[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE REVITALIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM
=======================================================================
(110-100)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 14, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-823 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VACANCY
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
VACANCY
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
DORIS O. MATSUI, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado Carolina
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JOHN J. HALL, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice York
Chair CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Louisiana
Columbia JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts VACANCY
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California JOHN L. MICA, Florida
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York (Ex Officio)
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
TESTIMONY
Albrecht, Mark, National Brownfields Association, Brownfields
Manager, Mayor's Office of Economic Development, City of Akron. 14
Bodine, Hon. Susan Parker, Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 3
Eben, Jerome Leslie, Immediate Past President, American Institute
of Architects New Jersey....................................... 14
Hill, Hon. Vonciel Jones, Council Member, City of Dallas......... 3
Leigh, Nancey Green, Professor, College of Architecture, Georgia
Institute of Technology........................................ 14
McCullough, Steven, President/CEO, Bethel New Life, Inc.......... 14
Silversmith, Gary, President, P&L Investments, LLC............... 14
Zone, Hon. Matthew, National League of Cities, Council Member,
City of Cleveland.............................................. 3
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 25
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 26
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 28
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Albrecht, Mark................................................... 31
Bodine, Hon. Susan Parker........................................ 33
Eben, Jerome Leslie.............................................. 47
Hill, Hon. Vonciel Jones......................................... 107
Leigh, Nancey Green.............................................. 117
McCullough, Steven............................................... 130
Silversmith, Gary Jay............................................ 139
Zone, Hon. Matthew............................................... 148
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Bodine, Hon. Susan Parker, Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, responses to questions from the Subcommittee........... 41
Eben, Jerome Leslie, Immediate Past President, American Institute
of Architects New Jersey:
Response to question from Rep. Oberstar........................ 54
``Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting
Methodology,'' Lisa Fay Matthiessen, Peter Morris, Davis
Langdon...................................................... 57
``Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost
Impact of Sustainable Design in the Light of Increased Market
Adoption,'' Lisa Fay Matthiessen, Peter Morris, Davis Langdon 83
Hill, Hon. Vonciel Jones, Council Member, City of Dallas,
response to question from the Subcommittee..................... 116
Leigh, Nancey Green, Professor, College of Architecture, Georgia
Institute of Technology, responses to questions from the
Subcommittee................................................... 128
McCullough, Steven, President/CEO, Bethel New Life, Inc.,
responses to questions from the Subcommittee................... 137
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Mark H.
Ayers, President, written statement............................ 153
City of New York, Mayor's Office of Environmental Coordination,
Robert Kulikowski, Director, written statement................. 156
National Brownfields Coalition, written statement................ 00
National Construction Alliance, Raymond J. Poupore, Executive
Vice President, written statement.............................. 166
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HEARING ON REVITALIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
BROWNFIELEDS PROGRAM
----------
Thursday, February 14, 2008
House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:00 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie
Bernice Johnson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Johnson. The Subcommittee will come to order.
I apologize for the schedule we have had to endure this
afternoon. I must announce that I have to leave shortly and
hope to return in a little while.
I welcome everyone to our hearing today on the
reauthorization of the Environmental Protection Agency's
Brownfield program. I have deep appreciation for the subject
matter of today's hearing, because I have been able to witness
first-hand the many positive effects that brownfields
redevelopment affords the local communities.
In the heart of my Congressional district, very close to my
district office lies a 72-acre site known as the Victory Park.
This former industrial wasteland, once polluted by an old meat-
packing plant, a paint plant, a train yard, and a 100 year-old
grain silo that had been forgotten by time, is now the home of
American Airlines Center, the W. Dallas Hotel, and high-rise
apartments and condominiums as well as other retail and
commercial enterprises. This dramatic turnaround would not have
been possible without the assistance of the State's voluntary
cleanup program and the partnership of EPA, the city of Dallas
and private developers.
Instead of blight and depressed areas, this Dallas
community now enjoys the benefits of a vibrant economic growth,
expanded employment and increased revenue from productive use
of the properties. Simply put, for Dallas the brownfields
program has been overwhelmingly successful. That can be and
should be replicated throughout the Nation.
Today we begin the discussion on reauthorization and
revitalization of the brownfields program. This program, which
was conceived and initiated in the Clinton Administration and
legislatively enacted in the Bush Administration, has proven to
be a necessary catalyst to the revitalization of under-utilized
sites and the preservation of undeveloped areas.
The brownfields program generates jobs and economic
activities, allows for the efficient use of transportation
resources, and helps restore and maintain the environment.
However, the brownfields program has been unnecessarily
constrained since its enactment, principally by under-
investment by this Administration and the appropriations
process.
As President Bush said when signing the Small Business
Relief and the Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002, this is
a good jobs creation program. But I think he has forgotten this
fact. That is why it is so frustrating to see the brownfields
program consistently and dramatically underfunded. Congress
authorized and the President supported a funding level of $200
million annually for site assessment and cleanup.
Yet, appropriations for the brownfields assessment and
cleanup program peaked at $97.7 million in fiscal year 2002.
Since that time, appropriations for the site assessment and
cleanup component of brownfields grants have hovered right
around $90 million annually. I applaud the President for
requesting a slightly increased funding level for the site
assessment and cleanup grants in its fiscal year 2009 budget.
However, the addition of $100,000 proposed will not likely
have a significant impact in addressing the backlog of pending
brownfield applications. For example, last year EPA received
810 proposals for funding that passed its threshold
requirements for eligibility. Yet EPA could only fund 294
individual proposals, or just 36 percent of the requests for
funding. While this fact is in itself concerning, so is the
fact that the gap between eligible project applications and
available funding continues to widen.
For example, just two years ago, EPA could fund roughly one
in three applications. However, as more communities learn of
the potential benefits of brownfield remediation, we should
expect that the number of applications for funding will
continue to increase. I expect that many of our witnesses this
afternoon will discuss the importance of brownfields cleanup
for the revitalization of neighborhoods, while placing under-
utilized properties back on local tax rolls, and for the
protection of human health and the environment.
However, I believe the restoration of brownfields also has
a tremendous economic stimulus effect on our cities and
neighborhoods. In these uncertain economic times, we need to
focus our efforts on ways that the Federal investments can have
a real beneficial impact on the lives and livelihoods of our
citizens.
