make it easier to put these unproductive
assets back into productive use.
I thank you very much for the unanimous consent and I yield
back.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you. Thank you very much, Congressman
Wamp, for taking the time out of your very busy schedule to be
here with us.
Next we will hear from Mr. Hoover.
Mr. Hoover. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of the city of Worcester, Massachusetts, I thank
your honorable body for the opportunity to give testimony on
the issue of brownfields redevelopment and the city of
Worcester's effort to date in order to conquer this major urban
problem.
I also want to take the time to thank Congressman James
McGovern for his tireless legislative efforts regarding
brownfields and related urban issues.
The city of Worcester is the second-largest city in New
England. Together with our surrounding communities, it
represents a historic industrial center which gained prominence
as a major producer of manufactured goods that were critical to
the advancement of the American industrial revolution.
Worcester's legacy as a city of innovation and invention
continues today, as we enter the new millennium. Named an all-
America city in 2000 by the National League of Cities, the
city's innovative approaches to social, economic, and quality
of life issues have been nationally recognized.
As with similar urban centers across the United States, and
particularly in the northeast, a major deterrent to continued
growth and expansion of our economic base is the lack of
readily-available and-developable industrial sites in
Worcester.
The controlling factor in the lack of suitable sites is
contamination, and that's brownfields contamination. Virtually
all of the city's industrially-zoned land has been previously
developed, and, of the 2,089 acres of industrially-zoned land
in Worcester, approximately 25 percent of over 200 sites are
classified by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection as experiencing various levels of contamination.
It is well documented that abandoned and/or under-utilized
brownfields sites cause economic distress in surrounding
neighborhoods, which lead to a number of traditional inner-city
social, health, and safety problems.
Worcester's inner-city neighborhoods, which were once
anchored by large manufacturing plants, are now fractured by
the vacant industrial complex that previously provided jobs and
stability to the area.
It is clear that the complexity of the brownfields problem
exceeds the normal market conditions of private enterprise. In
many cases, the cost associated with site remediation exceeds
the base market value of the property. Complex tax and
associated land title issues also exacerbate our ability to
offer construction-ready sites, due to these environmental
problems.
Given these obstacles, it is clear that without continued
public assistance brownfields properties will remain dormant
and a major deterrent to our revitalization efforts.
On the local level, the city of Worcester has been very
proactive in addressing brownfields issues. In 1995, the city
sponsored legislation which established the Central
Massachusetts Economic Development Authority, better known as
CMEDA. This is a regional brownfields redevelopment model based
upon a revolving fund and whose membership includes the city of
Worcester and surrounding communities. CMEDA is currently
limited in its operation due to the lack of financing.
A major investment of some $40 million in city and State
funding was also made in Worcester's central business district
in the mid 1990's which resulted in the assemblage of 30 acres
of contaminated brownfields properties. The city expended
approximately $12 million for cleanup of these properties that
led to the construction of a $240 million hospital facility in
the center of our downtown. The Worcester Medical Center is now
open and adding jobs and tax base to the city of Worcester.
Other projects in the planning stage are the redevelopment
of South Worcester Industrial Park, which is a 25-acre former
industrial complex, and also the Gardner/Kilby Hammond project,
a joint proposal to develop a new Boys and Girls Club, athletic
fields for Clark University, and 100 units of new housing in
the city's Main South district. Again, we are faced with
environmental cleanup issues which hamper our progress with
these plans.
The city has commissioned preliminary environmental
assessments on these properties which indicate that the cost to
remediate the south Worcester industrial area, alone,
approaches some $12 million. The city has also completed
demolition of the former Coes Knife Complex, which was an old
cutlery manufacturer, and is faced with approximately $500,000
in environmental cleanup costs to complete what is planned to
be a neighborhood recreation area.
Other local brownfields redevelopment projects include a
recent 130-room Marriott Courtyard Hotel, which was completed
in 1999. This $20 million private initiative was made possible
utilizing the ownership and conveyance authority of the CMEDA
and was completed under the guidance of a local private
development corporation.
The city has also adopted legislation which waives local
fees for brownfields redevelopment and has adopted the
provisions of Massachusetts general laws, which allow
communities to abate delinquent taxes to promote redevelopment
of brownfield properties.
Finally, in January of this year my staff completed a
comprehensive brownfields redevelopment strategy which outlines
Worcester's future goals relative to brownfields reclamation.
Financing strategies are also a component of this particular
plan.
In short, the city of Worcester, in partnership with the
State and the Federal Government, has been making significant
progress in the area of brownfields redevelopment. In order to
continue this momentum, it is imperative that the public sector
continue to commit resources and technical expertise to the
issue of brownfields redevelopment.
While the level of local, State, and Federal assistance to
date has been significant, I respectfully request that this
committee review existing appropriations with a commitment
towards developing additional resources which will address the
financial gap that prevents private investment in brownfields
sites.
In closing, the city of Worcester has historically been a
leader since the days of the industrial revolution. Now, as the
Information Revolution brings wealth to suburban communities
unencumbered by the past, we are seeking only the tools that
will position Worcester to support itself in the future.
Sufficient land to pursue our current economic agenda is a
prerequisite to our collective public goals, and brownfields
reclamation will play a major role in our efforts.
I thank you very much.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Hoover. Mr. Pawenski?
Mr. Pawenski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the subcommittee. I want to thank you for this
opportunity to speak before you on our redevelopment issues.
My name is Chris Pawenski. I'm Erie County's coordinator of
industrial assistance program. Basically, I'm the facilitator
for the redevelopment of brownfields.
County Executive Joel Giambra sends his regards. He fully
supports any Federal regulation and assistance that will
expedite the redevelopment of our former industrial properties
and our urban cores, therefore, preventing development being
forced out to our valued greenfields.
At this time, though, I'd like to just highlight a few of
the items in my testimony, since you already have copies of it,
and get to the heart of the matter why I am here--that is, to
help you help us.
The County of Erie, in cooperation with all the local
government entities, has been spearheading the revitalization
of 2,000 acres of contiguous brownfields that we have. We have
set our highest priority on a former Bethlehem Steel site,
which I'll talk about today.
This Bethlehem site is in the City of Lackawanna, which
currently has an approximate population of 16,000 people, so it
is a small urban center. This facility, at its peak, employed
about 25,000 people. It was the highest steel-producing
facility during World War II, at the same time the city also
had the highest per capita of veterans in the country.
Today this facility employs less than 1,000 people. When it
closed in 1983, over 20,000 people became out of work. They
(Bethlehem steel) demolished all their buildings so they
wouldn't have to pay taxes on them, so now there's over 1,100
acres of vacant expanse land.
Neighboring property values have plummeted over 50 percent.
Population has decreased by 40 percent. The neighboring
community has become a core of social and environmental
concerns.
I mention this because I believe it should be noted that
not only do the events that lead up to creation brownfields
affect the property, but it should be highly noted how it
affects the surrounding community.
The county decided to focus a 102-acre parcel to create an
industrial park to get things moving. We called together a task
force very early on, and this was the core to some of our
successes--getting early involvement of all agencies, including
the Federal, the State, and the local governments, as well as
private. Because of this early involvement, we learned of a
brownfield initiative pilot program, and we were accepted as
one of four sites in the country for this new initiative. As
EPA brought it to us, we had them in early involvement. This is
very key.
The Steering Committee was created with the State
government, local, and in the headquarters--EPA's headquarters
office, regional office, and the county government. Quickly
from this pilot program we developed short-term and long-term
goals. Our short-term goal was to remove the 100-acre site from
a EPA RCRA order and to get into a State voluntary cleanup
program. Our long-term goal was to set up some type of
procedure that we could continue after this first phase,
continue it on to further redevelopment of this property and
other parts of the 2,000 acres of contiguous brownfield
properties.
It is important to note our successes, though short they
might be so far. Within ten months we reached our first short-
term goal--removing the property from the RCRA order of
consent, although we learned we could have easily have done
this eight years previously if somebody would just ask the
question, ``Can we do this?'' All Bethlehem Steel had to do was
send in a letter requesting it and it could have been done. It
took us eight years to find that out.
The second goal that has been achieved is Bethlehem and the
State of New York are negotiating what they call a ``voluntary
consent order.'' It is not the State's cleanup program--and
I'll get into why it is not, but it is similar. And it is
because we were all able to sit together and put peer pressure
upon each other, the governmental agencies putting peer
pressure onto them, that we were able to get them to sit down
together.
Our long-term goals continue, but you'll find out some of
our barriers will not let them be complete. We continue to try
to achieve them. Whether we will or not, we'll find out. But we
continue--even though the pilot program has ended, the task
force, the Steering Committee, and individuals continue to
maintain contact, because we, as a group, want to see success
of this property being turned around because of the location it
is in and the effect it has on its community.
The barriers--two greatest barriers we encountered: the
State has a policy of not letting properties under EPA's
interim status into their voluntary cleanup program. They
agreed to let Bethlehem start negotiations under a consent
order--this was something unique and never done before by the
State--while we worked at removing the property from interim
status--we took a two-road path to reach our goals.
The unfortunate problem was that this State policy was
based on urging of EPA, of the Federal Government, when they
developed their policy. This is not consistent throughout the
country. Some EPA regions encourage States to allow interim
status properties into voluntary cleanup programs, some don't.
Bethlehem Steel wanted to get in. They're not asking for public
assistance financially. They'll spend their own money. But they
wanted to get into the State's voluntary cleanup program. They
weren't allowed to.
The second-greatest barrier I thought was there was the
lack of proactive direction when we encountered gray areas.
As we tried to get the interim status removed, everybody
involved--all the technical people, all the managers from the
EPA region, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response here
in Washington, the local governments--all agreed, ``Let's amend
the interim status.'' One-page letter, just says we did remove
the order with a property title survey, was amended so we could
get into the official voluntary cleanup program.
After months of working at this, we were told by Federal
attorneys that this would not be allowed. I asked why. They
said, ``It's not allowed.'' I asked for a copy of the law or
regulation. I was told there was not one. I asked, ``Why not?
Why can't we do it?'' They said, ``There's nothing that says
you are allowed.''
Basically, as I told the Conference last year, EPA
Conference, after months of us working together as a team,
stopping the fire drills, getting in the car together, figuring
out which direction we wanted to get into, we came across a
light signal that turned blue. Nobody knew what that meant, but
the team decided to move forward. The attorneys decided to take
the keys out of the car because they didn't know what it meant.
This cannot go on. We need to have proactive commitment,
what's best for the community.
Finally, the heart of the matter is how can you help us and
how can we help you. How can Federal assistance--what can you
to do help expedite the redevelopment of brownfields.
The first thing on the list you'll see is proactive
direction by the leadership of this subcommittee or Members or
Secretaries in Federal Government that when we hit gray areas
we seriously look at what is best for the community if we are
within the laws and regulations that allow us to move forward.
Let's not always take the safest way out by not doing anything.
Secondly, communities should not have to wait to be
selected to a brownfield program or pilot program to move
forward. We were fortunate to be one of four communities
selected in the country. If we were not selected, we would not
be moving forward and in removing of these orders. There should
be a permanent program in place that might have set criteria
that when a community is ready to move forward it applies for
that program.
This program, the initiative that we are involved with,
cost was the time of the probably six employees every two weeks
on a two-hour conference call. I can imagine communities that
are out there that weren't selected that might have been moved
forward if this was a permanent program.
I strongly urge that pilot programs that show success
become permanent, especially when the cost is so insignificant.
One of the keys to this program was everybody coming
together in Buffalo to visit the site for two days and getting
behind closed doors--holding a workshop, getting behind closed
doors, rolling up our sleeves, and agreeing not to leave until
we could get in the right direction.
One of the other things that we urge you to do is think
about providing funding for communities that have significantly
been affected by brownfields. As I mentioned, the city of
Lackawanna is significantly affected. Maybe a special criteria,
but a special funding source maybe to assist them similarly as
you give community development block grant funds out. I think
that would be very important to us, and we strongly encourage
that.
Next is provide significant funding for remediation of
brownfields. Funding is available for assessments and planning,
but not to carry it out. Communities such as Lackawanna do not
have financial resources. It is not uncommon for $100,000 an
acre for remediation. This could be a partnering effort.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Pawenski, thank you very much. We've got to
move on to the next witness and to questions from Members.
We are very honored and pleased to have with us the mayor
of Charlotte, North Carolina. We had him listed as the second
panel because of a plane schedule, but he is now with us.
Mayor Patrick L. McCrory, we are certainly honored and
pleased to have you with us. I started coming to Charlotte
many, many years ago when I was bat boy for the Knoxville
Smokies baseball team for almost five seasons. That was back
when Charlotte was a very small city. A man named Phil Howser
owned the baseball team. Anyway, I've been to Charlotte many
times since then. It has really grown tremendously and seems to
be doing real well.
We're glad to have you with us here, and you may begin your
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK L. MCCRORY, MAYOR, CITY OF CHARLOTTE,
NORTH CAROLINA
Mayor McCrory. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to compliment you and your city of Knoxville also.
Victor Ash is a personal friend of mine, and he just does an
outstanding job as your mayor for many years, and I hope for
many years to come, also.
I am actually wearing two hats today. One is as chairman of
the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Environmental and Energy
Committee, which I have been honored to be chair of that
committee now for three years, and also as mayor of the city of
Charlotte, where I am now in my sixth year as mayor of that
city.
Let me first speak on behalf of the mayors. Throughout this
Nation, whether you are from Knoxville or whether you are from
Texas or whether you are from Portland, Oregon, or Detroit, or
many of these outstanding cities that are testifying here
today, every mayor and every city staff has a passion about
brownfields. In fact, every one of these people can speak
without notes because their personal stories of where
brownfields are helping revive the economic blight that all
cities have within certain areas, especially those areas that
were developed in the 1910s, 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, even up
through the 1990's where we have brownfield remnants at this
point in time.
In fact, most people assume a city like Charlotte, which
now has 550,000 people within its city limits, they see it as
glowing towers and bank buildings and so forth, but we also
have our brownfields--many, many brownfield sites, old cotton
mills, old steel mills, old dry cleaning, gas stations
throughout the city that need cleanup, so it is in cities like
was mentioned New York and Sun Belt cities like Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Every mayor has a passion about brownfields because it is a
method of recycling land. You know, during the past two decades
mayors talked about recycling paper to save their waste in
dumps and so forth. Now it is recycling land, and that is the
best environmental policy that one can have is to recycle land
that was previously used during the past 100 years as our
cities and our Nation grew economically and industrially.
Another thing that brownfields does--and I'm talking to the
choir, hopefully--but it does create jobs. You mentioned
thousands of jobs that can be created in these examples, and
I'm going to give you some specifics of jobs being created in
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Let me also mention something that I think relates to your
committee and some of the other work that you're talking about,
and that is many of our cities are dealing with sprawl--sprawl
going out to greenfields, where your committee has to decide
where to put new roads and highways and transit lines.
If we can clean up the brownfield which is along many of
the existing transit lines that we are now putting mass transit
into, we are going to save money by not having to build new
infrastructure 20, 30, 40, 50 miles outside of our city limits,
which is much, much more costly, and I think that will save
your committee and the Federal Government much money in the
long run.
And the last thing I want to talk about, it builds a tax
base that is currently not there to pay for our schools, to pay
for our police, to pay for our fire, because most of the area
where brownfields currently exist is blighted property, which
is not contributing to our economy whatsoever, and now we are
rebuilding that land that has been just sitting there vacant,
and often those are areas where we have high crime, poor
housing, and it has just become a wasteland in our inner
cities, both in the rust belt and in the sun belt areas of our
country.
So to me it is a win/win situation for the Federal, State,
and local governments for every city, regardless of the size of
city. I want to emphasize, this is not just for cities of a
half a million or two or three million; we also have many
cities with 20,000 or 30,000 people that have brownfields and
they need help in cleaning up and revitalizing their center
town areas, and even their suburbs of small towns.
Let me just give you a few examples of what we are doing in
Charlotte, North Carolina, and we are very, very proud of that.
One example you might see every Sunday when you watch an NFL
football and the Carolina Panthers are on TV. When the Carolina
Panthers--whether it be New Orleans Saints or Dallas Cowboys
come to Charlotte--and the new Houston team will be coming to
Charlotte shortly--they are playing football on the site of a
brownfield in downtown Charlotte, North Carolina, right now
where a 72,000-seat football stadium resides and two practice
fields reside.