I can think of few more beneficial impacts than the
creation of economic development. As EPA stated last week in
its Committee budget briefings, the brownfields program has
resulted in the assessment of more than 11,500 properties and
helped create more than 47,000 jobs. If this is the success
rate of an underfunded program, imagine the economic impact and
potential for job creation that could come from actually
funding all of the applications that are submitted to the
agency each year.
I do not believe that we have seen all the good that this
program can do for our communities and for helping American
families. I am glad that the Subcommittee begins today the
discussion of reauthorization and revitalization of the
brownfields program. I welcome our witnesses here today.
We await my partner here, the Ranking Member. While we do,
I want to welcome my councilwoman from Dallas, Texas, the
Honorable Vonciel Jones Hill, who is a very bright and very
contributing member of the Dallas City Council. Thank you for
being here.
We are going to ask unanimous consent to place all of our
formal statements into the record so we can hear our witnesses.
I want to thank our Members here for having the day that we
have had and still being present. Statements from the National
Construction Alliance, the Building Construction Trades
Department, the City of New York's Office of Environmental
Coordination and the National Brownfields Coalition all will be
made part of the record, without objection.
We are pleased to have three very distinguished witnesses
on our first panel here this afternoon. First, we have the
Honorable Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator for
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Next we have the Honorable Vonciel Jones
Hill, council member for the City of Dallas, Texas. And
finally, we have the Honorable Matthew Zone, council member for
the City of Cleveland, Ohio, who is speaking on behalf of the
National League of Cities.
We are pleased that you were able to make it this
afternoon, and your full statements will be placed into the
record. We ask that you try to limit your testimony to five
minutes, and we can read the entire record.
We will proceed with Mr. Zone, who has a plane to catch
shortly. Mr. Baird will take over as Chair.
Mr. Baird. [Presiding] We apologize for the transition. As
you know, it has been a hectic day. We appreciate your
perseverance and we are glad to be here. Brownfields is
tremendously important, and we have a number of sites in my
district, probably every Member does. We look forward to your
testimony. Mr. Zone, we would be happy to hear from you to
begin with.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MATTHEW ZONE, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF
CITIES, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF CLEVELAND; THE HONORABLE SUSAN
PARKER BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOLID WASTE AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; THE
HONORABLE VONCIEL JONES HILL, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF DALLAS
Mr. Zone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am Matt Zone and I am a council member from
Cleveland, Ohio.
I am here today on behalf of the National League of Cities,
the oldest and largest organization representing local elected
officials in America's cities and towns. I appreciate the
opportunity to present the views of local elected officials on
the revitalization of the Environmental Protection Agency's
brownfields program.
The City of Cleveland has had a successful partnership with
the EPA brownfields program in redeveloping our urban
landscape. Since 2004, Cleveland has received $800,000 in EPA
brownfields assessment grant funds that has led to cleanup of
nearly 100 acres. Assessment dollars are critical to local
governments, as they support the first and most risky phase of
the redevelopment project. Assessment funds granted by the EPA
brownfields program assists local governments in evaluating the
extent of contamination and the potential costs for
remediation.
The City of Cleveland has successfully used these grants to
leverage over $15 million. Without these funds, many projects
would not have gone forward. In addition to the assessment
dollars, the City of Cleveland has also received technical
assistance from EPA. The assistance is just as critical to
local governments as the grant funds. With the technical
assistance of an expert brownfields professional from the EPA
Region V brownfields office, the City's development department
has increased their capacity to redevelop brownfields in
Cleveland.
The EPA brownfields program is vital for local governments
in aiding the redevelopment efforts. But much work remains to
be done. NLC urges Congress to increase the overall funding
authorization level for the EPA brownfields program, to
increase the caps on the assessment grants amounts, whether
site-specific or community-wide and to increase the technical
assistance offered to communities. Additionally, NLC asks
Congress to enact legislation addressing and resolving the
disincentives created by the potential liability to facilitate
re-use of brownfields properties. Such legislation should
provide a waiver, a definitive limitation or an elimination of
liability for non-contributing local governments coming to
title of previously contaminated properties involuntarily. This
is a real problem in our city, with one site specifically that
you will hear about in a minute, Mr. Chairman.
Cleveland truly considers the EPA to be a partner in the
area of the brownfields redevelopment. But I come to you today
with a pressing issue that could jeopardize Cleveland's and
other cities' strategic redevelopment policies. As an older
industrial city, Cleveland's legacy of manufacturing and
commerce is now symbolized by numerous abandoned structures,
obsolete buildings, leaky underground storage tanks and
polluted properties. The impact of our industrial legacy has
spread across our neighborhoods like cancer, killing once
vibrant areas and leaving behind dead zones.
The factories that once built America and employed
thousands of Clevelanders are no longer an asset, they are a
liability. Our current vacant property portfolio puts my city
at risk. Local governments need support of Congress and our
Federal agencies to revitalize the abandoned properties and the
buildings that are growing in number. These abandoned buildings
have compounded our financial problems and cost our city
millions by shrinking our tax base and undermining property
values.
In fact, our city has had to increase its demolition budget
four-fold just since 2006. We anticipate spending over $9
million this year to demolish dangerous abandoned structures
that threaten the safety of our cities. Local governments
rightly approach brownfields redevelopment as an economic
development activity. However, strategically redeveloping these
contaminated properties means much more than dollars and taxes.
It means correcting the environmental injustices that are
unduly thrown upon those living in our impoverished
neighborhoods. It means protecting our first responders by
eliminating contaminated enclaves of criminal activity and
structures of high fire risk. For Cleveland, it means
protecting Lake Erie. It also means creating a more sustainable
future.
Finally, the issue of municipal liability for cleanup costs
is a concern for local governments, particularly if they were
not involved in the contamination of the site. As a general
rule, under the current law, local governments have a
disincentive to clean up and develop brownfields properties
because of the liability they could face. Often, as involuntary
owners of brownfields properties, many local governments are
wrongly designated potentially responsible for parties and held
liable for the cleanup.