It is a fascinating story where the city purchased over
13.4 acres to build a football stadium and practice field
facilities. We spent several million dollars--$3 million to
clean up that site. By the way, we reserved three acres of that
total site to actually put some of the contaminants that we
cleaned up, and those contaminants were still within protected
cells on a protected site. Most people think it is a park, but
it is very nicely fenced off and it looks like a greenfield in
our city, center city, but that is actually where we have some
of the cells buried right near our football stadium, and no one
knows it even exists, and we have wonderful housing in and
around that area because that area is now contained and it is
beautiful. It has just been a wonderful example of using
brownfields site for in-fill development.
By the way, with your committee talking about future
infrastructure and roads, ten years ago that 72,000-seat
football stadium would have been built 20 or 30 miles outside
our center city, where we would have been coming to ask you for
road money and transit money to pay for that much-needed
infrastructure. We didn't need that money because the football
stadium is in downtown Charlotte, where the roads and the
infrastructure and the transit are already in place, so we
consider that to be a wonderful story.
Briefly, some other examples--and I want to give you time
to ask the experts and this mayor questions--we have an area
called the ``south end,'' which is one mile outside of our
center city. This was a 1920's industrial site. It was the
first industrial park in Charlotte, North Carolina. It probably
wasn't far from where you watched the baseball games in
Charlotte.
This was an area of blight just ten years ago because we
had vacant buildings of old cotton mills and steel mills. We
have revitalized that property, cleaned up that property, and
now it is the place to live and work. We are selling $300,000
condominiums on what was once a blighted site just seven years
ago, and now this is where the architects in our city house
their companies, and it is also right along our north transit
line and our south transit line, where we are building a major
mass transit station and we're having further in-fill
development.
It all complements each other, brownfields along with
existing infrastructure, which you are working on.
We are right now also--in 2001, with the help of a $500,000
EPA loan and a $100,000 loan and assessment grants, and we are
using these funds at 2 percent interest to clean up approved
sites and repayment is due following construction projects.
Right now we are working on a shopping center on our west side
in an old industrial area, a shopping center which was taken
over due to the person who used to own the shopping center was
involved in drug sales. The Federal Government took over the
shopping center. We are now revitalizing that shopping center
with the help of some of these loans because some of the
shopping center was contaminated due to an old dry cleaning
firm there, and we're cleaning up that site and we are putting
a police station on that site, in addition to a grocery store,
where we've never had a grocery store on that side of the city.
So things are going extremely well.
In the city of Charlotte we take brownfields so seriously,
and in our State, also, that we just put $60,000 in our budget
just two months ago to hire a permanent State employee in
Charlotte, North Carolina. One of our dilemmas we are having at
the State level, they have wonderful laws, but they don't have
the resources to support that law.
Mr. Chairman, we welcome the opportunity to give you any
more specifics.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mayor McCrory, for
an outstanding statement and very helpful testimony.
Just out of curiosity, where you have built the football
stadium, you said you had the three acres there fenced off and
people just thought it was a greenfield. Is there a reason that
you didn't put a park there for children to play or something?
Are you concerned that those cells weren't buried deep enough
or that there was still some potential danger there, or--why do
you have it fenced off?
Mayor McCrory. On this piece of property we still don't
have the flexibility regarding the contamination to make it a
specific part. I will say we just sold a piece of property
right next door to it for $28 per square foot where we are
building major in-house condominiums, so the property and
around it is very safe, but we felt contain that area. And it
is a beautiful iron fence around it, by the way. It is very
well landscaped.
Mr. Duncan. Yes. Well, it sounds like a great success
story.
Most of these estimates are that half of these brownfield
sites roughly are old abandoned gas stations. Mr. Williams, is
that true of Chattanooga or some of your other areas, and do
those gas stations pose the same problems or threats as some of
these other sites? Are they harder or easier to clean up?
Mr. Williams. Particularly in our redevelopment area we
have a host of those types of sites, sir, and that is very
insightful that you see that.
One of the problems that we recognize is that under the
existing Superfund liability, and particularly with
brownfields, it excluded using those funds on the brownfields
to look at those particular sites, so that exclusion,
limitation acts as a barrier for redevelopment of such sites.
So if proposed legislation could look to pull back that
exclusion, I could see those sites becoming revitalized that
much easier.
Mr. Duncan. Right. That is a key suggestion and something
that we should fix in any legislation that we do this year, and
we are already talking about some.
I know a couple of people mentioned this. Is the main
problem that you face, the uncertainty about liability and
problems about selling property to potential developers, Mr.
Abolt?
Mr. Abolt. Liability is a significant problem for us, but
it is starting to go away. I think our biggest liability
problem now does relate directly to municipalities stepping
into the chain of title, because we'd found that one of the
ways that we address liability is by, for some moment in time,
taking ownership of the parcels, so we do believe liability is
still a problem. It needs to get addressed. We think that
specifically addressing it in the context of municipalities, as
the U.S. Conference of Mayors has worked hard on, would go a
long way, but liability reform beyond that will likely be
needed.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Brown, I've seen you nod your head a couple
of times. What do you have to say?
Mr. Brown. Well, I might mention, in regard to the smaller
sites such as dry cleaner sites and gas station sites, what the
State of Kansas has done that has been very successful is
establish State trust funds to address the investigation and
the cleanup of those sites, so they no longer are really an
issue in our community because of this State funding source.
Basically, the State hires consultants using the money that is
created from a small tax on gasoline to address these sites and
remediate them if necessary.
In terms of the dry cleaning trust fund, it is another tax
on the customers who use those services. It goes into a State
fund and is administered by the State to again remediate those
sites that have caused contamination from dry cleaning
solvents.
Mr. Duncan. I've just finished six years as chairman of the
House Aviation Subcommittee, and we found there that, because
of the environmental rules and regulations and red tape and so
forth, it would take ten or fifteen years to build a runway
that we really could build in a couple of years.
I know a couple of you mentioned the possible need to
streamline environmental regulations in regard to brownfield
sites. Do you see those same problems there? And are there ways
that you know of that we could streamline these regulations so
we could speed up the cleanup of some of these sites? Mayor
McCrory, have you run into problems like that?
Mayor McCrory. Absolutely. We have that at our airport
often. In fact, we are in the planning stage of a third
parallel runway right now. But as it relates to brownfields, I
think some of the other speakers mentioned that we need more
flexibility and more long-term commitment. Some of these
temporary pilot programs need to be committed, too, in the long
term, and that would help out a great deal.
The developers who are interested in investing in
brownfields want to make sure that two years after their
initial investment is put forward that something doesn't
change.
Mr. Duncan. Right.
Mayor McCrory. And the bureaucrats stop it from occurring,
so there is a hesitation of developers to put the up-front
money in for fear that the bureaucracy will change a rule on
them or change the parameters regarding the brownfield cleanup.
We want to also encourage people to actually clean it up.
There's actually a hesitancy for some people to even dig
because they are afraid they won't be able to move. So there
are a lot of people not even identifying brownfield sites right
now out of fear.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Pawenski, what do you have to say about
that?
Mr. Pawenski. I would like to definitely agree with The
Honorable McCrory. Streamlining them would help, I think. Most
helpful for us right now in the areas is making them consistent
throughout the country so companies know what to look into.
We need encouragement for the principal responsible parties
to want to be proactive in cleaning up the mess that they've
created, even though laws might differ that they were created
under.
As you mentioned previously, the liability would be very
helpful. That's the light at the end of the tunnel that
encourages them to get going.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Hoover, what are you doing in Massachusetts
to speed things up?
Mr. Hoover. Well, we are working very closely with the
Commonwealth right now, and where they step in I think it is
very important, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal Government
doesn't get in the way, in some respects. I think when the
States do take some initiative and really want to step forward,
let's not then, after the problem seemingly has been solved,
come back and bring the heavy hand of the Federal Government
down when that proactivity has occurred. I think that
cooperation is very necessary, and it continues to encourage
the States to do more, and support is really the word of the
day, I think, in that regard.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always helpful
to hear from folks who are actually doing the work in local
communities. As a former county commissioner, I appreciate that
and appreciate what you are doing as we look for ways to
improve Federal brownfields legislation.
With that, I'd defer my time to Mr. McGovern, who has some
particular questions.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you. I want to thank the ranking
member, and I want to thank the chairman for holding this
hearing.
I represent a District in Massachusetts that was home to
wire companies and textile companies and tool companies, and a
lot of them gone, and they've left behind abandoned buildings
and contaminated brownfields, and whether it is Worcester,
which my city manager, Tom Hoover, represents, or Fall River,
we have a real serious problem. There are issues of liability.
There are issues of dealing with the bureaucracy. There are
also--you know, the bottom-line issue is money, too.
I think what I am hearing from everybody today is that, in
addition to wanting all of us in Congress to feel your pain,
you want us to show you the money, too, so you can actually do
the job. I mean, identifying brownfield sites is part of the
challenge. Getting people who own the sites to allow there to
be testing is another part of the challenge. But, depending on
what was there in the past, some of this is very, very costly,
and even with State help communities can't do it.
We tried last year in this committee to get a Superfund
bill with a brownfields component to it, and we actually, I
thought, came up with a pretty good compromise when all was
said and done. It wasn't perfect, but it was good. It didn't go
to the full House for consideration, and hopefully this year at
a minimum we might be able to get a brownfields bill.
I've seen first-hand in my communities that communities
that have been knocked down stay down. I know what the city of
Worcester is going through trying to get involved with these
competitive grants and you are competing with a zillion
different communities and filling out thousands of pages of
paperwork, and at the end more times than not you're told,
``Well, we don't have the money and you weren't picked, but if
we had the money you would be picked.''
Again, as a city manager, Worcester is the second-largest
city in New England, and yet we are at a great disadvantage
because we can't get companies and businesses to invest in our
community, not because the land isn't available, but because we
don't know whether the land is contaminated or not. It is a
real challenge.
We are living in a time of incredible surpluses. I hope a
significant portion of those surpluses go to kind of supporting
these efforts, because I think in the long run it is a win/win.
Getting these businesses into these communities, revitalizing
urban areas--the mayor talked about urban sprawl. The way you
deal with that is to revitalize our cities, and one of the ways
you deal with that is you help them deal with brownfields and
make more land available for companies to move in.
I have a question. I want to thank the Chair for also
letting my city manager from Worcester testify here today,
because I do think that Worcester is a community that has
been--I don't want to say ``uniquely impacted,'' but certain
significantly impacted by brownfields.
I do have a question for my manager, and anyone else who
wants to chime in on this. Your testimony represents the public
sector's commitment to resources, and you talk about some of
the Federal monies and State monies that the city has received.
Could you give us some specific examples of the resources that
you need right now and how these resources would be used?
Mr. Hoover. Well, Congressman, I think that the answer
would have to be two-fold on that, and it relates to our
immediate short-term goals as well as our larger question of
the long-term.
First, we currently do have a $1 million application
pending with the EPA to establish the brownfields revolving
loan fund, and with this in place we could have a tool right at
the local level that could leverage new private investment by
allowing us to implement our brownfields redevelopment
strategy.
But in the longer term we would love to look at programs
that would handle the one project I described where it would
take $12 million in our South Worcester Industrial Park just to
remediate that particular problem down there so we could
redevelop the 30-some acres we have.
It would be great if we could get a $12 million pilot
demonstration project on a site like that that we could do
something innovative with. For instance, right now we put
$100,000 for assessment activities out of the city coffers into
that industrial park to do some initial assessment, but if we
could maybe set up a loan fund that would be like equity
financing so that once you improve the properties and you do
get equity in your properties you could actually not have a
grant but a loan that you could pay back by the improved cost
of the properties in the future.
We'll never see that without the assistance. The $12
million is something that a city the size of Worcester just
doesn't have laying around to do. It's a lot of money for any
city, but with pilot projects, with some innovations, and
assuming something like this works, it could be spread
throughout the entire country, and I think that's important to
look at those innovative ways of solving things like this.
Mr. McGovern. Does anyone have a similar kind of pilot
project like that going on?
Mr. Abolt. We've dealt with a number of sites similar to
what was mentioned here. We see three specific things that
Federal Government can do in terms of resources that would be
helpful.
First is more assessment dollars. That's a relatively
limited investment, but it is absolutely critical to
prioritizing sites and deciding which ones you can actually
afford to clean up.
The second is the concept of loans that was raised. The
vast majority of our brownfields program is funded off of HUD
section 108 loans directly connected to the City's
establishment of tax increment financing districts. We found it
to be remarkably successful and the program should be
standardized and accepted, because then the Federal Government
is fronting the money, but the local government is on the line
for making sure the development happens.
Then, finally, we do believe that, whether it is at the
State level and/or the Federal level, there is going to be need
for just some direct limited grant dollars to do some of the
cleanups on those properties where--probably a lot of the
properties you're talking about--the property value or the
property development does not exceed the value of the cleanup,
so the transaction is upside-down. The only way to address an
upside-down transaction is that the Federal Government is going
to have to put some money into it, perhaps a matching grant
type program.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern.
Ms. Millender-McDonald?
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the
ranking member for bringing this very important urban issue to
this committee through a hearing.
I really do appreciate all of you, because you are on the
front line. I was once there, as a mayor of a city--and a city
that is absolutely impacted with brownfields.
While we grapple with trying to redevelop on this
brownfield, which was once in many cases junk yards in a lot of
my areas of Watts and Carson, there are so much toxic types of
the surface and all of the contaminated soil that we have a
difficult time in trying to clean this up so that we can
redevelop.
A lot of times redevelopers don't want to come in because
of the headaches and the problems, and so I am happy to hear
the chairman talk about streamlining regulations, because
perhaps we will have to do that, Mr. Chairman, in order to try
to move some of the wasted parcels of land for redevelopment.
But I heard from--I think it was the city of Worcester that
if the Feds would kind of stay out of the way you can get some
things done, and we often know that our heavy hands sometimes
can be an impediment. But what I've heard from others who talk
about the consistency and uniformity of the law, you're talking
about the Federal laws or the State laws or the ordinances in
the city, or what is it that you are pretty much talking about
in terms of your consistency or being consistent with the law
and uniformity throughout the Nation? Naturally, throughout the
Nation it will have to come from the Feds, and yet you want the
Feds to stay out, so comments on that.
Mr. Hoover. Well, let me address, if I might, Madam
Congressman, the issue in Worcester. What I was referring to--I
certainly don't want to keep the Feds out as far as
participating in the price of these cleanups, but many times
the State will move in and the State's eliminating of the
liability will not necessarily limit the CERCLA liability, and
therefore people do not want to take the full step because,
although they are exempted under the State's heavy hand, so to
speak, they are not under the Federal Government.
So the laws--anything the States do, first of all I think
they need try to parallel as closely as possible that of the
Federal Government, and, in turn, the Federal Government has to
not be too enforceable or coming down with a heavy hand,
crossing every ``T'' dotting every ``I'' when you have that
sound initiative being taken by the States and the local
governments.
So cooperation is the name of the game there, and certainly
we appreciate and need--very much need--all the financial
resources, but we should all work together on the rules and the
regulations.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. I guess one more question I have
for the gentleman--I think it is Mr. Williams who has
brownfield programs or is brownfield program manager. What are
some of the programs that you spoke about? And I'm sorry if you
spoke about those while I was in another hearing.
Mr. Williams. We are fortunate to have quite a few number
of initiatives going on in our targeted area at this time. New
investments into city-sponsored recreation facility is going to
be a combined use facility where you have a police precinct in
the same building as a recreational facility. We are also
talking about the acquisition of a 23-acre site where we could
take a mixed-use type of use of that particular site of
commercial and residential. We also have partnerships forming,
like organizations such as our local Boys' Club that want to
build a $2 million facilities on a brownfield sites.
So yes, we have quite a few number of programs and projects
that are targeted for brownfield locations in our targeted
area, all to augment the revitalization of the community to
bolster what we are having in terms of the large influx of
capital through the Hope Six redesign of the primary housing
site, not only for this community but for the city, as a whole.
So we are just trying our best to take these projects,
engage the community in those projects, build value back into
this community that has in the past been a primary, prominent
part of our community in terms of tax base, in terms of
population base, and attract people back into that community.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Mr. Pawenski, I think you wanted to add something?
Mr. Pawenski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Regarding the consistency, I guess I was talking about
that. What I want to say about consistency in the law is that a
lot of the cleanup efforts, a lot of the things that happen are
headed up by State, but every State agency works with different
regions, especially EPA regions, and they design a lot of their
cleanup programs with support of those regions. Where I'm
starting to find it there isn't consistency is that each region
doesn't give the same message to each Sate.
In our project, in particular, the Bethlehem Steel site,
they have been very successful in the State of Pennsylvania,
drawing over $100 million in investment in their former steel
site, but they knew there they weren't going to be held under--
that property could be removed from interim status and entered
into the State cleanup program.
In New York they knew they wouldn't be allowed into the
voluntary cleanup program because the State was being
discouraged there by the EPA to allow it to happen so they let
it languish longer.
That's the consistency, I guess, we're looking for--the
same message by the same agency to be put across the country.
Mr. Duncan. Mayor McCrory, I know you had a comment, but
besides the money, and realizing that oftentimes we can't do
everything we want to do, what would you think is the one thing
that would be the most helpful other than money, to Charlotte
in an effort to clean up these brownfields?
Mayor McCrory. I think clarification of the liability
aspects. I think that is the one thing that is going to hold
people back is the liability and to make sure that the
innocent--the last party is not the one who is stuck with
everything, because that's just going to discourage investment.
So I think the liability issue is the biggest issue that
can hinder future investment.
I might add, also, at the State level many States,
including my State--and maybe this is something that Feds can
review, and that is the flexibility in using property based
upon the degree of cleanup. Some States have much less
flexibility, some States have more flexibility on the degree of
cleanup and how you can then re-use that property, and that is
what has helped us a great deal in our States.
Where the Federal Government I think can assist is more
dealing with the liability issue.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, let me just comment
on what the gentleman has just said, because that is absolutely
the truth.
When you try to find those who have gone from the scene of
this contamination and you can't find them, the person who now
wants to develop on that, or maybe one person who was left that
we did find, you want to, I guess, engage that person in the
liability aspects, and you really cannot because it is so
extremely costly.
Anything that we can do to kind of minimize the liability
in trying to redevelop these lands would just be absolutely
important and critical.
The other thing is the flexibility of use. I was hearing
Mr. Williams talk about the various things that you are doing.
In my city and some of the other cities we aren't able to
utilize that land for some of the things that you outlined, so
there is an inconsistency when it comes to the utilization and
the flexibility of land, and so it is important that you have
some type of uniformity where folks aren't moving over each
other and regional is doing something differently than what the
city or the State is doing.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my statement for the
record, as well.
Mr. McGovern. Would the gentlelady yield just for one
second?
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Yes.
Mr. McGovern. I just want to clarify one thing here. When
we're talking about these issues of liability, nobody here is
advocating that we let polluters off the hook who are
responsible for some of the contamination. I just wanted to
make that clear. Are we all in agreement on that?
Ms. Millender-McDonald. By all means. I'm not saying that.
No.
Mr. Duncan. All right.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. I have one more comment on liability. I think,
under the current structure, even at EPA at the Federal level,
letters of comfort, whatever you want to call the instrument,
there still is the opportunity for third-party lawsuits, even
if some kind of protection has been granted, so I have to
second what everyone else has said. Just simply this liability
issue needs to be clarified, and at the end of the process
there has to be some way that we have--and I don't have a
solution for this--that no further action on a piece of
property be taken. It is done. It is over. The liability issues
have been addressed. And we certainly want the polluter to pay,
but the liability issue for those innocent property owners or
those people settling, maybe in a Superfund site or some other
situation, needs to be resolved.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kerns, do you have any comments or questions?
Mr. Kerns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
with you, and I apologize for being late.
Mr. Duncan. That's all right.
Mr. Kerns. Having worked with the Indiana Department of
Natural Resources, it was my experience that State agencies and
employees tried to work with individuals and companies in a
partnership arrangement to solve difficult problems, and I have
long advocated that the Federal Government play more of an
educational, advisory, and partnership role in helping resolve
some of these difficult issues rather than what some of you
describe as predatory, with fines and increased litigation.
Could you share your thoughts on the role of the Federal
Government and its partnership to help resolve difficult
situations around the country?
Mr. Abolt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think your point on
States is particularly well taken. I think underlying a lot of
the comments that have been made here is that you cannot have a
successful Federal/city relationship or a successful
brownfields program dealing with certainty unless you have a
solid, functioning State voluntary cleanup program. Any
legislation that you would consider should make sure that you
have, in fact, fostered the creation of those programs and
provided the kind of finality, liability protection, and even,
to the extent there is funding, created triggers for that
funding on functioning State voluntary cleanup programs that
work in conjunction with Federal goals and local goals.
Thank you.
Mr. Kerns. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Kerns.
Let me just say, you know, I am a conservative but I
believe in an activist government. I believe in actually trying
to solve problems, and I believe that's what you all are doing.
For me what that means on some of these things is I am all for
the Federal Government providing some of the money, because
this is a national problem. The brownfields affect people
economically, socially, and in every other way almost, but also
being a conservative I'm horrified by Government waste or rip-
offs of the taxpayer, and so I believe that we can get the most
bang for the buck, our dollar will go the longest way if we let
the local governments handle most of these problems without a
lot of Federal involvement or red tape or rules and
regulations.
I might tell you, Mayor McCrory, my father was city law
director of Knoxville for three-and-a-half years, and then was
Mayor for six years.
Mayor McCrory. He's got a wonderful reputation.
Mr. Duncan. That was from the time I was nine until I was
eighteen, so I grew up at City Hall. In fact, he was the first
mayor in the history of Knoxville to be re-elected. It was
always a tough place politically.
I really believe that the cities need to leave these
problems up to the local governments.
But what I hope people will keep in mind, when we put
Federal rules or regulations or especially some of these
environmental laws and we make it take five times as long, five
years to clean up something that should take a year, or we add
all these costs on, that who it hurts--you know, I've noticed
that most of these environmental extremists always come from
wealthy families, and what I don't think they realize is that
when they make something cost $10 million that we should have
been able to do for $1 million, that those costs have to be
passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices--higher
rent for apartments, higher everything. And it doesn't hurt the
wealthy or even the upper income, it hurts the poor and the
lower income people most of all.
So I hope that we can help you streamline some of these
things and speed up some of these things and give you a little
money in the process to do that, but I hope also that if, when
you're out there in the field and confronting these problems,
if you see a specific ways that we can improve this process,
that you won't just let this drop now that this hearing is
ending but that you will let us know of specific ideas or
suggestions that you have about ways that we need to change the
laws that are in effect today.
You have been a very helpful and informative panel, and I
appreciate the fact that each of you have taken time out from,
like I said, very busy schedules to be here, and I salute you
for what you are doing.
That will conclude this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
Statement of William F. Abolt, Commissioner of Environment, City of
Chicago
Good morning Chairman Duncan, Ranking Democratic Member
DeFazio and Members of the subcommittee. My name is William F.
Abolt and I am the Commissioner of the Chicago Department of
Environment. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views and experiences of Mayor Richard M.
Daley and the City of Chicago regarding brownfields
redevelopment.
The City of Chicago has developed what is widely regarded
as one of the most comprehensive and most successful
brownfields redevelopment programs in the nation. Chicago's
program was born of necessity. The continued existence of
abandoned industrial properties would have presented potential
hazards to our neighborhoods and inhibited job growth and
economic development. In the mid 1990s, Mayor Daley had the
foresight to recognize how the concept of recycling could be
applied to land. With that recognition, the City began
developing its brownfields program. To date, we have completed
the cleanup of nearly 20 sites, and we have close to 70
additional sites currently underway.
Partnerships have played a key role in building Chicago's
program. Our program would not be the success that is it
without the valuable assistance and support we have received
over the years from Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency--especially Region 5, the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
We have applied the concepts of recycling land and relying
on partnerships, in the belief that cities are important and
useful environmental models, contributing to the well-being and
economic strength of the country. Now as the City of Chicago
moves forward with our brownfields initiative, we are expanding
on our success by taking our program one step further. In
addition to cleaning up property and communities and promoting
redevelopment, we are now using our brownfields program as an
opportunity to promote a new ``green'' business sector in
Chicago. Shortly, I will give some examples of how we are
accomplishing this, but first I will give a brief history and
scope of our program.
chicago's brownfields redevelopment initiative
Chicago began its Brownfields Redevelopment Initiative in
1993 with the goals of ensuring public health and safety while
creating jobs and generating tax revenues through industrial
and commercial redevelopment. With a grant from the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and $2 million in general
obligation bonds, Chicago set out to identify the barriers and
opportunities of brownfields cleanup through both collaboration
and practical experience. Our experiences on both fronts formed
the basis of our continuing efforts and became models for other
cities.
Chicago's program attracted the resources to continue
acquiring and assembling property, assess environmental
conditions, clean up contamination, and improve infrastructure
in order to restore abandoned or derelict sites to productive
uses. Through the City's efforts, sites that just a few years
ago were environmental liabilities are now neighborhood assets,
bringing well-paying industrial jobs, valuable community open
spaces, and affordable housing.
As you may know, bringing a brownfields redevelopment
project to completion takes time. To date, we have completed
the clean-up of nearly 20 sites. We are currently executing the
assessment and clean-up of nearly 70 additional sites, which
total nearly 1000 acres. Our most recent estimates indicate our
clean-up and redevelopment efforts have created or retained
more than 2200 jobs and increased the City's annual tax base by
millions of dollars.
Building on these successes, we now are focused on
promoting the sustainable use of redeveloped brownfield sites,
looking at ways to prevent future brownfields while promoting
``green'' industry in Chicago, and improving quality of life in
a way that positions Chicago to compete in a global and high-
tech economy. Three recent examples of this follow.
success stories
1. Midwest Center for Green Technology
This summer the City will open the Midwest Center for Green
Technology on a former brownfield on Chicago's west side. This
state-of-the-art model of environmentally-friendly green
construction will house Spire Solar Chicago, a Boston-based
manufacturer of solar technology which the Department of
Environment recruited to Chicago with assistance from the US
Department of Energy, and Greencorps Chicago, the City's own
community greening and job skills program. Spire Solar Chicago
will create 100 new jobs; Greencorps Chicago provides skills
training to 25 people each year.
Before the City assumed control of this 17 acre site in
1998, it was an illegal rock crushing operation that generated
on its site piles of material, some contaminated, that would
fill roughly 50,000 dump trucks. An abandoned building occupied
the only portion of this West Side site that was not covered by
waste. We separated the debris and recycled the concrete and
asphalt for use in City infrastructure projects at an estimated
cost savings of more than $1 million over buying the material.
Rather than demolish the building, the City decided to rehabilitate
it for tenants in a manner that meets the goals of improving quality of
life and the environment in Chicago. With the local chapter of the
American Institute of Architects and with the US Green Building
Council's ``platinum'' LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) rating as a goal, we set out to build a showcase of ``green''
reuse.
The building contains features like solar panels, a rooftop garden,
and locally manufactured finishing products. The site includes a
stormwater retention area using native wetlands plants. In addition to
the two tenants I mentioned, the building will be a community center
where people can design their own landscapes and get expert advise
about energy efficiency.
In short, the site is no longer an eyesore and a drain on the
community's development potential. Instead it generates greenjobs and
green products, provides a community meeting place, and demonstrates
cutting-edge construction and site design.
2. The Calumet region
The Calumet region, a 20 square mile area on Chicago's southeast
side, is ground-zero for one of Chicago's historically most important
industries and is also home to the largest concentration of wetlands in
the midwest. Mayor Daley, Governor Ryan, other elected officials and
the residents of the Calumet region all recognize the region's
potential to demonstrate that economic revitalization and ecological
rehabilitation should not only simply coexist, but should be mutually
supportive.
Based on this recognition, in June 2000, the City of Chicago and
the State of Illinois together pledged nearly $40 million towards
reclaiming this region and interweaving its industrial and
environmental assets. To date, the federal government has committed
about $6 million, and private sources are beginning to follow suit.
Mayor Daley and Governor Ryan announced several large scale,
interconnected projects that I'll summarize for you as an example of
utilizing and leveraging a wide range of public tools and private
investment. Brownfields tools are at the heart of the plans.
Sustainable growth is the goal of the Calumet region redevelopment,
and the objective of economic development is as important as the
quality of life issues such as recreation, open space and natural
areas. The City has designated a tax increment finance district in this
region to direct development and attract investment to 3,000 acres of
industrial land. Another 3,000 acres have been identified as part of a
new Calumet Open Space Reserve--ecologically important sites in the
City that extend into the south suburbs. With some assistance from U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the City is moving to clean up these now
vacant properties and restore their hydrologic and habitat connections
to improve the environmental health of the region.
Also in the Calumet region, the City is now testing a large
brownfield property in preparation for constructing what will be the
largest solar power plant in the country. The U.S. EPA and the Illinois
EPA are assisting us. A landfill adjacent to the site, which the state
recently helped stabilize, will also contribute to local power supply
by converting landfill gas into energy. On the other side of the
landfill, a rookery for the Black-crowned night heron, a state
endangered species, will be one of several model sites of ecological
rehabilitation.
Another site in the region will be selected to serve as a new
environmental center, complete with walking trails, a conference and
learning center and museum quality exhibits. Ford Motor Company
recently contributed $6 million toward the construction and programming
of the center which, along with the Midwest Center for Green Technology
and the existing North Park Village Nature Center, will form a ring of
nature centers on the City's north, west and south sides.
One of Chicago's early planners is famous for having advised,
``make no little plans.'' In addition to honoring Daniel Burnham's
advice, projects like this illustrate many of the lessons we've learned
from our brownfields work--that government involvement is a key
catalyst; that private funders and expertise can be drawn to high-
profile and well planned projects; that a careful and expansive
approach to identifying challenges yields a clearer vision of the
opportunities. Finally, we borrow a lesson from ecology--that
interconnectedness is an asset and if we're smart we can knit projects
together to support a range of economic, environmental and quality of
life goals for the long term.
3. Abandoned Service Station Program
With his 1998 budget, Mayor Daley devoted City resources
specifically to the problem of abandoned service stations of which
there are more than 500 in Chicago. In addition to possible
contamination and other hazards of abandoned structures, we view
abandoned service stations as ``neighborhood brownfields''--a visual
blight on the community, a lost commercial opportunity and a magnet for
vandals and crime.
The City of Chicago has attacked the abandoned service station
problem systematically, acting immediately to correct site hazards and
secure lots, identifying responsible parties and compelling them to
take action or pay, and finally by using new legislation to both
prevent and facilitate enforcement of non-compliant sites. To date,
more than 100 sites have been cleaned up.
Similar to the other examples mentioned here, the City of Chicago
has sought to go beyond simply correcting the environmental problem of
abandoned service stations to the point of creating an environmental
solution. An example is the transformation of several abandoned service
stations into ``pocket'' parks. Working with the community, with BP
Amoco, who previously operated the stations, and with other City
programs that provide landscaping assistance and horticultural
training, we have installed new community green spaces on these
``neighborhood brownfields.''
lessons learned
By redeveloping these site and many others throughout Chicago, the
Mayor's brownfield team has learned many valuable lessons. In addition
to using our brownfields program to achieve cleanup and redevelopment
of property, we've learned how to use our program in a manner that
promotes smart growth and sustainability.
Encouraging smart growth and sustainability as an inherent part of
brownfields redevelopment programs is an important objective to keep in
mind as Congress moves forward with a brownfields bill and cities move
forward with their own brownfields redevelopment efforts. Pursuing
these goals simultaneously is an effective and efficient use of
resources.
In addition, there are several other recommendations I'd like to
make based on lessons learned by the City of Chicago.
Assessment grants
Chicago has found great value in financial assistance from the
Federal government for site assessments and investigations. We have
benefited from an Assessment Pilot and Showcase Community designation
by U.S. EPA and we have received $250,000 to investigate brownfield
sites as a result. We believe continued and expanded assistance for
assessments is necessary; we also believe these grants can be more
effective by making a simple change in how data quality is assured.
Assessment grants from U.S. EPA currently require grantees to
develop a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP). A grantee may spend a
significant portion of the grant preparing the QAP. However, the
requirement could be waived for sites that are being investigated and
cleaned up under a state voluntary cleanup program which has its own
data quality standards. The effect would be to make more funding
available for actual sampling work, without compromising data quality.
Financing cleanup
The biggest obstacle to the widespread redevelopment of industrial
sites is difficulty financing cleanup once assessments have identified
contamination. A quick and hard lesson every local official working on
this problem learns is that cleanup is almost always expensive and
sufficient resources to address all your brownfields almost never
exists. Chicago has been aggressive about financing cleanup, investing
well over $100 million in general funds, special appropriations, and
loans from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Still, if we could clean up more sites we would quickly find uses
for them. Financial assistance to local governments for cleanup becomes
even more important as the number of cleanups increases. That is
because in many cases, the cost of a cleanup exceeds the value of the
property even if clean. The percentage of these sites will increase as
the more valuable properties get cleaned up and redeveloped. It falls
to government to bridge the gap between the cost of cleanup and the
amount that can be recovered upon redevelopment.