The fear of such designation has led municipalities
choosing not to invest in the cleanup or the development of
land. The City of Cleveland, through its partnership with the
EPA and the State of Ohio, implemented a land bank program in
2005. This industrial land bank program targeted former
industrial and commercial properties for redevelopment. Our
program's rationale is simple, to strategically invest our
limited resources in strategic economic development areas. The
land bank program allows the city to take a holistic approach
to brownfields and redevelopment. Currently, the city is
redeveloping nearly 50 acres of brownfields properties through
our program and has invested over $16 million in demolition and
cleanup costs. One property of particular interest is referred
to as the Trinity Building. This is the picture you are seeing
on the screen here. This site is posing huge challenges to the
city due to the lack of Federal liability protections afforded
to local governments.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Zone, I neglected earlier to remind the
witnesses we have a five-minute limit. I see you have quite a
bit more in your written comments, so if I can ask you to
conclude here and we will take the written comments into
account. That time we will have time for a little Q&A as well.
Mr. Zone. Sure. Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe
our city has enough experience and expertise to address these
brownfields in our neighborhoods. But our story and experience
are no different than any other American city with an
industrial legacy. Congress has shown great leadership,
amending CERCLA in 2002. While progress has been made and
beneficial relationships formed between local and Federal
entities, the Federal Government must continue its efforts and
commitment toward this program.
On behalf of the National League of Cities and the City of
Cleveland, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Zone. I think you raise some
outstanding points.
We have been joined by John Boozman from Oklahoma.
Mr. Zone. Sir, thank you and my colleagues for letting me
go out of order. I do have a 6:20 flight, so if I walk out
during questioning, please pardon me.
Mr. Baird. Our apologies to all of you for the delay.
Mr. Boozman. I have a statement that I would like to put
into the record, with your permission.
Mr. Baird. Without objection, so ordered.
Administrator Bodine?
Ms. Bodine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here once again before the
Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. It is a
particular pleasure to talk about the brownfields program.
More than a decade ago, local governments, States and EPA
all identified a problem that local communities were facing
when they were trying to revitalize properties in their
communities that were either contaminated or potentially
contaminated. The private and public sectors were extremely
hesitant to get involved with these sites, which we now call
brownfields sites. And some of that concern was over Superfund
liability, which could hold someone responsible for cleaning up
property contamination that was caused by a prior owner.
Some of that concern, also, was simply fear of the unknown.
Nobody wanted to get involved in a property that might be
contaminated because they couldn't estimate how much it was
going to cost to clean up. So it was an unknown risk.
Now, it is important to understand when we talk about the
brownfields program that these are properties that aren't
contaminated enough to rise to a level of Federal concern under
our Federal cleanup programs. These are not Superfund sites.
But we all recognize that the fear of Federal liability has
acted as a barrier to redevelopment of these properties.
Now, to address the liability concern, EPA did develop
tools, like prospective purchaser agreements, and States
developed voluntary cleanup programs. EPA worked with States
and recognized the strength and validity of these programs and
recognized them as appropriate mechanisms for getting these
sites cleaned up in lieu of Federal liability. We continue to
enter into memoranda of agreements with States to recognize
strong State programs, including State programs that take a one
cleanup program approach, so that they can clean up RCRA sites
or PCB sites or brownfields sites or even oil sites all under
the same program.
To address the concern over the uncertainty at these sites,
EPA developed a program to provide grants to local governments
to inventory and assess contamination. Once cleanup costs were
quantified, then developers could make the business decision
whether or not to invest in contaminated property. Over the
years, EPA added grants to capitalize revolving loan funds, to
provide seed money for cleanup, and the agency also provided
job training grants to provide employment opportunities in the
communities where brownfields were located.
Thanks to the work of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, and of course other Committees in Congress,
President Bush was able to sign into law the Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act in January
2002. That law broadened EPA's brownfields program to include
cleanup grants, to provide seed money for cleanup, and provide
statutory liability protection to promote private sector
participation in brownfields cleanup and redevelopment.
I am very pleased to report that EPA's brownfields program
has been highly successful. With the over $660 million in seed
money that EPA has provided for assessments, revolving loan
fund capitalization and cleanup grants, there have been more
than 11,500 property assessments and that work has leveraged
over $10.3 billion in cleanup and redevelopment investment. All
of that together has leveraged more than 47,000 jobs.
Helped by the over $300 million that EPA has provided for
State programs, and tribal programs as well, States and tribes
have continued to develop and enhance their programs, which
have resulted in the cleanup of over 70,000 properties. The
Federal investment in brownfields has produced significant
results. The public funding has not just created a return on
the investment, but has provided long-term sustainability
benefits, helping to preserve green space.
Our grant selection program for 2008 is underway. The
deadline was in October, we received over 800 applications.
Last year we received about 801. Of those, 770 were actually
legally eligible to receive funding, and we funded 294
proposals. We plan to fund a similar number this year.
The way these proposals are selected is through an
evaluation process. There are 10 different panels of agency
staff, and each panel has one headquarters person or one person
from another Federal agency. They review the proposals and they
rate them based on the environmental benefits, the cleanup
benefits, the community benefits, and the economic benefits.
The proposals are also evaluated based on the programmatic
ability to clean up these sites.
The ones that are funded are the ones that are rated
highest by these panels, so we can be confident we are getting
the best return on the Federal investment. To reach more
communities in 2009, we are looking at potential changes to our
grant proposal guidelines, so that we can allow coalitions of
communities to apply for up to a million dollars for assessment
grant funding. The purpose of that is to allow small and rural
communities to partner with larger communities or cities or
counties or States that have the programmatic capability to
manage these grants that the small, rural communities might not
have. That makes them eligible for the funding and lets the
funding reach more communities.
I see my time is up. I just want to let you know that we
are continuing to focus on streamlining grants. We are
continuing to focus on sustainability and in particular, we are
collecting data from all of our grant recipients about the
contaminants that are addressed, the media that are addressed,
the cleanup activity, the institutional controls and the number
of acres that are being made available for use. All that goes
into a public data base, all that information is publicly-
available.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Administrator Bodine.
Ms. Jones Hill.
Ms. Jones Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for providing me this opportunity to
promote the brownfields program and Dallas' successful 13-year
partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency. I am
Vonciel Jones Hill, councilwoman from the City of Dallas, and I
am here to discuss why the brownfields program is extremely
important for community revitalization.
Since the program began in 1995, the City of Dallas has
received $1.12 million in EPA assessment grants for brownfields
revitalization, and has been able to leverage more than $3.4
billion in private and public investment to assist in the
revitalization of 47 brownfields sites. With our assessment
dollars, the City of Dallas has conducted 32 phase one
environmental site assessments and 9 phase two assessments. We
have leveraged more than 6,800 construction and redevelopment
jobs and more than $13.5 million in private sector cleanup
funding in 2008.