Another valuable tool that would be useful to cities in financing
brownfield projects would be new federal tax benefits designed to
attract private investment in such projects. In several of Chicago's
projects, we have been able to successfully leverage government funds
with private funds. Developing tax programs to further encourage
private investment would certainly enhance the promise of success.
Petroleum contamination
Although Chicago has redeveloped its share of large, multi-acre
brownfields with big economic impacts, we've learned what a profound
effect it can have on a community to focus on smaller brownfields too.
Even on quarter- or half-acre lots, Chicago has turned brownfields into
important community resources such as comer parks, affordable homes and
nursery schools. Most of these were abandoned service stations where
the main contamination was from underground storage tanks and
associated petroleum contamination. We know other cities also wrestle
with these kinds of sites and we believe federal assistance for cleanup
should permit work at petroleum contaminated brownfields.
Superfund Liability
One key for us in redeveloping both large and small sites has been
taking ownership of the site. Chicago often accepts or actively pursues
ownership of brownfields to prevent additional dumping or
contamination, to ensure cleanup, even to help clear title. This
important step could be much easier for cities if the federal
government clarified Superfund liability at brownfield sites.
We also encourage greater coordination between among federal
agencies involved in brownfields projects. This will enhance the
effectiveness and efficiency of federal participation, and avoid
duplicative requirements.
Perhaps our most fundamental lesson has been that for a City to
maintain a vital economy and provide opportunity and a high quality of
life for its citizens, it must confront and solve cleanup and
redevelopment of brownfields. Environmental concerns are standard in
transferring or developing anything larger than a residential lot, so
success on a city-size scale depends on the local government's ability
to effectively address those concerns in a way that meets its economic,
environmental and quality of life goals.
conclusion
In conclusion, on behalf of the City of Chicago, I would like to
thank Chairman Duncan, Ranking Democratic Member DeFazio and the other
Members for holding this important hearing and providing us with the
opportunity to share our views. We are very encouraged that the
subcommittee is continuing to seek passage of a brownfields bill, and
we look forward to working with the members of the subcommittee and our
colleagues in other cities to ensure the continuing success and
enhancement of the nation's many brownfields redevelopment programs.
______
Statement of Congressman Earl Blumenauer
Thank you Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member DeFazio, I share the
Subcommittee's commitment to developing meaningful brownfields reform
legislation this Congress. I was proud to support HR 1300 last Congress
when the Full Committee, in strong bi-partisan partnership passed it
69-2, and regretted that we were not able to successfully pass this
legislation, which dealt with brownfields and the larger issue of
Superfund Reform, by the entire Congress.
Brownfields redevelopment can be a positive step towards reducing
public infrastructure costs and increasing private returns, while also
saving natural resources. If we are to be successful in our efforts to
build more livable communities--where families are safe, healthy, and
economically secure--we need to first address the current liability and
financing impediments that make it difficult for communities to
redevelop their brownfield sites.
A first step towards this goal is empowering local communities to
participate, at the decision-making level, in the brownfield
redevelopment process. In 1996, my community was selected as one of
EPA's 16 Brownfield Showcase Communities. The city convened a group of
citizens and worked with them to develop selection criteria and a site
identification process for potential brownfield properties that yielded
eight Showcase projects. The partnerships between government officials,
citizens and business interests have made an important difference to
our efforts. Overall, ours has been a positive experience working with
EPA's brownfield program. It has enabled local municipalities to
establish nationwide relationships and a communication network that
promotes the sharing of best practices and innovative concepts In a
timely fashion.
I applaud EPA's efforts to be a resource for communities and to
provide flexibility for finding ways to link brownfields redevelopment
with improving air quality, preserving greenspaces, and improving
transportation linkages. Their work with the Atlantic Steele
development in Atlanta, Georgia is an excellent example of the benefits
that can be realized by emphasizing federal flexibility, public-private
partnerships and innovation in the ability to successfully redevelop
such sites more quickly and cost effectively.
Despite the progress that is being made, many substantial hurdles
exist that are preventing communities from being able to redevelop more
quickly and successfully the over 500,000 brownfields sites located
across the country.
One of the biggest frustrations on the front line is the inability
to work on properties where the sole contaminant is petroleum. If we
were able to redevelop just 25% of the abandoned gas stations in our
blighted communities nationwide, the improvement in the socio-economic
well being of those communities would be ten-fold. Yet, our hands are
tied on this important issue due to the petroleum exemption that the
brownfield program inherited through its' funding under CERCLA.
The provisions provided in Section 203, Innocent Landowners, for
property owners who have done their due diligence and unknowingly
purchased contaminated property is an excellent step in the right
direction. However, I would urge this Committee to consider making this
provision retroactive. In addition, this proposed bill does not provide
protection for brownfield developers who knowingly purchase
contaminated property with the intent of redevelopment.
I look forward to working with the members of this Committee in the
months ahead to address these challenges, and once again develop
strong, bi-pairtisan brownfields reform legislation.
______
Testimony of Jack Brown, Environmental Health Director, Wichita-
SedgWick County Department of Community Health, City of Wichita, Kansas
Throughout the nation, there are countless potential ``Superfund''
sites--areas where environmental contamination is so severe that the
federal government deems it necessary to mandate cleanup. In addition
there are many sites that are adjacent to, or in proximity to these
areas, that lay idle due to the presence or perception of
contamination: Brownfield sites. Many of these sites have been
identified; the vast majority have not, and constitute a potential for
environmental and economic devastation to many communities. Cleaning
these sites will require local governments to make complex choices.
Their decisions will be guided by issues of legal and financial
liability, and will profoundly affect both the public and private
sectors; influencing property values, tax base and economic
development. The choices will have lasting impacts not only on the
quality of the environment, but also on the community's economic well-
being.
The City of Wichita, faced with a serious environmental and public
health problem that threatened its economic development, downtown
business district and tax base, acted quickly to forge a creative
public-private partnership to avoid Superfund designation, and protect
innocent property owners from serious economic loss. The program, which
received national recognition from the Ford Foundation for its
innovative approach involved all levels of government, responsible
parties, local lending institutions and property owners within a six-
square mile area.
Fifteen years of experience has shown that tremendous pressure has
been placed on municipalities to find ways of coping with the negative
impact of Superfund actions and Brownfield areas. Abandoned properties,
declining tax values, loss of existing business and jobs, and loss of
economic development opportunity have resulted.
1. The Impact on Wichita. When a preliminary Superfund site
investigation was initiated in the Gilbert & Mosley area which is
located in the downtown area of Wichita in 1989, several imniediate
problems occurred:
1,400 acres, including downtown and residential areas,
were within the area affected by contaminated groundwater.
Local banks discontinued lending operations in the area.
Several urban redevelopment projects in their late stages
were blocked, and both business and residential property transactions
came to a stop.
Businesses began to leave the area, taking jobs away from
the urban core.
Property values were threatened by the stigma of the
Superfund status and the accompanying restraint on property
transactions. A study by the City Finance Office projected a rapid loss
in tax revenues.
Most experts believed it would be 10 to 20 years, or
longer, before these negative impacts could be reversed, if the area
became a National Priorities List (NPL) site.
2. The Wichita Solution. Some cities, including Wichita, have found
ways of working through many of these problems. The solution which
Wichita developed was to create a package of related proposals that
addressed each of the problems:
The City convened a meeting among representatives of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment, bank officials, and City officials to request
that the site become a ``City/State lead'' site, not an NPL site.
The City organized a ``Groundwater Task Force'' citizens'
participation group, including retired professionals, university
faculty, environmental groups, and business people to advise on the
problem.
The City met separately with representatives of local
banks and reached agreement in principle that, if the City took lead
responsibility under a state settlement, and could grant ``Certificates
of Release'' to ``innocent'' property holders and the banks, the banks
then would agree not to deny loans solely on the basis of environmental
contamination.
The City Council voted to utilize a Kansas tax increment
finance (TIF) law to assist in the studies and cleanup and initiated
the process by declaring the area a ``blighted'' area. This revenue
would provide a secondary financial source for cleanup.
The City reached a settlement of $1 million with a
potentially responsible party, providing for funding of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study.
The City worked closely with the County government and
local school districts, whose tax revenues were affected by the tax
increment finance district, to explain the consequences of not
proceeding with the cleanup program.
The results were dramatic. Over 4,100 Certificates of Release have
been issued, the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study is complete
and Remedial Action will soon be under way. Property values in the area
have rebounded, businesses have expanded, and new businesses have
located in the site, adding more jobs in the urban area. In recognition
of these accomplishments, the Ford Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government recognized Wichita as one of their 1992 award winners for
``Innovations in State and Local Government.'' Yet more remains to be
accomplished. The City now is pursuing additional responsible parties
for the estimated $30-40 million cleanup. Negotiations on cost recovery
and further investigations may take several more years.
3. Wichita has applied this model to another site. Subsequent to
the implementation of the above project, an existing Superfund area has
been addressed in the City's North Industrial Corridor site (NIC). The
site is nearly as large as the Gilbert & Mosley site. Based on
Wichita's success with the Gilbert and Mosley project the NIC site was
taken off of the National Priorities List through a petition to EPA.
This allowed the City of Wichita to handle the site in partnership with
the State of Kansas in a fashion similar to Gilbert & Mosley. This site
is in the Remediation Investigation and Feasibility phase resulting in
significant City time and resources to address each of these sites.
Other cities have followed the Wichita example or have invented
their own models to solve Superfund and Brownfield problems. It is
clear that cities need help to facilitate these practical solutions to
these problems.
4. Brownfield Program. As a consequence of the City's involvement
in these programs many of the components have become part of the City's
initiative called the ``Heart of Wichita''. This initiative looks to
revitalize Wichita's inner city through 50 different actions developed
by staff and stakeholders through a Redevelopment Incentives Task
Force. A vital part of this strategy is to turn land that is
contaminated, or perceived to be contaminated, into viable property by
clarifying the properties' environmental status and taking actions to
assist in property redevelopment. Wichita is a Brownfield Pilot city
that has tried to utilize a Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund, to provide
low interest loans to qualifying persons interested in developing idle
Brownfield lands. Unfortunately, the pilot program has not been
particularly successful due to the complexity of the procedures and
difficulty of managing both the assessment and finance side of the
project.
5.What Can Congress Do? Several things come to mind immediately:
Clarify authority for cities to grant contribution protection
Wichita's program continues to operate successfully, and there have
been over 5,800 Certificates of Release granted. However, Wichita and
other cities need the advantage of a clearly defined authority to grant
contribution protection to innocent parties and settling parties. One
of the strongest inducements to settlement in Superfund and Brownfield
cases is the issuance of a release to a potentially responsible party.
This also facilitates property transactions and encourages economic
development.
EPA has issued a limited number of releases to innocent purchasers
and prospective landowners at similar sites, and EPA also grants
releases through settlement with de minimis parties. Each process is
cumbersome and unduly lengthy.
Cities need clear authority enabling the issuance of a release that
is binding on all persons, including state, local, and federal
governments, to assure that no further action can be taken against a
settling party for matters within the scope of the settlement.
Cities need a method to ``jump-start'' Superfund cleanups
One of the most frustrating aspects of starting a Superfund
Brownfield cleanup program is the lack of funding for source control or
interim remedies, where it is clear that some immediate action would
mitigate all or much of an environmental threat. Private parties are
reluctant to make a commitment because of liability concerns. Cities
frequently are under budget constraints that prevent such commitments,
and may take a year or longer to budget such expenditures. Most state
agencies do not have discretionary funds for these activities. It makes
sense that some portion of Superfund response action funding be
provided to states and cities committed to ``early response'' or
``interim remedy funding'' to minimize future costs and to demonstrate
that at least a partial solution can be reached quickly. This has the
potential to cut years off of the cleanup time for most Superfund
sites, and to encourage private parties to cooperate early in cleanup
activities.
Cities need help with the identification of potentially responsible
parties
Reliable, factual information regarding potentially responsible
parties can be difficult for cities and other private parties to
obtain. EPA's own potentially responsible party searches frequently
focus only on the largest and most visible parties, which then must
spend their resources identifying others. To make this process more
fair, a uniform set of criteria for identifying parties should be
established, and EPA should be required to pursue parties thus
identified if the parties will not cooperate in cleanup activities.
Cities need participation by all parties in an early allocation
proceeding to apportion liability
The current Superfund process drives many parties to ``hide in the
weeds'' when efforts are made to raise funding for remedial
investigation/feasibility studies or other response actions. In many
cases, litigation has been the only real threat non-cooperating parties
face. Use of an allocation process at an earlier stage will improve
public/private cooperation by identifying the share of responsible
parties, the share of local government, and the share of absent
parties. Absent party shares then can be addressed by mixed funding.
Mixed funding should be provided to represent absent shares
EPA has utilized mixed funding in a limited number of examples to
encourage overall settlement. Mixed funding draws money from the
Superfund to represent the share which otherwise should be paid by
parties which cannot be found or have become insolvent. Early approval
of mixed funding to demonstrate that the EPA is willing to apply
federal funds to a portion of a cleanup project will encourage the
participation of public/private parties. Simply, it is much easier to
settle with private parties when there has been an allocation of
shares, some estimation of overall costs, and a sense of fairness is
applied through federal funding for the share of absent parties. Mixed
work is a related concept by which Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRP's) and EPA divide cleanup duties at a site, usually with EPA doing
work representing the share of an absent party. This mechanism should
be made available more easily to facilitate settlements.
Realistic risk assessments should be applied
Many Superfund sites have faced enormous cleanup costs because of
unrealistic risk assessment scenarios. For example, many risk
assessment protocols are based on the hypothetical assumption that an
individual will be born at or near a contaminated site, live their
entire lifetime of 70 years at the site, ingest portions of soil during
their infancy, drink several liters of contaminated groundwater each
day and consume vegetable crops grown in a garden on a contaminated
site.
By contrast, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and
the City of Wichita have reached a realistic risk assessment scenario
for the Wichita site, taking into account institutional controls
imposed by the City to restrict groundwater use for drinking water
purposes. Such practical institutional restrictions eliminate the
unrealistic hypothetical scenarios used at many sites, and will
facilitate the reduction in time required to clean up superfund sites
by many years, which has the potential to save many millions of dollars
at each site. EPA should honor risk assessments approved by a state
agency, even when done by responsible parties at a site under state
oversight.
Realistic cleanup goals should be applied
Restoring groundwater to extremely restrictive drinking water
standards may not be warranted where institutional controls prevent
exposure. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment concluded
that ``alternate concentration levels'' were appropriate for Wichita,
taking into account the City's institutional controls and relying on
containment of the contaminated plume of groundwater. This single
factor probably will save millions in remedial costs, and will result
in adequate protection of human health.
Removal of sites from NPL should be authorized when there is City/State
agreement
Even though a site is on the NPL, legal requirements should be
clarified to provide that such a site can be removed and responsibility
given to cities and states which have the ability to undertake a
cleanup program.
EPA oversight costs
EPAs oversight costs represent an unknown factor in calculating
project costs. Oversight costs should be clarified at the outset of
each project, and evaluated for appropriateness.
On behalf of the City of Wichita, we appreciate the opportunity to
share this information and to present our suggestions. We will be
pleased to provide any other related information or suggestions.
______
Testimony of Thomas R. Hoover, City Manager, City of Worcester, MA
On behalf of the City of Worcester, I thank your Honorable Body for
the opportunity to give testimony on the issue of Brownfields
Redevelopment and the City of Worcester's efforts to date in addressing
this major Urban problem. I also want to extend special thanks to
District 3 Congressman James P. McGovern, for his tireless legislative
efforts regarding brownfields and related urban issues.
The City of Worcester is the second largest city in New England,
and together with our surrounding communities represents a historic
industrial center, which gained prominence as a major producer of
manufactured goods that were important to the early and subsequent
stages of the American Industrial Revolution. Worcester's legacy as a
City of Innovation and Invention continues today as we enter the New
Millenium. Named an ``All-America City'' in 2000, by the National
League of Cities, the City's innovative approaches to Social, Economic,
and Quality of Life Issues have been nationally recognized.
As with similar Urban Centers across the United States, and
particularly in the Northeast, a major deterrent to continued growth
and expansion of our economic base is the lack of readily available and
developable industrial sites in Worcester. The controlling factor in
the lack of suitable sites is Brownfields contamination.
Virtually all of the city's industrially zoned land has been
previously developed. Of the 2,089 acres of industrially zoned land in
Worcester., approximately 25% in over 200 sites are classified by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as
experiencing various levels of contamination. In addition, there are
scores of additional properties that are not listed with DEP. However,
because of prior uses they are highly suspect of being contaminated.