Brownfields redevelopment is not just an evolving issue for
developers, it is another option to redevelop deteriorating
inner city neighborhoods, create jobs, enhance the local tax
base and reduce crime. I am proud to say that Dallas
exemplifies the success of the brownfields program well.
Accordingly, in 1998, the EPA designated Dallas as brownfields
showcase community. Please allow me to highlight two of Dallas'
nationally-recognized brownfields success stories.
Victory Park, previously mentioned by Chairwoman Johnson,
is a $3 billion multi-use development offering retail shops,
restaurants, office space, residential units, hotels and
entertainment venues, such as the American Airlines Center,
which is the home of the Dallas Stars and the Dallas Mavericks.
Victory Park is a national model for the importance and success
of a public-private partnership. The 73-acre site is adjacent
to downtown Dallas and was a neglected brownfield for many
years. It is now one of the city's most thriving areas, teeming
with jobs and activities.
In 2001, EPA recognized the American Airlines Center and
Victory Park as one of the Nation's largest and most successful
brownfields projects, through presentation of the EPA's Phoenix
Award. The development also received the Phoenix People's
Choice award that same year. Victory Park is expected to
generate $1 billion annually and has already created 1,200 jobs
with many more expected in 2009.
Next is the Jack Evans Police Headquarters facility, a $59
million city project, just south of the central business
district. The site was donated by a developer to enhance
security and reduce crime in a neighborhood emerging from
decades of decline. The new facility serves as a model for the
Dallas green building program and in 2005, received a
leadership in energy and environmental design silver
certification. The Jack Evans Police Headquarters is part of a
larger transit-oriented development revitalization effort. It
is one block from the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Cedars light
rail station. The area includes another successful brownfields
project, the 1.2 million square foot South Side on Lamar
Complex, which houses 457 residential units and 120,000 square
feet of commercial and retail space. In 2003, the Phoenix Award
was awarded to the Jack Evans police headquarters as well.
In summary, the EPA brownfields program has been a
remarkable, remarkable success in Dallas and has led to the
revitalization of what was once an abandoned, neglected area of
our city. I urge you to reauthorize the Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act to continue
this vitally important effort.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee.
Mr. Baird. Ms. Jones Hill, to all our witnesses, thank you
very, very much for your interesting and informative testimony.
It is very pleasant to see individuals from cities who have
used the Federal program to great benefit. We thank you for
your testimony on that, and also for your very cogent
recommendations.
Ms. Bodine, I have just a couple of quick questions, and
then I will yield to Mr. Boozman. At one point I understand
there was a program called Brownfields to Brightfields, which I
think Secretary of Energy then-Bill Richardson established,
which was designed to promote brownfield usage for renewable
energy, like solar installations. I think a number of Federal
agencies have surplus property that may well qualify as
brownfields, you think of the military bases or others. I am
wondering, as part of reauthorization, do you know if EPA has
any thoughts about using Brownfields to Brightfields kinds of
approaches to promote renewable energy resources?
Ms. Bodine. In our existing grant guidelines we have in
there an evaluation of proposals based on sustainable re-use of
brownfields. So the proposals are evaluated and they get extra
points to the extent that they are promoting sustainable re-
use. That of course could include clean energy uses as well as
green buildings, as well as low-impact development. So I guess
I would urge you to continue to consider the broad range of
sustainability efforts that could be leveraged with brownfield
dollars, so that then grantees can pick their target of
opportunity, where they see the greatest opportunity to
leverage to get the sustainable benefits, instead of focusing
on one particular benefit over another.
Mr. Baird. Thank you for that.
You heard some comments from Mr. Zone and Ms. Jones Hill,
and we will hear testimony in a minute from the folks in the
National Brownfields Association, as well as other folks
involved with brownfields. As we look, in this Committee,
toward reauthorization of the brownfields program, does the
Administration at this point have any particular
recommendations that you intend to make that you think we could
use to improve this program, and also, do you have any comments
on some of the suggestions offered by Mr. Zone in his
testimony, or, I don't know if you have had a chance to look at
the testimony of the other witnesses who will follow in the
second panel.
Ms. Bodine. We have not developed a legislative proposal.
We would be happy to work with your staff in offering technical
assistance. There are some areas where there could be some
greater clarity and some technical improvements that I think we
should definitely be providing.
Mr. Baird. One of the areas in which we see some proposals
is to expand the qualification criteria for brownfields. Are
there concerns about, if we expand it, does that dilute, given
that we are already under-funding it relative to authorized
levels, are there any concerns about, by expanding the
eligibility, you thereby dilute the resource that is available
for the existing eligible programs?
Ms. Bodine. It is hard to answer that in the abstract. I
don't know who you are trying to expand the eligibility to
include. I think in looking at that, you would want to look at,
are these grant applicants that would then be providing the
same kind of benefits.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Zone, did you care to comment?
Mr. Zone. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. From our city's
perspective, EPA has been a wonderful partner. One project that
I cited, we worked very closely with EPA, and actually, they
encouraged us to go in and demolish that structure. After we
demolished it, surrounding that structure, there is a senior
housing, there is a day care center, we found PCBs onsite. Now
we are kind of in a tug-of-war with EPA where potentially there
is a $6 million cleanup left on the site after we as a city
have already invested nearly $3 million.
We would like to see the city, from our perspective, have
some sort of indemnification that if we work cooperatively with
the Federal Government and go in and do the cleanup, that we
are not the polluters of the property. We are the recipients of
an abandoned, blighted property. We are just trying to abate a
nuisance. If we could work more closely together and hold that
being held liable, that would greatly aid our effort.
Mr. Baird. I think you made that point well in your
testimony. Thank you.
Ms. Jones Hill?
Ms. Jones Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The City of Dallas has two recommendations that we would
like to place on the record for improvement of the program. We
recommend that the EPA increase the brownfields revolving loan
fund for major cities to $5 million per individuals grantee for
multiple site, industrial brownfields projects. Secondly, we
recommend establishing an opportunity to seek a waiver of the
one-year time requirement for completion of cleanup on large
projects.
Thank you so much for allowing us to offer those
suggestions for improvement.
Mr. Baird. Outstanding suggestions and in both cases, from
hard practical experience, it sounds like. Those are the best
kinds of suggestions Committees can receive. Thank you for
that.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you. I appreciate your patience today. I
know this has been a hard day for you as well as for us,
running back and forth. So we really do appreciate you.
I would like to follow up on what you said, Mr. Zone, what
you were just talking about, just throw it open to the panel
real quickly. Would an exemption from CERCLA liability for non-
liable parties that do not take ownership of a brownfields site
but are willing to take cleanup action, contribute cleanup
funding or provide other substantial support to the cleanup
site, would that encourage more brownfields site cleanups by
such innocent parties?
Ms. Bodine. Congressman, you prefaced that by talking about
non-liable parties. Clearly, one of the barriers to brownfields
redevelopment that had been identified was the fear of
Superfund liability. The way that was addressed in the
amendments in 2002 was to have new owners who were coming into
the property, prospective purchasers, have them not be liable.
So that is in the law right now. Now, to get the benefit of
that liability exemption, you need to have done an
investigation on the property, all appropriate inquiry. Then
you also can't impede any cleanup that is going on. But under
current law, if you didn't cause or contribute contamination
and you are new to the property, then you are not liable.
Mr. Boozman. So if the city wanted to go in and clean up
the property, and they are not the owner of the property?
Ms. Bodine. You can take ownership. If you are a new owner,
you become what is called a prospective purchaser, and you are
not liable. But you have to have done the all appropriate
inquiry, you have to have done the site assessment, evaluating
the property for contamination. The fact that you find
contamination doesn't make you liable for it, but you have to
have done the investigation.
Mr. Boozman. So if a city that wanted to go in and just be
helpful and clean up, is that what you are referring to, that
is not an owner and doesn't want to be an owner?
Ms. Bodine. Oh, I am sorry, I misunderstood the question.
The statutory protection only applies to owners. It doesn't
apply to a Good Samaritan who is coming in or a volunteer who
is coming in, or a non-profit or a city.
Mr. Boozman. Would it be helpful if we made it such that a
city could do that, I guess is what I am asking, or another
party?
Ms. Bodine. The only issue I see on that, you would
definitely encourage more people to participate in cleanup
activity, and that is always a good thing. There may be an
issue of control of the property that you would want to think
about, because you would then have someone who isn't the owner.
But there certainly could be a benefit to encouraging more
cleanup activity if you have more people who would be willing
to come in.
Mr. Boozman. Yes, sir?
Mr. Zone. We met all of the requirements that the EPA
asked, and we worked very closely with them. Even after
encouragement, we went in there and just tried to abate the
nuisance. But we found ourselves after doing everything that
they asked us to do, now when we found PCBs onsite, we
immediately contacted them, they came in and did some more
testing and said potentially, you have a $6 million cleanup
effort that you might be responsible for, it is difficult for
us to go and abate a nuisance and do the dirty work, for lack
of a better term, and now find ourselves being responsible for
that cost.
Mr. Boozman. Yes, ma'am?
Ms. Jones Hill. Congressman, if I may, thank you. Your idea
of encouraging more persons to clean up is certainly a good
idea. But encouraging a non-owner to clean up a site is an idea
that we would want to think through very carefully, because of
liability and ownership and control issues, an issue that I
certainly would want to talk with my council colleagues about.
I believe we would have to move very carefully in that
direction.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. We would like, if it is
okay, to submit some things in writing, in the interest of
time.
Mr. Baird. Without objection, absolutely.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Ms. Bodine, our EPA representative.
Actually, it is in light of reviewing subsequent testimony, and
I am not sure if you will still be here, so that is why I
wanted to ask the question now.
Dr. Nancey Green Leigh, in her testimony, the written that
we have, on page 5, it says, ``Given the public sector's
emphasis on allocating scarce brownfields redevelopment
resources to those properties that will realize the greatest
market returns, oftentimes properties in small or local
depressed neighborhoods are overlooked,'' things like
laundromats, et cetera, in neighborhoods. So when I turn to,
for example, in reference of 2002 Small Business Liability
Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, my question would be
to you, a representative of the EPA, what is your commitment
and willingness to target the additional increment funds to
brownfields neighborhoods with the worst health exposures and
the greatest need of economic development?
Ms. Bodine. Thank you. The proposals are evaluated and
ranked and the funding is provided based on not just economic
development, but community involvement, community benefits,
environmental benefits, and the public health benefits that you
are talking about. So that is taken into account.
What we do find, though, and I refer to it in my statement,
is that there is an issue where smaller communities don't have
the programmatic capability to handle these grants. My
colleagues here all have very great programmatic capability
that is not shared, necessarily, by all the smaller communities
around the Country. What we are looking at is trying to provide
opportunities for those smaller communities to partner in
coalitions with either States or counties or larger
communities, so that they too can be the beneficiaries of the
grants.
Ms. Richardson. Do you have a percentage that you keep
track of, of your allocations of neighborhood or more depressed
areas versus larger downtown areas?
Ms. Bodine. We track population, like under 100,000, and we
track whether it is a HUB zone property, properties that are
designated as particularly needed zones. So yes, we do track
that.
Ms. Richardson. Could you provide that to this Committee?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, certainly.
Ms. Richardson. And just with all due respect, I would push
back a little with you. I happen to represent, one of the
cities in my jurisdiction is the City of Long Beach, which is
the fifth largest city in the States. I would encourage you,
though, sometimes with cities, they may take the opportunity
to, for example, improve their downtown area, versus doing one
of their more depressed neighborhoods.
So I would really be looking for what commitment would EPA
have of the cities and organizations who are applying to say,
we are not just going to leave it up to you to decide who gets
it. Maybe there should be a percentage that is considered,
given the fact that many smaller neighborhoods may not have the
advocacy necessary to be able to apply. This would encourage
those other cities or organizations to step up and say, okay,
well, we need to make sure we are getting at least one in five
years or one in ten years, or we are doing something to these
communities.
So we would also ask that you would consider a greater role
that EPA might play in encouraging the consideration of these
neighborhoods. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from New
York, Mr. Arcuri.
Mr. Arcuri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
the panel again for your patience today.
I just have one very short question. Do you think, as
involved with your cities, which are both very large cities,
that it would be beneficial for you to have more flexibility in
terms of how the money is spent? Very often a project starts,
you get halfway through the project, things change,
circumstances are different. Would some degree of flexibility
or increased flexibility be beneficial?