It is well documented that abandoned and/or underutilized
brownfield sites cause economic distress in surrounding neighborhoods
which can lead to a number of traditional inner-city social, health and
safety problems. The city's inner-city neighborhoods, which were once
stabilized by large manufacturing plants, are now fractured by the
vacant industrial complex that previously provided jobs and stability
to the area.
It is clear that the complexity of the Brownfields problem exceeds
the normal market considerations of private enterprise. In many cases
the cost associated with site remediation exceeds the base market value
of the property. It is therefore incumbent upon the public sector to
continue to review this issue in order to identify and address the
obstacles to urban revitalization that are presented by the existence
of brownfields contamination.
In response to these critical issues, the City of Worcester and
Commonwealth of Massachusetts have taken many steps toward reclaiming
our derelict Brownfield's Sites.
Since the enactment of the 1980 Federal Superfund Legislation, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has taken great strides toward compliance
with this important law. Revisions to the Commonwealth's General Laws
were enacted in 1993 which streamlined the remediation process through
privatization. In 1998, Chapter 206 of The Massachusetts General Laws
established new incentives to encourage private clean-up and
redevelopment of contaminated properties. This legislation provides
liability relief and financial incentives to attract new investment of
private capital while ensuring that the Commonwealth's environmental
standards are met.
On the local level, the City of Worcester has also been pro-active
in addressing Brownfields issues. In 1995, the City of Worcester
sponsored legislation which established the Central Massachusetts
Economic Development Authority (CMEDA), a regional brownfields
redevelopment model, based upon a revolving fund and whose membership
includes the City of Worcester and surrounding communities. CMEDA is
currently limited in its operations due to lack of financing. In
addition, the enactment of new state legislation to address Brownfields
in 1998 incorporated many of the benefits provided by CMEDA.
A major investment of $40 million in City and State funding was
also made in Worcester's Central Business District in the mid-1990's
which resulted in the assemblage of 36 acres of contaminated
brownfields properties. The City, through the Worcester Redevelopment
Authority expended approximately $12 million for clean-up of these
properties that led to the construction of a $240 million hospital
facility in the Center of downtown. The Worcester Medical Center is now
open and adding jobs and tax base to the City of Worcester.
Other projects in the planning stage are the redevelopment of the
South Worcester Industrial Park, a 25-acre former industrial complex,
and the Gardner/Kilby Hammond project, a joint proposal to develop a
new Boys and Girls Club, athletic fields for Clark University, and 100
units of new housing in the City's Main South District. Again, we
arefaced with environmental clean up issues which hamper our progress
with these plans. The City has commissioned preliminary environmental
assessments on these properties which indicate that the cost to
remediate the South Worcester Industrial Area alone approaches $12
million. The City has also completed demolition of the former Coes
Knife Complex, an old cutlery manufacturer, and is faced with
approximately $500,000 in environmental cleanup costs to complete what
is planned to be a neighborhood recreation area.
Other local Brownfields redevelopment projects include a recent 130
room Marriott Courtyard Hotel completed in 1999. This $20 million
private initiative was made possible utilizing the ownership and
conveyance authority of the CMEDA and was completed under the guidance
of a local private development corporation.
The City also has adopted legislation which waives local fees for
brownfield's redevelopment, and has adopted the provisions of
Massachusetts General Laws which allow communities to abate delinquent
taxes to promote redevelopment of Brownfield properties. Finally, in
January of this year my staff completed the attached comprehensive
Brownfields Redevelopment strategy, which outlines Worcester's future
goals relative to Brownfields reclamation. Financing strategies are
also a component of this plan.
In short, the City of Worcester, in partnership with the State and
Federal Government, has been making significant progress in the area of
Brownfields redevelopment. However, our current efforts need to expand
as we target our existing vacant and underutilized properties for
continued economic growth. Worcester is truly a city on the move. There
are currently seventy (70) projects under negotiation, proposed, or
underway in Worcester which have the potential to generate $2.7 billion
in development costs over the next several years. These projects could
yield thousands of new jobs, millions in new tax revenues, and over 3
million square feet of industrial and commercial space to accommodate
new and expanding business, as well as, quality housing for area
residents.
As this development momentum continues, the reclamation and
redevelopment of the many Brownfields properties in Worcester will
become more and more critical.
It is imperative that the public sector continue to commit
resources and technical expertise to the issue of Brownfields
redevelopment. While the level of local, state, and federal assistance
to date has been significant, I respectfully request that this
Committee review existing appropriations with a commitment toward
developing additional resources which will address the financial gap
that prevents private investment in Brownfields sites.
Continued support for programs such as Brownfield Revolving loan
funds, the Better America Bond Program, and new innovative financing
tools that address the funding gap associated with Brownfields
properties all merit continued support from the local, state, and
federal agencies committed to urban revitalization. Government
participation in these programs would reap immediate results. We are
working on a daily basis to bring our contaminated land back into safe,
productive use.
In closing, I also encourage this Honorable Committee and all other
federal regulatory bodies to keep Brownfields Redevelopment as a high
priority issue during future deliberations.
______
Brownfields Redevelopment Strategy--Worcester's Opportunity to Reclaim
Problem Properties
A successful brownfield redevelopment strategy integrated into the
overall economic development strategies put forth by the administration
of the City of Worcester will lay the foundation for the redevelopment
of brownfield sites and the commensurate public and private benefits
that will accompany the cleanup of contaminated sites. However,
successful brownfield redevelopment must overcome several critical
barriers that have been well documented. These include the lack of
process certainty and finality; liability concerns; added expenses of
environmental cleanup; and readily available redevelopment financing
resources available for brownfield projects. Therefore, an aggressive
multi-faceted strategy to address the redevelopment of brownfield sites
in order to return these sites to productive re-use is a priority of
the City administration, and is in keeping with economic goals and
quality of life goals that have been established to make the City of
Worcester the most livable medium sized city in the Northeast.
The City of Worcester has over 200 documented brownfield sites of
different sizes, and with varying degrees of environmental
contamination. In addition there are countless more sites, not
documented, that are strongly suspected to be brownfield sites because
of prior use. Therefore, the City of Worcester has developed the
following strategy to aggressively promote brownfield sites for future
redevelopment in order to create jobs, expand the tax base, create
sustainable development and restore neighborhoods surrounding
brownfield sites.
The City of Worcester has prepared and submitted a grant
application to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
requesting up to $1,000,000 to create a Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund
in order to aggressively pursue the cleanup of brownfield sites that
are strategically located within the City of Worcester. The EPA funds
would provide the City of Worcester with an opportunity to offer loans
to developers at very favorable interest rates and would also provide
opportunities to leverage private financing at favorable interest rates
for brownfield projects which may involve necessary redevelopment
activities that are not otherwise eligible under the EPA Brownfields
Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund. Therefore, the overall goals through the
establishment of a Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund program are to
provide a source of funds that will be leveraged with both private
financing and additional public dollars to address redevelopment issues
associated at brownfield sites throughout the city, and to aggressively
pursue partnerships with both private and public entities involved in
brownfields matters.
The city's Brownfields Redevelopment Strategy (BRS) can be divided
into seven basic stages. These stages may be undertaken by private
developers and/or by the city as sponsor. The stages in the BRS and the
particular activities associated with each stage create different
financing needs. Each individual site presents its own unique
opportunities and challenges. In addition to matching financing sources
to the BRS site, developers need to consider what stage(s) of the BRS
process must be funded. The seven basic stages of the BRS and the
associated activities include:
Site Identification. Development and maintenance of a
registry of sites, helping developers find ones that meet their needs,
and advertisement and marketing of abandoned sites;
Initial Site Assessment (Phase I Investigation). Review of
public records, physical surroundings, and other readily-available data
regarding the site;
Economic Assessment. Evaluation of site characteristics,
advantages, and limitations, and comparison to the initial site
assessment to determine whether a site is currently viable, potentially
viable, or non-viable for redevelopment;
Detailed Site Assessment (Phase II Investigation, if
required). Environmental engineering investigation, sampling, and
chemical analysis of the site;
Project Development and Financing. Selection and financing
of a cleanup and redevelopment project(s) for the site;
Cleanup Planning and Execution. Selection and
implementation of a cleanup approach; and
Redevelopment of Property. Construction or alteration of
the property to suit the new use for which it is being redeveloped.
site identification
The city will continue to identify and update brownfield sites in
order to assist developers to identify sites with desirable
characteristics and undertake advertising and marketing activities that
outline the assistance available in order to promote site assessment,
cleanup, and redevelopment. In the private sector, developers can look
for potential sites by using these public resources. These are
primarily low cost activities that need a continuous low level of
financing to operate and maintain.
initial site assessment (phase i investigation)
Initial site assessment activities can often be performed at
relatively moderate cost. There are a number of ways to identify
suspected contamination that rely on existing records, historical data,
and other readily-available sources:
Examine historical data to review historical uses and
applicable federal and state reports of hazardous substances on the
property;
Research the chain of title/zoning history--who were past
owners of the land, what activities were licensed;
Examine similar characteristics for neighboring
properties;
Check for prior environmental audits and assessments (OSHA
safety reports, etc.);
Review insurance policies to determine covered activities
that might have involved potentially-hazardous chemicals; and
economic assessment
A key distinction must be made between those sites in the city that
are in desirable locations and have the potential to attract buyers and
developers and sites that have no interested buyers and few potential
uses. If there is no potential economic return to outweigh the cost of
restoring a site to a useful state, no financing strategy will induce
its redevelopment until and unless this condition changes. To determine
what the redevelopment potential of a site is, an economic assessment
must be performed. For the purpose of developing financing strategies,
the sites can be divided into three basic categories outlined below:
Viable Sites. Sites that are already economically viable,
and where the private market is already working towards redevelopment
without public assistance. These sites either have very low potential
for environmental liability, or such high potential rates of return
that the advantages outweigh the risks from the project sponsors'
(developers and investors) perspective.
Threshold Sites. Sites that are only marginally viable,
and will not be redeveloped without some public assistance. These sites
may have either fewer economic advantages than the viable sites, or
they may have greater potential for environmental liability.
Non-Viable Sites. Sites with significant potential for
environmental liability, and/or whose economic advantages are minimal
at best. These sites require substantial public assistance to redevelop
(in the form of subsidies), or should be left alone, if possible.
part one: emplementation of the brs
A. Match goals to sites
Decisions to invest in any of these three kinds of brownfields
sites depend on the goals of the particular investor. To better
leverage public investment, the city will direct public resources to
those sites where the private sector is unwilling or unable to finance
projects--threshold and certain selected non-viable sites. To the
maximum extent possible, that public investment will be leveraged with
private financing. A major objective of the BRS will be to move
threshold sites into the viable category, and nonviable sites into the
threshold and viable categories so that private investment can be
attracted to them.
B. Strategies for viable sites
Typically, viable sites should need little or no direct investment
of public funds. However, private owners and developers interested in a
viable site may still require assistance in dealing with the regulatory
and liability difficulties associated with brownfields assessment,
cleanup and redevelopment. BRS components that may be appropriate for
viable sites include:
timely review and comment of assessment and/or cleanup
plans and proposals by regulators;
use-based cleanup standards, reflecting the intended use
of the property;
liability clarification so that risk can quantified, and
then managed or sold; or
liability release (such as a covenant-not-to-sue) after
the cleanup is completed.
These strategies facilitate private sector investment in the BRS
while conserving public resources for sites that would not otherwise be
commercially viable.
C. Strategies for threshold sites
Threshold sites may possess significant potential for assessment,
cleanup and redevelopment but need some public assistance to increase
the rate of return on the possible investment or to limit the potential
for environmental liability before developers will consider investing
in them. BRS financing components can be selected to target either
need.
D. Strategies for non-viable sites
Non-viabIe sites may require significant investments of government
resources to make an otherwise unattractive site economically viable.
These sites are unlikely to attract private capital under most
circumstances. Unless a severe health and/or environmental risk exists
or becomes apparent, the BRS will target its assessment, cleanup and
redevelopment efforts to viable and threshold sites before addressing
non-viable sites.
iii. detailed site assessment (phase h investigation, if required)
At this stage, a site is assessed to determine the level and extent
of environmental contamination. The costs can vary widely depending on
the severity of the problem, and the intensity of the site
investigation required under state law. If the initial site assessment
shows that there is potential contamination, a more expensive and
detailed assessment is then performed. This involves:
Environmental engineering;
Sampling; and
Chemical analysis.
In some cases, the private sector may be unwilling to pay for this
stage of the process, because if a site is found to be too
contaminated, the project will never be developed. This suggests that
additional financing tools may be required at this point, for example
those administered through the Governor's Office of Brownfields
Revitalization.
iv. project development and financing
At this stage, feasibility studies may be required and the
project's financing must be arranged. Activities at this stage include:
Financial feasibility studies for the project; and
Development of a financing plan for cleanup and for
redevelopment.
This stage might include city-sponsored meetings with lenders,
insurers, proposed project partners, and affected neighboring
communities (their representatives and citizen groups).
v. cleanup planning and execution
This stage can involve high capital costs, because of
Site remediation;
Associated public notice requirements; and
Preparation of reports for regulators.
vi. redevelopment of property
Depending on the type of project selected, this stage can involve
construction, clearance, and reuse of the property. Activities at this
stage include:
Site clearance/demolition (after remediation); and
Construction of facilities.
Statement of Honorable Patrick L. McCrory, Mayor, City of Charlotte
Chairman Duncan and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Patrick
McCrory and I am pleased to speak with you today as the Mayor of the
City of Charlotte, North Carolina and to share with you my City's
experience in addressing Brownfield sites.
I would like to begin my remarks today by saying that Mayors across
this country have been on the forefront of Brownfield issues for at
least a decade. I serve as the Chairman of The U.S. Conference of
Mayors Energy and Environment Committee, so I have learned of the many
initiatives underway by Mayors across the country. It is the local
governments that are finding innovative ways to address Brownfields and
get contaminated properties cleaned-up, back in use, and on the tax
rolls. However, without federal funding we, as Mayors, would not be
able to undertake half of the initiatives that we have in Brownfield
remediation.
I, like Mayors across the country, certainly welcome the Federal
government's partnership on this issue--Charlotte has been able to use
Federal monies to clean up several sites in Charlotte. I would also
like to say that I am encouraged by the bill working its way through
the United States Senate that would continue to support local
governments by providing additional financial resources to help clean
up Brownfield sites. This is a positive sign of Congress' efforts to
work with local governments and partner together on issues of
significant importance, especially to many of our metropolitan cities.
As many of you know, Charlotte is a Sun belt city that is not as
industrialized as many Northern cities, yet a University of North
Carolina study found over 1,000 sites where perceived contamination
would complicate real estate transactions. Clearly Charlotte does not
have the resources to address all these properties, yet we are losing
businesses who are interested in locating to the City, but lack the
money, technical resources and time to consider Brownfield land to
locate their enterprises.
nfl stadium brownfield experience
One of Charlotte's first forays into tackling brownfields was in
1994, when the City of Charlotte was working to assemble land in the
center city to site a football stadium for the City's NFL Carolina
Panthers Franchise. The City was able to assemble 13.4 acres for the
stadium and practice fields, but in doing so found that several acres
of the land were identified as a State Superfund site. The land
contained high levels of Lead and PCB contaminants. Knowing the site
was contaminated, the City agreed to buy it at $13 per square foot, yet
made arrangements with the seller that money to clean up the site would
come out of the purchase price, which ended up dropping the purchase
price to approximately $ 10 per square foot.
The remediation of the land involved placing much of the
contaminants in a waste cell that presently occupies part of the
property, some of the contaminants were solidified to be immobile and
others still were mixed with stabilizing material and sent out of state
to a hazardous waste site. The total cost for the clean up was
approximately $3 million with the city paying over $1 million (deducted
from the purchase price), $.5 million fromDuke Power company, and
several other smaller amounts from different companies, including
$50,000 from the State of North Carolina. Although the Federal
government did not expend any funds for the remediation of this site,
the Federal government took the unusual step of releasing the site to
the State of North Carolina to oversee the remediation. It is my
understanding, that this was the first time in Region 4 history that
the federal government had released a site to be cleaned up by a local
government. The result of this effort is that the City of Charlotte now
has a beautiful NFL stadium and practice field on valuable Center City
land that is generating property tax from the owners of the Carolina
Panthers. The City of Charlotte was awarded the Phoenix Award in 1998,
one of only three cities to be recognized that year by the Engineering
Society of Western Pennsylvania for Brownfield clean-ups in the United
States. In addition to the Phoenix award, the City of Charlotte has
been used as the model in writing property transaction language that
includes a covenant not to sue future landowners for remediated
Brownfield property. Most importantly, the land today still tests non-
detective for contaminants.
The most telling success story of cleaning up the Brownfield land,
is that the City kept four acres of the original 13.4 acres of land to
house the waste cell and serve as a buffer area for the football
practice field. The City recently agreed to sell the four acres of land
in February for a mixed-use development for $29.54 per square foot
through a competitive bid process. The sale is contingent on the City
removing the waste cell located on the property. After removing the
waste cell and remediating the four acres for approximately $1.8
million, the City will still net $4.8 million and put an additional
four acres of prime Center City real estate back on the tax roll.
establishment of the charlotte brownrield program
During the City's positive experience with the NFL Stadium
Brownfield issue, the City decided to develop a comprehensive approach
to tackling Brownfield issues citywide. The Charlotte Brownfield
Program was established for two main purposes:
(1) Incent (re) development in distressed areas
(2) Provide economic and environmental justice
In conjunction with meeting the two stated purposes of the
Brownfield Program, the program includes several tangible outcomes we
intend to achieve, including using redevelopment to
assist in providing services and jobs to the community
remove blight
increase the tax base
retain and attract quality businesses
reduce potential of harm to the community because of
contamination
The City's first area to implement this new Brownfield Strategy was
the former industrial area known as South End and a nearby neighborhood
known as Wilmore.
south end success stories
In October 1996, the City of Charlotte was awarded a $200,000 EPA
grant, with the grant focusing on engaging the private sector and
banking community in Brownfield redevelopments. The South End was
targeted because of the area's close proximity to the Charlotte
Convention Center and NFL Ericsson Stadium. The Wilmore area was
identified due to its location next to the South End and because of its
inclusion in Charlotte's federally designated Enterprise Community.
The original grant application identified a goal to assist 2-3
private sector Brownfield redevelopments. This goal was exceeded with
seven projects receiving assistance. Those seven projects spurred the
investment of $17 million in the area and created 480 jobs. The seven
projects include:
127 Worthington Avenue: Mill renovated as Design Center of the
Carolinas. Project received North Carolina's first Brownfield
agreement, limiting developer liability, in April 1998. The $14 million
dollar project is complete.
320 Carson Boulevard: Thomas Construction, previously leasing space
in the South End, purchased and renovated a former radiator shop for
their offices. Project involved removal of contaminated soils and is
complete.
2213 Toomey Avenue: Manufacturing building to be renovated for
Truck Equipment Manufacturers' expansion, adding approximately 20 new
manufacturing jobs.
1525 South Tryon: Gains Brown Design to purchase adjacent
properties to renovate for lease to design businesses. Properties have
been purchased and contamination removed.
216 Dunavant Street: Cost Effective Maintenance purchased leased
property to construct new building for their own offices and renovate
existing building for lease. Property has been purchased.
West Worthington Street: The Wilmore Community Development
Corporation in partnership with Boulevard Centro bought land and is
looking to build affordable infill housing.
Westover Shopping Center: A dilapidated shopping center confiscated
under drug seizure laws and turned over to the City of Charlotte. The
land is in process of being demolished and rebuilt, but City has to
address dry cleaning solvents on the site.
Because of the federal EPA grant support and the redevelopment of
the South End in conjunction with the City's light rail initiative,
land prices continue to increase in the South End. Due to the
Brownfield initiatives in South End and Wilmore, the City ofCharlotte
was awarded a Savvy Award by the International City-County
Communications and Marketing Association (3CMA). The award was
presented for outstanding communication materials used for community
meetings for the Wilmore neighborhood to identify redevelopment issues
in their neighborhood. The City also won an International City/County
Management Association (ICMA) award for our Brownfield Peer Exchange
Program in 1998, which was selected based on the programs expertise in
community involvement and brownfields redevelopment.
other charlotte brownfield initiatives
Brownfield Assessment Program
In February 2001, the Charlotte City Council approved the creation
of the City's Brownfield Assessment Program, which provides matching
funds to property owners or potential property owners for assessments
at sites suspected of contamination. The program provides 50% matching
funds up to $20,000 per site for assessment activities that would lead
to site redevelopment. The Program was started with seed money from a
City appropriation of $140,000 and an EPA Supplemental Assistance Grant
of $100,000.
Brownfield Clean-up Revolving Loan Fund
In February 2001, the Brownfield Clean-up Revolving Loan Fund was
approved by Charlotte City Council to loan funds to public and private
borrowers for clean up at approved sites. The funds are loaned at 2%
and are collateralized by a lien on the property. Repayments are due
following construction of a project or at the closing of the permanent
loan. The Loan Fund was established through a $500,000 EPA Brownfield
Clean-up Revolving Loan Fund Grant. In addition to the Revolving Loan
Fund Grant the City has also committed a $100,000 EPA Supplemental
Assistance Grant for Assessment Pilots to this Loan Fund to offer more
assessment and clean up assistance throughout Charlotte's entire
distressed geographic areas.
Both the Brownfield Assessment Program and the Clean-up Revolving
Loan Fund share the same criteria for eligibility as follows:
Suspected contamination is eligible under EPA grant
guidelines
Contamination is an impediment to redevelopment
Project's probability of success will increase with
environmental issues resolved
Proposed end-use is consistent with community needs
Proposed use is consistent with adopted zoning and land-
use plans
All taxes due on the property are paid in full.
In addition to the criteria, a Brownfield site selection committee
consisting of five community representatives, an environmental
representative and engineer, plus a banker, developer, and attorney
reviews all program applicants.
NCDENR staffposition in Charlotte
The City of Charlotte's commitment to cleaning up brownfields was
enhanced by the City Council when it entered into an agreement with the
State of North Carolina in February 2001 to fund $60,000 towards the
services of a North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) staff member. The funding is for the staff member to
work exclusively on Brownfield projects in Charlotte. This arrangement
will help the City to address more Brownfield sites and expedite the
review and application for agreements processing time with the state on
identified sites.
conclusion
Although Charlotte seems to be ahead of many cities in addressing
the terribly critical area of Brownfield redevelopment, the City has
really only been at this for a little more than five years. Our past
successes have encouraged us to do more in this area, given the
increase in the property tax base, the development of blighted areas,
and the availability of land options for new and growing businesses. We
feel we are on the right path in our Brownfield Development Program,
but as you hopefully noted, we could not be doing several of our
programs without State and Federal assistance.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I thank you for allowing
me to address the subcommittee today and I thank you for your continued
interest in partnering with America's Mayor's and investing in our
cities through Brownfield initiatives.
______
Statement of Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald
I want to thank Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member DeFazio for
calling today's hearing in order that we might focus on Brownfields
Development. Today's hearing is an important opportunity to focus on
the redevelopment of brownfield properties in local communities that
have been on the front lines.
I, like so many of my colleagues, have heard from my constituents,
community groups, and local governments in my district whose quality of
life and economic vitality is directly impacted by these contaminated
sites. In my own district, Mr. Chairman, the communities of Carson,
Gardena, Long Beach, and Lynwood have all been working actively to
restore brownfield properties. It has become clear that brownfields
revitalization requires broad federal involvement and the inclusion of
the private sector and non-govemmental organizations.
Brownfields are abandoned, idled or under-used industrial and
commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated
by real or perceived environmental contamination. Frequently, these
properties, once the source of jobs and economic benefits to the entire
community, lie abandoned for fear of the contamination and the
associated liability. Instead, companies bypass these brownfields in
the urban core and head for pristine greenfields outside the cities.
Restoring contaminated property can help bring life and vitality to
a community. Making a once toxic area viable means more jobs, an
enhanced tax base and a sense of optimism about the future.
I am pleased that this subcommittee, with the help of our witnesses
today, will once again examine the issues and obstacles involved with
redeveloping brownfields properties. The insights you offer today will
shape the development of any future actions by this Subcommittee and
the 107th Congress, as we continue our efforts to restore environmental
health for our Nation.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today
regarding their efforts in redeveloping brownfields properties within
their own communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Statement of U.S. Representative James P. McGovern
As the only New England member of this subcommittee, I am compelled
to mention the profound effect which both real and perceived industrial
contamination has had throughout New England. New England's old
manufacturing economy was a forordained casualty of U.S. free-trade
policy. The textile, tool and wire companies have gone, as expected,
leaving abandoned factories, blighted neighborhoods and contaminated
brownfields.
Brownfields are a compound tragedy for economically disadvantaged
and free-trade impacted communities, Not only do brownfields pose
public health risks, but economically speaking, communities that have
been knocked down stay down. Businesses that might otherwise invest in
communities do not for fear of being sued. Even the federal government
is uneasy about investing in areas suspected to be brownfields. Last
year this subcommittee undertook a bi-partisan effort to reauthorize
Superfund and expand brownfields remediation efforts. I hope that this
subcommittee will undertake similar efforts in this Congress,
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having Worcester City
Manager Tom Hoover here to testify before the Subcommittee about the
City of Worcester's efforts to address its brownfields problems, I have
worked closely with City Manager Hoover on a number of brownfields
projects, including the Gardner-Kilby-Hammond and the South Worcester
Industrial Park projects, both of which I believe Mr. Hoover will
elaborate on in his testimony.
Worcester is the prime example of a city whose development is being
impeded by brownfields. Approximately one hour away from Boston,
Worcester has all the advantages of location and infrastructure. A
regional airport, an intermodal rail port, and access to the interstate
highway system are all reasons why Worcester should have thrived during
Route 128's high-tech boom years. But brownfields have prevented
thousands of new jobs from coming to Worcester and kept several
blighted neighborhoods from being restored.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you to
address some of these issues in the next two years.
Opening Remarks of Congressman C.L. ``Butch'' Otter
Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member DeFazio, it is an honor to be here
before you again. Brownfields legislation is one of the most important
issues the subcommittee will take up this year
Brownfields cleanup needs to be a state directed and controlled
process. State and local communities know best what level of cleanup
they need. Idaho's small communities, like those in other states,
suffer the double burden of bearing huge cleanup costs for Brownfields,
then seeing development go to, new sites that do not bear any risk of
EPA involvement
EPA needs to be refocused away from being an enforcement agency to
an enablement agency providing financial aid, disaster assistance,
technical expertise and national coordination. Micro management only
helps bureaucrats in Washington.
My distinguished colleague in the other body, Senator Crapo, has
taken the lead in demanding that Brownfields legislation recognize the
primary interest states and localities have in cleaning up Brownfields.
I agree with the distinguished Senator that any federal legislation on
Brownfields certify that in any cleanup where EPA has not mandated
cleanup, or where cleanup has been completed to a state's satisfaction,
EPA cannot step in without dire reason. I look forward to working with
you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of the sub-committee to draft
common-sense brownfields legislation this year.
______
Testimony of Christopher S. Pawenski, Coordinator, Industrial
Assistance Program, County of Erie, New York
bethlehem steel site, lackawanna, new york
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to address this Subcommittee on issues
involving the development of brownfields in our nation's urban core. My
name is Chris Pawenski. I am the Coordinator of the Industrial
Assistance Program in Erie County's Department of Environment &
Planning. Erie County Executive Joel A. Giambra sends his regards. He
fully supports federal regulation and assistance that will expedite the
redevelopment of former industrial properties in our urban cores,
thereby preventing development being forced out to our valued
greenfields. Brownfield redevelopment has been made a priority by
County Executive Glambra.
The County of Erie, in cooperation with all local government
entities as well as the State and Federal government, has been
spearheading the revitalization of 2000 acres of brownfields within the
Cities of Buffalo and Lackawanna. Our highest priority has been the
transformation of the former Bethlehem Steel manufacturing site, in the
City of Lackawanna, into a 21st Century industrial park utilizing the
inherent assets of this location--water, rail, highway access--and its
proximity to major markets in both the United States and Canada.
First opened in 1899, the Bethlehem Steel site covers approximately
1,600 acres along the eastern shore of Lake Erie. At its peak, the
facility employed 25,000 workers in 7 million square feet of buildings
with 25 miles of rail track. During WW II, the Lackawanna plant was the
highest volume steel producing facility in the country.
In 1983 the company decided to close down a major portion of its
steel making activities at the Lackawanna Plant, idling over 20,000
workers. Today the facility employs less than 1,000 workers. The
company has demolished all unproductive facilities and over 1, 100
acres remain a vacant expanse of brownfields. This represents a
significant portion of our urban waterfront and mandates a need for
economic development. Since the facility's closing, neighboring
property values have plummeted over 50%, city population has decreased
over 40% and the neighboring community has become a center of social
environmental issues.
In 1999, Erie County and the Bethlehem Steel Corporation developed
a public/private collaboration to propagate the reuse of the vacant
brownfield property. This collaboration brought together governmental
agencies from all levels of government. The purpose was to define a
path to move forward, which would remedy concerns of the agencies and
at the same time fulfill the needs of the community. It was decided
that an approximately 102-acre parcel would be targeted to be the first
phase of redevelopment for a new industrial park. The Bethlehem Steel
Corporation had agreed in principle to transfer the property title to
public ownership.
This first phase created the need to have the EPA involved since
the entire Bethlehem site was under an Administrative Order of Consent
and Interim Status. It also required the involvement of the NY DEC
because of environmental liability concerns, as well as the involvement
of other state agencies. Because of this early involvement of all
agencies, EPA Region 2 notified the County of a pending RCRA
Brownfields Prevention Initiative Pilot Program. An application was
submitted in cooperation with EPA Region 2 and the Bethlehem Steel
Corporation. The Bethlehem Steel Lackawanna site was one of four
applications approved nationally for this new initiative.
A task force was established with representatives from Erie County,
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, NY DEC HQ and Region 9, and EPA's Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and Region 2. Within a
couple of months the task force agreed on short and long term goals.
The short-term goals were to remove the Administrative Order of Consent
and to initiate the process between Bethlehem Steel and the NY DEC to
enter the 102-acre site into a state voluntary clean-up program. The
long-term goal was to establish a process that can be continued and
assessment and remediation standards that can be moved forth on the
remaining property that would be targeted for redevelopment.
Outcomes and successes
Within ten months after the task force was established, short-term
goals were primarily achieved. The Administrative Order of Consent has
been removed from the 102-acre site, although it was determined that
this goal could have been easily achieved eight years earlier. The
release of this Administrative Order of Consent required a letter of
request from the Bethlehem Steel Corporation accompanied by a land
title survey.
The NY DEC has agreed to let Bethlehem Steel Corporation enter into
negotiations to put the 102-acre site into a voluntary consent order.
This voluntary consent order will be similar, but not completely the
same as the state's voluntary clean-up program. This is because of a
policy between the NY DEC and EPA Region 2 that does not allow
properties under Interim Status to enter into a state voluntary clean-
up program. This voluntary consent order is a first and only time
adventure for the NY DEC. The NY DEC was willing to take this step
because of the unified and early cooperation of this task force under
this Brownfield Initiative Pilot Program.
One of the keys to reaching the short-term successes was a two-day
workshop and site visit by all members of the task force, as well as
community leaders from the County of Erie, City of Lackawanna and
neighboring communities. By bringing the task force members together in
one room, issues were addressed and the development of solutions was
expedited.
Long-term goals continue to be pursued. Bethlehem Steel and the NY
DEC are currently in discussions on what level of assessment and level
of remediation standards should be used on the property. The task force
maintains monthly conference calls, headed by the OSWER, but since the
Brownfield Initiative Pilot is essentially over, the role of each
member is not clearly defined. it is the individual members of the task
force and their desire to be part of the solution to develop the means
to reach the long term goals that keep this process moving forward.
Barriers Encountered
There were basically two barriers encountered while trying to
achieve the short-term goals. The first barrier was the unwritten
policy between the EPA Region and NY DEC that discourages puffing a
property under Interim Status into a voluntary clean-up program. This
policy is not consistent throughout the country, as some Regions
encourage voluntary clean-up programs on Interim Status properties. Our
goal was to get this property under the state voluntary clean-up
program that would require the expenditure of private funds for
remediation of the property. Since this policy was not a written policy
it was difficult to challenge it or seek an amendment to it.
Our second greatest barrier was the lack of proactive direction
when encountering areas that are not covered by law, regulation or
policy. In order to work within the first barrier the task force
determined the next best solution would be to amend the property lines
as described in the Interim Status Order. After several weeks of
discussion the attorney from EPA Region 2 directed us that amending the
property lines, even if agreed by all concerned parties, would not be
allowed. In depth discussion lead the County to ask for a copy of the
regulation or law that stated this. To our chagrin, there wasn't
anything that did not allow this amendment, the problem according to
the attorneys is there is no regulation or law that allows for it. So
in the absence of any direction in ``gray'' areas that did not define a
path to be taken, the approach was ``let's play it safe''.