Mr. Zone. An excellent question, Congressman Arcuri. Every
project is different. Once you put the shovel into the ground,
you are going to find something you didn't expect was going to
be there. The project that I cited was, we went in there
because it was a public health hazard, and that is what put us
in that situation. The EPA again has been a great partner to
work with thus far.
I have another brownfield site in my ward that was owned by
the old Union Carbide and Energizer Company. We remediated that
property. The alkaline battery was invented on that site. We
call it Battery Park now. We remediated that site, about 15
acres, to a residential standard. Now we are building 328 units
of housing. It is just amazing. If we had that type of
flexibility, it would greatly aid us in being able to do more
types of developments exactly like the question you asked.
Ms. Jones Hill. Congressman, thank you. Certainly, greater
flexibility would be helpful to the cities. That is flexibility
on the funding. Also, I want to reiterate that from Dallas'
standpoint, some flexibility on the time requirement would be
very, very helpful if we had the opportunity to waive that one-
year time requirement for the larger projects, because that
one-year time requirement on the larger projects is really a
critical issue. Flexibility on both the funding and the time
would be very, very helpful, especially to our city.
Mr. Arcuri. I think your point is very well taken. Do you
have any specific suggestions on the kinds of flexibility that
would be beneficial?
Ms. Jones Hill. I would want to talk with our staff and my
colleagues. But I would think if we had the opportunity for,
perhaps a three-year time line, that would perhaps be much
better for us.
Mr. Arcuri. Great, thank you. Mr. Zone?
Mr. Zone. If assessing the property and funding could be
under one program, I think it would create more flexibility.
Mr. Arcuri. Can you just expand on that a little bit?
Mr. Zone. I am not the technical person. I brought my
brownfields manager with me.
Mr. Arcuri. So basically just to have a little more
ability, money that is deemed for assessment that you would be
able to use it in alternative ways?
Mr. Zone. Yes, the funding that, what I understand now, the
funding, that these are two separate funding streams. And if it
was under one umbrella, it would give much more flexibility for
those types of efforts.
Mr. Arcuri. Very good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Baird. With that, I very much thank the panel for their
preparation work, for your work on this issue. We will look
forward to further comments. With that, this panel is dismissed
and I call the next panel to the table, and we will proceed.
Thank you again for your patience with our hectic schedule
today.
The second panel, we thank also for your patience. I know,
Dr. Leigh, you may have a flight to catch earlier, so we will
try to accommodate that. Are there others who have urgent
flights that we need to be cognizant of? What are your time
frames, if I may ask? All right. We will try to accommodate
that. What we will do is give very brief introductions.
Mr. Mark Albrecht is Brownfields Manager for the Mayor of
Akron, Ohio's Office of Economic Development, here on behalf of
the National Brownfields Association. Mr. Steven McCullough,
President and CEO of Bethel New Life, Inc. Dr. Nancy Green
Leigh, Professor at Georgia Institute of Technology, College of
Architecture. Mr. Jerome Leslie Eben, immediate past President
of the American Institute of Architects. Mr. Gary Silversmith,
President of P&L Investments.
We will really urge you to keep your comments to five
minutes. We have read the written comments as well. With that,
we will begin with Mr. Albrecht. Thank you very much.
TESTIMONY OF MARK ALBRECHT, NATIONAL BROWNFIELDS ASSOCIATION,
BROWNFIELDS MANAGER, MAYOR'S OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
CITY OF AKRON; STEVEN MCCULLOUGH, PRESIDENT/CEO, BETHEL NEW
LIFE, INC.; NANCEY GREEN LEIGH, PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF
ARCHITECTURE, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; JEROME LESLIE
EBEN, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
ARCHITECTS NEW JERSEY; GARY SILVERSMITH, PRESIDENT, P&L
INVESTMENTS, LLC
Mr. Albrecht. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, for the opportunity to provide testimony today.
I am wearing several hats today on behalf of the National
Brownfields Association as well as the City of Akron. I will
share my experience both as a member of the executive team of
the National Brownfields Association, but also as a municipal
brownfields practitioner.
I serve on the Brownfields Association Advisory Board, but
also work as the brownfields and economic development manager
for the City of Akron, where I have been working on planning,
economic development and brownfield projects for the last 30
years. Just as way of background, NBA is a 501(c)(3) dedicated
to promoting the responsible and sustainable development of
brownfield projects by promoting the construction of green and
sustainable buildings using energy-efficient technologies and
recycled materials on environmentally-impaired properties,
i.e., brownfields. NBA members have been able to improve local
economies, increase local property taxes, reduce blight, clean
up contaminated land, minimize sprawl, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and minimize the environmental footprint of new
developments.
Founded in 1999, the NBA membership has grown to more than
1,400 members in the United States and Canada. They come from
both the public and private sectors and include property owners
and developers, investors, service professionals and
representative from Federal, State and local governments,
academia and non-profits. As the premier national brownfield
organization, the NBA provides local, national and
international perspective on the brownfield market through
members in more than 20 chapters in the United States and
Canada.
For the last five years, the NBA has been the recipient of
an EPA grant that has provided us the opportunity to do
brownfield education and training to municipalities. We have
successfully conducted more than 30 workshops throughout the
Country to hundreds of municipal and State attendees, who have
given us high marks. The goal of the workshops is to make
municipal employees more conversant in the real estate language
and the Brownfield redevelopment practices, so that they can
attract additional private sector investment into the
communities, and leverage Government funds.
NBA also has started to host a deal flow conference. The
first was held in 1999 and creates a marketplace where buyers
and sellers of brownfields can meet and make transactions.
After all, that is what brownfield redevelopment equating to
economic development means. Last year, the Big Deals Conference
attracted more than 1,000 attendees, and it showcased more than
30 projects for redevelopment.
U.S. EPA also holds an annual brownfields conference, and
NBA has proposed to combine these two events, allowing EPA to
save in excess of $1 million annually. We look forward to
meeting with EPA to collaboratively work together to advance
this important market.
I would like to just kind of step back to Akron, Ohio for a
brief moment, just to give you a sense as a local practitioner.
The City of Akron is a prime example of the important role that
brownfield transactions have had in improving the local
economic condition of the city and the role that U.S. EPA has
played with us. Akron is a city of 207,000, with an economic
legacy in the industrial and manufacturing segment.
We have had to transition. To give you a sampling, in 1970
we had 35,000 rubber jobs, producing tires in Akron. By 1990,
there were 3,000, today there are 300. We have been able to
transition to an economy of plastics, polymers, metal-working,
technology industries, largely predicated on our ability to
recapture brownfields as the city contains 62 square miles but
yet has less than 2 percent vacant land in which we can place
these new businesses and industries.
In the past ten years, we have been able to take advantage
of three U.S. EPA grants to seed funding to assist with this
brownfield recapture. I would like to just show a few images of
Akron, if I can. This is a project that we used some seed EPA
money. This is a national corporation for research in advanced
elastomers. That was the before and after in reverse order.
Former B.F. Goodrich company, which was actually a brownfield
that was built in 1970, terribly contaminated with asbestos.
Today it is the home of Gojo, which is the Purell hand cleaner.
We are using it for the former Goodyear air dock facility.
The major Ohio contribution here, we also used some U.S.
EPA funding that will eventually house the new Missile Defense
Agency's high altitude airship program. This is an important
one that we used EPA funding on, to create the first new retail
center in Akron in 40 years. As pre-development costs, the city
had to take the lead and act as developer.
An old contaminated power plant that is on the Ohio and
Erie National Heritage corridor that has now a very popular
300,000 users a year. It was a U.S. EPA grant for cleanup, we
were able to take care of this arson fire problem using a
demolition grant.
We are currently involved with the major brownfield
projects with Goodyear Tire and Rubber and Bridgestone
Firestone Tire Company to retain their world headquarter and
North American headquarters, respectively, in our community.
These are critical opportunities for us if we are to take
advantage of this.
Very quickly, in summary, Akron, as well as other
communities around the Country, has been very valuable, taking
advantage of the U.S. EPA brownfields programs, invaluable to
non-profits and local communities. It is an important first
step in funding and addressing the brownfield program. We too
would like to see greater flexibility in the program in terms
of combining the assessment and cleanup under direct grants as
well as the RLF. Most importantly, we would like to see the
combination of the petroleum and city-wide hazardous grants
into one grant program, thus moving things further.
Thank you for this opportunity to present today. I will be
glad to answer questions.
Ms. Richardson. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Albrecht. We
take your recommendations seriously, and obviously your success
is why we are here today.
Next we have Mr. Steve McCullough. He is the President and
CEO of Bethel New Life, Inc.
Mr. McCullough. Thank you to the honorable Members of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. Thank you for
inviting me to testify today. My testimony focuses on the
Environmental Protection Agency's brownfields program and how
it can continue to be an effective tool in improving the
quality of life for communities across the Country.
Bethel New Life is a faith-based community development
corporation located in Chicago's west side. Bethel began in
1979 as a housing ministry of Bethel Lutheran Church to rebuild
neighborhoods left in ruins after 1968's civil rights riots.
Our mission is to realize God's vision of a restored society by
empowering individuals, strengthening families and building
neighborhoods through community-driven, solution-oriented and
value-centered approaches.
Bethel is nationally known for its pioneering community
development initiatives, especially in the areas of sustainable
urban growth, smart growth and urban context and brownfields
redevelopment. Bethel has ben a part of the clean-up and
redevelopment of seven brownfields sites in Chicago that have
provided major economic stimuli to our lower-income community.
We were recently a recipient of EPA's Smart Growth Award in
2006.
Our work in brownfield development is close 20 years old.
We recently celebrated the opening of a new transit-oriented
development project on a former brownfield. This development,
called the Bethel Center, is a trend-sitting example of
transit-oriented neighborhood revitalization. It is also a LEED
certified Gold building.
Our work around brownfield development has given us the
opportunity to partner with the American Planning Association
to train communities across the Country on putting together
brownfield remediation strategies. The APA is the recipient of
a brownfields training research and technical assistance grant
from EPA. Creating community-based brownfield redevelopment
strategies is a three-year initiative with the goal of helping
community groups in low-income communities develop a new set of
eyes to see brownfield sites as opportunities.
Non-profit community development organizations are uniquely
positioned in a number of key ways to revitalize communities
through the brownfield redevelopment. First, community-based
non-profits have the long-term vision and active presence
necessary to guide revitalization efforts. Second, non-profits
serve a crucial role as credible, neutral intermediaries
between community and public and private entities advocating
for brownfield redevelopment projects that are in the interest
of the public good, not just in the interest of a private
developer.
Third, non-profits have the specialized brownfield
knowledge to act as catalyst, managing and coordinating
brownfield activities on behalf of and in support of community-
based organizations that would otherwise pass up these sites
without the non-profit's assistance. Lastly, non-profits have
the capacity to leverage brownfield funding with both private
sector resources and with other public funds, including
transit-oriented development, anti-sprawl and smart growth
program funds.
The Brownfields Act should recognize the tremendous value
that non-profits, whether single-handedly or in partnerships,
play in redeveloping brownfields by making non-profit
organizations and non-profit controlled entities eligible to
receive brownfields assessments and RLF grants, along with
cleanup and job training grants. This represents a lost
opportunity to maximize these Government resources, by taking
advantage of the community development and financing
infrastructure that has developed over the last 20 years, and
make more efficient use of public and non-profit resources for
successful brownfields redevelopment.
Community development corporations and community
development financial institutions and other non-profit
institutions have a place in the infrastructure that will allow
them to leverage these funds with other public and private
resources and expeditiously deliver these resources to
revitalize brownfields in the struggling neighborhoods of all
sizes.
The Brownfields Act should make non-profit organizations
and non-profit controlled entities eligible to receive
brownfield assessment and RLF grants, along with cleanup and
job training grants. This change recognizes the tremendous
value that non-profits, whether single-handedly or in
partnerships, play in redeveloping brownfields.
The 2002 Brownfields Act should require site ownership as a
condition of eligibility to receive direct brownfield
remediation grants or revolving loan fund sub-grants in order
to ensure that the project moves forward and that responsible
parties do not benefit from the grants. Many projects and
otherwise eligible entities are willing and able to obtain site
control prior to purchase for the purpose of conducting
remediation but are reluctant to take ownership of contaminated
brownfield properties prior to completion of remedial
activities, due to uncertain liability exposure. This
represents also a lost opportunity to revitalize many
brownfields sites.
Finally, the expansion, the last recommendation is
expansion of EPA brownfield grant eligibility, including
community development entities. A community development entity,
otherwise known as a CDE, is defined by the Internal Revenue
Code as any domestic corporation or partnership where the
primary mission of the entity is serving or providing
investment capital for low-income communities or low-income
persons. The entity maintains accountability to residents of
low-income communities through their representation on any
governing board or any advisory board.