We were able to go around these barriers by the NY DEC's
willingness to develop the voluntary consent order. This is a first for
the NY DEC, but unfortunately it is a one-time event. So when the
remainder of the 1,000 acres is targeted for redevelopment, as well as
other similar brownfield sites, these barriers will occur again. In
summary, we went around the barriers but were unable to reach a
solution to eliminate them. It should be noted that the barriers we
encountered were not related to public health or safety issues. At no
time was the proper clean-up or public safety going to be compromised.
The barriers were strictly legal, procedural and administrative.
Federal Assistance and How to Expedite Brownfield Redevelopment
1. The federal government needs to provide legislation that
encourages a proactive approach toward brownfield redevelopment. When
agencies encounter ``gray'' areas, the approach should not be ``play it
safe'', it should be the approach that best suits the needs of the
community. The federal government should always endeavor to be part of
the solution, as opposed to ``staying out of the way'' of state and
local governments. Agencies should also be given the direction to be
proactive in reaching out to PRP's for assistance in removing RCRA or
CRCLA Orders. Waiting eight years to notify a PRP should not be
acceptable.
2. Communities should not have to wait to be selected for a pilot
program in order to get agencies from all levels of government
involved. Consideration for creation of a permanent action response
team(s) should be given. There is a considerable advantage to bringing
together peers from different agencies to solve problems regarding
brownfields; waiting once a year to hope to be part of a few selected
communities is unreasonable. In essence, if the Bethlehem Steel
Lackawanna site was not selected as part of this Brownfield Initiative
Pilot, the short-term goals would not have been developed let alone
achieved.
3. Provide adequate resources to federal agencies to allow
personnel to meet directly with the local community as well as other
governmental agencies.
4. Develop consistent policies throughout all EPA Regions. In
particular, it should be encouraged to put properties under Interim
Status into a state voluntary clean-up program.
5. Develop legislation that gives special consideration to
brownfields in communities with high levels of social environmental
concerns. Brownfields have often led not only to the decay of
neighboring properties but also to the decay in quality of life in the
neighboring community.
6. Provide assistance to regions that face the calamity of urban
sprawl, simply because the effort of privately redeveloping brownfields
cannot be justified compared to the ease of moving to our valued
greenfields.
7. Allow federal funding from different agencies be used on the
same brownfield project. Develop criteria to allow this, but if
different agencies warrant funding involvement in a brownfield project
due public safety, health, social environmental issues, sprawl, etc.
they should all be encouraged to participate and the community should
not be limited to only one source of federal funding, especially in
programs that require matching funds.
8. Allow federal funding to be used in conjunction and
participation with principle responsible parties (PRP) in voluntary
clean-up programs when warranted. Often the PRP maintains ownership of
a property but does not have the complete financial ability to enter a
voluntary clean-up program. The result is the property becomes ignored
by the PRP and the public and this leads to the growth in social and
economic woes associated with brownfields. Also, the local government
often forecloses on brownfield property because of delinquent taxes and
then the public pays for 100% of remediation costs.
9. Direct federal funding assistance directly to each local/
regional government. Let each community and/or region justify the need
for federal assistance directly to the federal government. Allowing
states to accept the federal funding and then distribute adds a level
of bureaucracy that is undesired by those that are in need of this
assistance. This approach is successful with the federal government's
Community Development Block Grant Program. However, these funds are not
sufficient to address brownfields.
10. Provide significant funding resources directed at the
remediation of brownfields. It is not uncommon to spend up to $100,000
per an acre to remediate and redevelop a brownfield. The communities
they are in typically cannot provide funding resources because of the
detriments brownfields brings to the community. Many brownfields are
located in economic and socially distressed areas and not in areas of
high property demand or high property values. Most federal programs
allow funding to be used for brownfield site planning and assessment
and not for remediation. We must do more than just find the problem we
need to also fix it. Not fixing the problem would result in the
property remaining non-productive, non-tax producing and non-job
creating.
Closing
Brownfields have become the forgotten child in the field of
economic development, not contaminated enough to warrant immediate
federal and state assistance and not clean enough to warrant private
investment. The alternative to not providing assistance and expediting
brownfield redevelopment is unacceptable--allowing brownfields and
their economic and social detriments to languish while we allow our
valued greenfields to become the brownfields of tomorrow and leaving
them to our future generations.
______
Testimony of James R. Williams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to address this subcommittee and provide positive evidence
of the impact that federal, state and local dollars have had on the
local Brownfields reclamation process in Chattanooga (Hamilton County)
Tennessee. My name is James R. Williams and I am the Brownfields
Program Manager for the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution
Control Bureau. Both our Mayor, Jon Kinsey, and our County Executive,
Claude Ramsey, send their regrets that they were not able to be here
today to testify. I will speak briefly about our local Brownfields
efforts.
i. introduction
In 1998, the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control
Bureau accepted the challenge of the Mayor and the Hamilton County
Executive to develop a local government Brownfields Program. This
program, which focuses primarily on the inner-city neighborhood of
Alton Park, was created to address:
The tax revenues lost when industry left the neighborhood;
the need to develop new industrial sites for economic
development opportunities;
the need to create jobs; and
the need to mitigate the environmental risks associated
with idle or vacant properties.
The governments of the City of Chattanooga and Hamilton County both
committed funding for the Brownfields program and also garnered
donations from a partnership created by five local utility providers.
ii. smart growth
Throughout the United States cities and even small towns are taking
on the challenge of smart growth. Redevelopment of brownfields sites is
an integral component of smart growth. Redevelopment of these sites (1)
protects the environment by reducing contamination and preserving
undeveloped greenfield sites, (2) reduces the need for additional
infrastructure, and (3) expands the local tax base and creates a return
on government investment.
Most significantly, smart growth can be achieved by making
community development an integral part of brownfields redevelopment. It
is not enough to clean up brownfields sites and return them to the tax
rolls. They must also be restored and incorporated as integral
components of the communities where they exist. In this way, a city
will achieve the highest end use of that property.
Before I continue on specific aspects of our program, I think it is
necessary to provide the context for its development. Chattanooga's
successful air pollution reduction actions are widely recognized as the
springboard to current local sustainable development initiatives.
During the 1960s, Chattanooga was considered one of the most polluted
cities in the United States. However, over the last 30 years, our city
has cleaned up its environmental act. Many events helped make this
change possible, but it was the process of Visioning that acted as the
main catalyst.
Visioning, also called charrette, is a process of facilitated
public dialogue designed to bring together various community
stakeholders with different viewpoints, and to establish understanding
where differences exist. The result is community consensus. Consensus
developed through the visioning process allows the creation of a set of
goals and projects and then provides guidance for those whose task it
is to implement them. The visioning process enables the development of
plans of action necessary to experience real results.
Chattanooga's legacy of facilitated public participation started in
1982 with the appointment of the Moccasin Bend Task Force. This
initiative of public and private citizens was the foundation of other
major community wide visioning processes:
Vision 2000 (1984)
Re-Vision 2000 (1993)
Southside Charrette (1996)
FutureScape Survey (1997)
Eastgate Charrette (1998)
ReCreate 2008 (1999)
These community participation efforts helped to produce results in
many local brownfields development areas. One example, Vision 2000, led
to the redevelopment of Ross' Landing, and its centerpiece, the
Tennessee Aquarium (1992). Ross' Landing is located in the center of
Chattanooga, along the Tennessee River. In the early 1980s, the Ross'
Landing area was the home to abandoned or closed warehouses, gas
stations, trolley barns and other unused buildings. By 1998, the area
had been redeveloped into the heart of Chattanooga's riverfront
renaissance, even before brownfields initiatives were noted as an urban
redevelopment strategy.
Today, the total investment toward the development of the
Chattanooga riverfront exceeds $400 million. The public-private
partnership has contributed to an enhanced quality of life, offering
new opportunities to live, work and play in attractive and safe
downtown locations.
Another example of brownfields development is the Southside
Development District, and its kick-off project, Finley Stadium/Cricket
Pavilion. This project is a multi-million dollar, multi use sports
stadium and open space pavilion built on formerly contaminated soil.
Through intense negotiations with the State of Tennessee, the
Department of Environment and Conservation and the U.S. EPA, Region IV,
a clean-up strategy was established and the revitalization of this
important area began. More recent development projects in the Southside
are the $43 million Chattanoogan Business Conference Center, which will
have its official grand opening next month, and the $15 million
Business Development Center, which is scheduled for opening in 2002.
Both projects, which began construction over the last 18 months,
utilize former brownfields properties.
Community revisioning also led to the 1996 consolidation of the
City and County school systems. School consolidation resulted in the
needed revitalization of many closed school buildings and their related
acreage. The City used creative, innovative means to bring these
brownfields back to life. Three examples are Habitat Square, the James
A. Henry Elementary School site, and the Joseph E. Smith Elementary
School site.
Habitat Square is a joint public-private partnership between
Habitat for Humanity of Greater Chattanooga, the City of Chattanooga,
and numerous volunteers and funding partners. This four-acre tract of
land, a former elementary school site, was donated by the City for the
construction of 20 three- and four-bedroom homes. The homes were built
for low-income families with annual incomes of less than $12,000, and
average family sizes of 4 or more. Habitat Square is the first
subdivision constructed by Habitat for Humanity and is the site of the
100th local house constructed through this organization of volunteers.
The City donated the property for Habitat Square, which was
appraised at $291,000, with a replacement value of $1.2 million. Over
$700,000 was raised for the construction of the 20 homes with the City
investing an additional $350,000 ($111,500 in Community Development
Block Grant funds) in infrastructure improvements in surrounding
neighborhoods on the perimeter of Habitat Square.
Local residents formed a Homeowners Association that now takes an
active role in setting the course of the neighborhood. As a result, new
businesses have developed and slums and blight in the surrounding
neighborhoods have been removed. In addition, several homes have been
renovated and made available as affordable, single-family dwellings. To
address the educational needs of children residing in the community,
the Hamilton County Board of Education is beginning construction of a
new middle school with an investment of over $14 million.
The second example of school revitalization is the former James A.
Henry Elementary School site. Donated to the Westside Community
Development Corporation (CDC), which created local public-private
partnerships focused on community development, the CDC transformed the
site to a $1.2 million community resource center. Located in the heart
of an inner city housing development, the City donated the building and
$227,000 toward building renovations. The CDC was able to raise its own
capital to acquire adjacent underutilized property to construct a $1.3
million commercial complex that leases space to retail and service
providers that serve the Westside community.
The third example is the Joseph E. Smith school site, which was
sold to a local African American church, Olivet Baptist. The church is
completing construction of a $2.5 million sanctuary and social service
building that will provide needed support to residents in the Martin
Luther King, Jr. community, an inner city neighborhood.
iii. economic development
If smart growth in the form of environmental protection and
community development is the destination, then economic development is
the vehicle for getting there. The bad news is that redevelopment of
the 450,000--600,000 brownfields sites in this country is a Herculean
effort. The good news is that there is ample private investment capital
available for the job. Smart growth and economic development are
inextricably joined. Therefore, groups who have often been antagonists
in the past must now work toward a common goal.
The preceding examples of brownfields reclamation for the
Chattanooga community provide the context for our recently developed
Brownfields office. Clearly, there exists one common thread, our
visioning process. This process now guides our efforts in the
implementation of our local Brownfields program, which is federally
funded. In the last 18 months, the program secured two U.S. EPA grants:
$200,000 Brownfields Pilot Demonstration Assessment
Grant--August 1999
$100,000 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative Grant--July
2000
Additionally, and most important, the Brownfields Program is a
partner in the successful $35 million, HUD Hope VI Revitalization
Grant, awarded in June 2000 to the Chattanooga Housing Authority for
the Spencer McCallie Homes, a public housing development located in the
heart of the Brownfields Pilot target community.
This federal grant targets Alton Park, a community that contains a
diverse mix of brownfields redevelopment challenges, such as abandoned
manufacturing sites, residential neighborhoods, and the need for
economic stimulus in the community.
This area of approximately 3 square miles has over 300 acres that
could be redeveloped for either residential or industrial/commercial
use. Located within this area are some of our city's largest and most
successful employers--employers that have had recent expansions of
operations. Yet despite these expansion's, this target area remains one
of the most economically depressed areas in Hamilton County.
As part of each grant's work-plan, we recognized a need for a
comprehensive redevelopment or revitalization plan for this community.
Fortunately, this planning process received the full support and
commitment of the Mayor and the County Executive, the Chattanooga City
Council, and the Hamilton County Commission. Our local elected
leadership has worked in a bipartisan way to fuel a resident-driven
revitalization plan.
In September 1999, Mayor Jon Kinsey hosted an initial meeting in
Alton Park, which was attended by over 250 people. This meeting led 25
residents to participate in selecting the charrette consultant, AA
Baker & Associates of Tampa, Florida.
The City and County funded a four-day community charrette in
February 2000, and the consultant team facilitated a visioning process
with input from over 500 stakeholder participants, resulting in the
Alton Park Master Plan of Redevelopment for this community. The
Chattanooga City Council officially adopted this plan in October 2000.
Without citizen involvement serious conflict, mistrust and delaying
interventions might have occurred, which would have made it difficult
for positive change to occur. Instead, our process has enhanced
accountability, ownership, empowerment, and a continued involvement,
which is the ``Chattanooga Way.''
The Program has engaged the services of an environmental
contractor, a leader in brownfields reclamation locally, statewide,
regionally, and nationally, to create a prototype GIS database of
brownfields development sites. This database will incorporate both the
economic development as well as environmental information necessary to
attract investment from both the public and private sectors.
The Program database will be a ``development tool'' that aims to
augment our local economic development ``Cluster Model'' currently in
use by our local Chamber of Commerce. Cluster growth will create new
economic growth for our regional and the brownfields database will
provide potential locations for this growth. Facilitating the Chamber
Partnership will be critical to the development of the Brownfields
Program.
The aim of our Brownfields Program is to facilitate the
revitalization of brownfields throughout the community by balancing a
long-term process of brownfields remediation and reuse with active
community participation and involvement. The Alton Park planning
charrette was an important first step in the brownfields redevelopment
process. The program hopes to use the model of the Alton Park community
to expand the local effort to other Brownfield projects, such as the
Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant site. Now the stage is set for the next
critical elements, which are:
1. Securing the funding that will lead to real change in this
distressed community;
2. Becoming clearer about the liability issues surrounding any
brownfields project.
Public sector dollars were secured in the last 18 months to help
attract private investors to Alton Park. While the public-sector funds
are substantial, private interest is ultimately what keeps a community
alive. One way of creating a thriving community is to attract local
business; another way is to attract homeowners. Both could be done by:
1. Reducing lender risk using:
Loan guarantees
Companion/subordinate loans
Purchase of environmental insurance
2. Reducing borrower's cost using:
Interest rate reductions or subsidies
Due diligence or loan packaging assistance
3. Improving the borrower's financial situation through:
Repayment grace periods
Tax abatements
4. Offering direct resources such as:
Grants
Forgivable/performance-based loans
Training and technical assistance
In addition to private funding, government funding is used to fill
in the gaps necessary to close brownfields deals. Public funds are used
to purchase abandoned properties and environmental insurance, which
helps eliminate or lessen the financial uncertainties of a project.
iv. private investment and uncertainty
Uncertainty is the single greatest impediment to there development
of brownfields sites. Unfortunately, current environmental law and
regulations creates uncertainties about the potential liabilities
associated with a site. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is
no guarantee of how environmental liability will be apportioned now and
in the future. This uncertainty may be minimized somewhat through
extensive, up-front environmental investigations. But there is still
the issue of the cost and time it takes to conduct the investigations
and even if the investigations are conducted there is no guarantee that
redevelopment will occur nor is there any way to know the potential
negative impact of the investigations. Thus, uncertainty creates
inaction, and capital goes elsewhere, leaving, the brownfields site
undeveloped.
Legislation has been drafted in the State of Tennessee to minimize
the uncertainty caused by state environmental laws and regulations. The
legislation is designed to clarify liability for current and future
owners and operators. Prospective purchasers and developers will be
able to enter into firm agreements with the State of Tennessee to
accept responsibility for remediation of brownfields sites without fear
of being sued in the future for additional liabilities. If
cleanupcriteria are predicated on future land use patterns, legal
mechanisms are available to ensure that land use will be limited as
promised. Findley Stadium is an excellent example of how these
agreements can help foster new uses of brownfields sites.
Also, the new state brownfields legislation currently proposed by
Governor Don Sundquist's administration underscores a commitment for
brownfields redevelopment in Tennessee.
v. the role of federal government
Business, communities, and state and local governments are
accepting their responsibility in ensuring smart growth through
redevelopment of brownfields sites. It is critical for the federal
government to expand its leadership role. Currently, agreements between
prospective purchasers and states to conduct voluntary cleanup of
brownfields sites are not protected from future additional requirements
by the federal government. This creates another form of uncertainty
that inhibits redevelopment. Federal law should be changed to enable
states and developers to make final and binding agreements without fear
of future action by the federal government.
The federal government can also support the efforts of state and
local government through grants for the creation and operation of state
and municipal brownfields programs. These grants would jump start
brownfields redevelopment throughout the United States. At the same
time, it would allow state and local governments to tailor their
programs to the specific needs of their constituencies.
While private investors will be able to redevelop most brownfields
sites through normal means, some brownfields sites have a net negative
value. The great majority of these sites will never be redeveloped
without investment of public dollars. State and local government will
continue to be sources of some of those dollars, but the federal
government also has a responsibility to appropriate money targeted
specifically for brownfields redevelopment. Further, existing funding
programs should make brownfields redevelopment projects a priority when
appropriating funds.
vi. conclusion
In summary, development of our local brownfields has occurred in a
variety of ways. Environmental factors alone did not necessarily
control the brownfields redevelopment processes. There were other
factors beyond environmental contamination that drove these brownfields
reclamation projects. In most cases economic factors were the prime
determinants of each project. Our local brownfields reclamation
projects offered the best opportunity to not only recycle land, but
also to better utilize existing infrastructure, e.g., roads, sewers and
utilities.
Each of the local brownfields reclamation successes in the
Chattanooga-Hamilton County community has had the positive components
of partnership with all levels of governnent--local, state, and
federal--and public and private investment, combined with a successful
public input process in developing a vision and a plan of action. Each
of these successes required the necessity of coalition building and
utilized a charrette process, which encouraged stakeholders to:
Hear and respect differing points of view;
Establish an extensive, diverse web of citizen task forces
and organizations working to improve community conditions;
Plan and coordinate an interrelated approach to find
solutions.
This same methodology will continue to be the prototype for our
local Brownfields Program.
Our design is simple: Bring the community together to hear, plan,
establish and coordinate solutions. This again is the ``Chattanooga
Way.''
______
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Testimony of R. Bruce Josten, Executive Vice President, Government
Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, I am R. Bruce
Josten, Executive Vice President of Government Affairs for the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce (``U.S. Chamber''), the world's largest business
federation representing more than three million businesses of every
size, sector, and region.
We commend you for conducting this important hearing on
redeveloping abandoned and potentially contaminated former industrial
and manufacturing properties, commonly referred to as ``Brownfields''
sites. Thank you also for the opportunity to submit this testimony for
the record on ``Brownfields: Lessons from the Field,''
The U.S. Chamber believes legislation is necessary to encourage
Brownfields redevelopment by reducing the uncertainty regarding the
cleanup of Brownfields sites, and the separation of Brownfields
redevelopment from the Comprehensive Environmental, Responsibility,
Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``Superfund'') liability
structure for sites with little or no contamination.
In my testimony, I present recommendations that, if adopted, the
U.S. Chamber believes will greatly accelerate the pace at which
Brownfields sites are cleaned up and redeveloped for commercial,
industrial and community uses.
Brownfields redevelopment should be a national priority
Among the members of the U.S. Chamber's federation are 3,000 state
and local chambers. Perhaps no other environmental issue impacts these
chambers and their respective communities as much as Brownfields
redevelopment. Various estimates indicate there are as many as 500,000
Brownfields sites throughout the United States. These sites are blights
on communities, drain the local tax base, hinder economic growth, and
often pose environmental risks. The vast majority of Brownfields sites
remain abandoned, derelict and unattractive to developers--even though
these sites are usually located in areas with access to a strong
workforce, and transportation and utility infrastructure--because of
uncertainty regarding:
The nature and extent of potential contamination;
Potential liability to be imposed on the owners and
operators of the site by the retroactive, strict and joint, and several
liability provisions of CERCLA, and
The ability of state voluntary cleanup programs to enable
Brownfields restorations without undue federal intervention.
The U.S. Chamber is a longstanding advocate of Brownfields reforms
The U.S. Chamber has worked to bring together state and local
governments, environmental regulators, local chambers, developers, the
financial and insurance industries, and major sports organizations,
such as the U.S. Soccer Foundation, to discuss strategies for
Brownfields redevelopment. As part of this strategy, the U.S. Chamber:
Hosted the ``Brownfields to American Dream Fields''
conference in 1999 to explore methods to redevelop sites into athletic
fields;
Hosted the ``Let's Make it Happen'' conference in 2000
that centered on approaches to redevelop Brownfields sites as
commercial and community facilities; and
Will convene the ``Brownfields Summit'' on June 18, 2001
to highlight strategies for implementing new Brownfields legislation,
should it be enacted, or efforts to promote and support Congressional
Brownfields legislation.
Brownfields restoration initiatives are beginning to demonstrate
success
Over the past few years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA'') has established a process, through a series of policies
described in guidance documents, that encourages states to assert
control over the restoration of Brownfields sites.\1\ Currently, 35
states have voluntary cleanup programs designed to remediate
Brownfields.\2\ Of the more than 12,273 sites in these state programs,
2,691 have been restored and redeveloped, Pennsylvania's program has
been the most successful, cleaning up 583 of the 654 sites--89
percent--in its program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/gdc.htm for a list of
guidance documents. For information on EPA Brownfields efforts, see
http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/index.htm.
\2\ Of these states, 12 have entered into Memoranda of Agreement
(``MOA'') with EPA and follow the Agency's guidance. The remainder have
state-sponsored voluntary cleanup programs that are similar to EPA's
programs but independent of EPA oversight. The primary difference
between these two efforts is that cleanups in those states working
under MOAs receive a release from federal CERCLA Liability when a site
is remediated according to the appropriate plan. These MOAs include
provisions that allow EPA to reopen the cleanup based on a set of
conditions. Sites remediated in states with voluntary cleanup programs
that do not have MOAs with EPA only receive a release from state
liability and remain subject to CERCLA liability should there be
subsequent discovery of significant contamination of the site. The
state voluntary programs, however, have cleaned up 1,530 Brownfields
sites and 1,161 sites have been cleaned up pursuant to EPA MOA
programs. The vast majority of final cleanups have occurred in five
states--Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, Washington and California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although this progress is praiseworthy, at the current pace it will
take centuries to remediate 500,000 Brownfields sites. To accelerate
the pace of redevelopment for Brownfields sites, Congress needs to
build on the progress made by these 35 states and EPA. Redevelopment of
Brownfields sites will bring jobs, significant economic development, an
expanded tax base, and a better quality of life to the communities
where these sites are located.
Congress must recognize the differences among Brownfields sites
Any Brownfields reform legislation should treat sites according to
the risk they pose to human health and the environment. Superfund was
established to respond to the most highly contaminated sites that posed
imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the
environment. However, as currently interpreted, any site that contains
a detectable level of a hazardous substance--down to a few molecules--
is potentially subject to CERCLA liability. Due to this extremely
broad, ridiculous interpretation of CERCLA, the number of Brownfields
sites has grown from a few thousand to approximately 500,000.
However, the vast majority of Brownfields sites are not
contaminated at levels that require Superfund National Priority List
(``NPL'') listing and Superfund liability. Among the 500,000
Brownfields sites in the United States, there are three categories.
Each type of site requires a different remediation strategy:
Sites with significant contamination, Sites in this
category are high-risk sites under EPA or state screening criteria,
listed or proposed NPL sites, and sites subject to CERCLA enforcement
action should remain under CERCLA jurisdiction. Superfund is the
appropriate mechanism for restoring these highly contaminated sites.
Sites not contaminated or sites with insignificant amounts
of contaminants. Sites with little or no contamination should be
released immediately from the CERCLA liability structure and restored
through state voluntary cleanup programs. Using Superfund to clean up
these sites is like using a bulldozer tobuild a sandcastle. The
Superfund ``bulldozer'' may work, but for many Brownfields sites, it is
not the right tool.
Sites that need additional investigation. Many sites
require further testing to determine the quantity and amount of
contamination. Sites that have not been characterized but are believed
to be contaminated should be studied to determine the nature and extent
of contamination and the best course of remediation.
To this end, the U.S. Chamber provides the following three common
sense recommendations for Brownfields legislation.
Recommendation 1: Support efforts to fully characterize site
contamination
Brownfields legislation should provide funding to encourage the
full, comprehensive characterization of Brownfields sites. Funding,
which could include grant programs and state revolving loan funds, will
greatly reduce the uncertainty surrounding the extent of contamination
at sites, and identify and implement the measures necessary for
remediation.
This type of financial support would greatly expedite Brownfields
redevelopment because the potential number of sites with little or no
contamination is significant. A report published by the U.S. General
Accounting Office (``GAO'') in December 2000 stated that of the 1,666
site assessment that had been completed pursuant to EPA Brownfields
Restoration Pilot Program funding, 623 sites--approximately 37
percent--did not require cleanup activities.\3\ If the GAO study is
representative of the entire inventory of Brownfields sites, this data
may indicate that 30-40 percent of the estimated 500,000 Brownfields
sites may require little or no remediation, totaling 150,000 to 200,000
sites. Of the remaining sites, characterization would determine how to
best cleanup and redevelop sites, through state voluntary cleanup
programs, Superfund, or other statutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, ``Brownfields:
Information on the Programs of EPA and Selected States,'' Report Number
GAO-01-52 (December 2000), at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation 2: Enact CERCLA liability reforms
Certain site remediation should be managed through Superfund. As
previously stated, sites that are proven to be significantly
contaminated should be cleaned up and restored pursuant to CERCLA,
Working with the states, EPA is the appropriate government body to
ensure these sites are cleaned up and restored.
Contamination below NPL listing criteria should be managed by state
programs. For sites contaminated at levels below NPL listing standards,
parties redeveloping sites should be able to work with state
environmental agencies to establish cleanup plans under which the site
will be remediated. Upon completion of the remediation, the state would
certify to EPA that the site had been remediated according to the plan
and appropriate cleanup standards. As long as the retroactive, strict
and joint, and several liability provisions of CERCLA continue to apply
to all sites that may contain any hazardous substance, the site owners
and operators will be reluctant to redevelop these sites.
To authorize this process, Brownfields reform legislation should
release from CERCLA liability contiguous property owners, prospective
purchasers, innocent landowners and parties that redevelop Brownfields
sites in accordance with a stateapproved plan. These provisions would
remove potential uncertainty that could deter parties from cleaning up
or purchasing restored Brownfields sites by ensuring that developers
and purchasers of redeveloped sites will not be held responsible for
any contamination on the site that occurred in the past.
This reform would enable cleanups in accordance with other
traditional federal and state environmental laws and common law
liability requirements, Although Superfund would not apply in these
cases, other federal and state statutes that regulate the treatment,
storage, handling, transport and disposal of hazardous waste would
ensure that cleanups are conducted in a manner that protects public
health and the environment. These statutes contain severe sanctions for
violators, and specify measures for addressing improper disposal,
corrective action and other activities that endanger human health and
the environment. Should unknown site contamination be discovered in the
future, responsibility for cleanup would be assigned to potentially
responsible parties (``PRPs'') pursuant to the CERCLA liability scheme.
Release uncontaminated sites. As noted above, there may be 150,000
to 200,000 sites classified as Brownfields that are not contaminated or
do not pose a risk to human health and the environment. Provisions of
legislation should allow developers to file with a state environmental
permitting agency an audit report establishing the site as ``not
contaminated.'' Should site characterization clearly demonstrate that
Brownfields sites are free of environmental degradation, the site would
be released from CERCLA liability.
This categorization process will promote the expedited restoration
and redevelopment of low-risk sites by encouraging state voluntary
cleanup programs to harness and leverage private sector resources. It
will also limit federal intervention in state cleanup programs
concerning sites with minimum contamination and those restored to
minimum state standards.
Recommendation 3: Establish finality for state cleanups
Brownfields legislation must limit the role of the federal
government in non-CERCLA, state voluntary cleanups to instances of
imminent and substantial endangerment. Other more expansive provisions
would lead to EPA meddling in state cleanups. Such an expansive ability
to second-guess the states will discourage state cooperation.
Under existing cleanup programs, many states have already proven
reluctant to cooperate with EPA. Although 35 states currently have
voluntary cleanup programs, only 12 have entered into agreements with
EPA.\4\ The 23 remaining states have established independent voluntary
cleanup programs to escape EPA micro-management of activities that
states are very capable of performing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, EPA should not have a blank check to micro-manage state-
led remediation efforts. Without limiting EPA authority over state
voluntary cleanups, a significant degree of uncertainty will continue
to deter parties from redeveloping Brownfields sites. Such a degree of
EPA oversight is unnecessary. As noted, state voluntary cleanup
programs have already resulted in more than 2,600 restored Brownfields
sites. Congress needs to build on the progress made by the states--not
establish new statutory provisions that will undercut state
responsibility.
Once again, thank you and the members of the committee for your
leadership on the Brownfields issue. The U.S. Chamber appreciates your
consideration of our views on restoring Brownfields sites. These
efforts are necessary to improve the economic prosperity and
environmental conditions of communities throughout the nation.
______
Statement of Timothy P. Murray
As Worcester seeks to refocus its economic development agenda on
the industries of biotechnology, information technology, healthcare and
manufacturing our success will hinge upon the city's ability to provide
developable parcels for businesses to locate and expand in Worcester.
However, the city is limited in this regard as there are very few
developable parcels currently available. Recent statistics from the
City Manager's Office indicate that there are 248 confirmed properties
in Worcester that are environmentally contaminated. These properties
often remain in an unused state for years because of liability issues
regarding contaminants which prevent private sector investment or
reuse. It is also projected that there are over 600 polluted parcels or
brownfields as they are commonly known within the 34.5 square miles
that comprise the boundaries of our city. These properties vary in size
from small individual lots to contiguous acres of vacant land and
abandoned buildings.
Similar projections approximate the current annual assessed value
of these 600 brownfield properties at $300 million. However, in an
improved state the property values of these same 600 properties would
increase to $1 billion a year. This would increase revenues collected
by the city by nearly $30 million dollars annually. If this revenue was
ever realized it could be used to substantially reduce the tax burden
now being paid by Worcester's homeowners and business owners. A
dramatic example of the impact this revenue could have is that by using
half of this $30 million in one year we could wipe out the current 10
year backlog of streets and sidewalks that need to be repaved.
Equally significant is that the redevelopment of these properties
would create job opportunities and private investment in our city. Much
of this investment would take place in neighborhoods that have seen a
pattern of decline and disinvestment. This disinvestment results in
abandoned or decrepit housing stock, arson, crime and many of the other
characteristics of urban blight. Moreover by removing the pollutants
from these properties we will reap numerous environmental benefits that
will result in cleaner rivers, parks and air quality for our citizens.
A recent article in the August 6, 2000 Sunday Telegram by James
Bodor chronicled how municipalities with acres of unpolluted land in
close proximity to highways and airports have been the most successful
in attracting emerging high tech companies and venture capital
investment. This development of virgin land is also known as urban
sprawl as it often wipes out acres of open space and woodlands. However
increasingly state and federal policy makers are seeking to create
legislative and financial incentives to combat the detrimental effect
of urban sprawl and encourage the reuse of older industrial brownfield
sites. These policy trends coupled with Worcester's strong
transportation network, geographic location and educated work force
requires that Worcester develop a focused and coordinated plan to
access the needed resources to implement brownfield clean ups of the
acres of fallow land throughout our city.
Worcester has had some success in this regard to date. The
Worcester Medical Center came to fruition because of the work of the
City, Worcester Redevelopment Authority, the State and St. Vincent's.
The Worcester Business Development Corporation is currently working on
this issue in the Prescott Street area and CMEDA was used to develop
the Marriott Hotel site on Grove Street.
However, we must greatly accelerate our efforts to take full
advantage of this economy and the many assets Worcester possesses. In
this regard, the City Manager should consider establishing a group of
business and government officials to address this critical issue. Areas
of discussion for such a group might be as follows: (1) development of
local low interest loan pool or revolving fund to augment private,
state and federal grant and lending programs, (2) designation of point
person within city government to educate property owners and developers
on existing incentive and loan programs, (3) creation of legislative
agenda with state and federal officials to secure additional resources,
(4) create GIS mapping inventory of all identified and projected
brownfield locations, (5) continue to further identify existing city
resources and incentives to assist in brownfields clean up. Worcester's
future is bright but it is imperative that we act now in this era of
economic prosperity to ensure Worcester's future success for the next
one hundred years.