In conclusion, EPA's brownfield program is a vital tool
that should be allowed to evolve into an even more valuable
resources to improve communities across the Country. Thank you
for the time and opportunity to speak to you.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. McCullough. I think you are
really speaking to some of the questions that our group here
has had. Thank you for your testimony.
Next we have Dr. Nancey Green Leigh, Professor of the
College of Architecture with the Georgia Institute of
Technology in Atlanta, Georgia. Welcome.
Ms. Leigh. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Richardson and
Members of the Subcommittee.
As a Georgia Tech professor, I have been researching,
writing and teaching about brownfields redevelopment since the
early 1990s. Since EPA's programs were initiated to overcome
the market failure and brownfield redevelopment caused by
CERCLA, the brownfield industry has become a niche real estate
market that relies upon public-private partnerships, employs
between 5,000 to 10,000 people and has many high-profile
redevelopment successes. There simply would not be the
brownfield industry we have today without the EPA's programs
and the 2002 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act.
But as others have noted, there is still much to be done.
The number of brownfields that have been cleaned up through
State voluntary programs represents only 5 to 10 percent of the
total problem. My research suggest that for every known
brownfield, there could be as many as 14 more than have not
made it onto official lists. Further, new brownfields, such as
meth fields, are still being created. It is likely that these
new brownfields will be disproportionately located in
disadvantaged areas.
Brownfields fall into three groups: those with negative
values where environmental liabilities far exceed their value;
those with modest or neutral value; and those with strong
positive values. The last group have very desirable locations
and tend to be the bigger sites on which large scale
redevelopment can occur.
So far, the predominant brownfield redevelopment focus,
both private and public, has been on the most marketable and
larger properties, or the low-hanging fruit. The rationale for
the public sector focus has been to maximize return on public
investment while the private sector logically and appropriately
is seeking to maximize profits. Largely missing from the
national dialogue has been the issue of whether brownfields
status impacts more than the individual property or brownfield.
My own research has found that the presence of brownfields
reduces the value of surrounding properties in a neighborhood.
This of course leads to lower property tax revenue to pay for
schools and essential services and to support economic
development.
There is legitimate concern over large, mothballed sites,
but the remaining brownfield inventory is increasingly composed
of small and medium size sites. Many would be considered
marginal redevelopment prospects by the private sector.
Neglecting their redevelopment acts as a barrier to
neighborhood revitalization. In turn, the neighborhoods where
they are located are left further behind from those that are
being revitalized.
The back to the downtown movement that is occurring in our
major cities due to the rejection of suburban living by certain
demographic groups, as well as firms seeking to avoid the cost
of sprawl, has provided a helpful impetus for brownfield
redevelopment. But it could also contribute to growing income
and equality and displacement of low-income residents due to
gentrification, unless EPA's brownfields programs become more
focused on low-income neighborhoods.
The Brownfields Act was aimed at promoting economic
development and achieving environmental restoration. Since such
a small percentage of brownfields have been redeveloped, the
Act clearly needs to be reauthorized and its funding
substantially increased. It also needs revision. To counter
trends in urban inequality and gentrification displacement, the
reauthorized Act should target the additional increment in
funds and placement of EPA staff and brownfields neighborhoods
with the worst health exposure and greatest need for economic
development.
It should require a demographic and economic impact
assessment of projects and gentrification prevention or redress
plans. It should emphasize a neighborhood approach if there are
community-wide, multi-purpose grants. And it should encourage
the development of workforce housing.
EPA adopted an environmentally responsible redevelopment
and re-use initiative for encouraging the best sustainable
environmental practices in brownfields redevelopment in 2004.
However, there appear to have been only two pilot projects
resulting from this initiative.
To further the greening of brownfield redevelopment, the
reauthorized Act should encourage life cycle assessment
analysis to minimize environmental burdens of brownfield
projects, encourage on-site remediation strategies, promote
deconstruction over demolition when buildings are removed, and
require green building and site development standards.
In conclusion, my own view is that EPA's Brownfield Act and
the program have fostered more innovation and economic
development, leading to a sophisticated brownfields industry,
than environmental solutions. However, EPA could be a real
catalyst for sustainable development that maximizes both
objectives if it requires, rather than simply encourages, green
redevelopment standards. These standards would reduce energy
and consumption costs, lower building and site maintenance
costs, create healthier living and work spaces, foster new
businesses and jobs in the brownfield sector as well as in the
larger economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my testimony. I
would be happy to answer your questions.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Dr. Leigh, for not only your
testimony but your work in this area.
Next we have Mr. Jerome Leslie Eben, the immediate Past
President of the American Institute of Architects from Trenton,
New Jersey. Welcome, thank you for being here.
Mr. Eben. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. The AIA is a professional society representing
82,000 licensed architects across our Country. We are leaders
in our communities and we play a major role in strengthening
America's economic vitality.
I would like to also commend the Committee for holding this
hearing today on a topic of vital concern to both us as
architects and you as our political leaders in not only
suburban communities but in urban communities across the
Country. My home State of New Jersey is home to at least 20,000
contaminated sites, the majority of which qualify as
brownfields. Essex County, where I was born, where I live and
where I work, has over 1,000 brownfields.
Newark is in Essex County, and is the third oldest city in
the United States, settled in 1666. It is one of the most
economically charged cities in America. It has 500 certified
brownfields, probably hundreds more which sit unoccupied,
contributing to the city's blight. Bringing these contaminated
sites back to life through brownfields redevelopment is
imperative to restoring American cities, not only like Newark,
but other American cities that were mentioned here today,
Akron, Cleveland, other cities.
Architects throughout the Nation understand the enormous
significance of redeveloping these sites. We are committed to
planning the design and construction of vital, healthy
communities, and we are understandably concerned that
brownfields sites blight neighborhoods and need revitalization.
We have long supported Congressional efforts to facilitate
brownfield cleanup and redevelopment.
However, this Committee, the AIA and EPA know that there
are still hundreds of thousands of brownfields sites that sit
vacant and under-used. Therefore the Federal brownfields law
must be updated to provide communities with the necessary tools
and resources to clean up these sites.
Redeveloping brownfields sites produces undeniable economic
benefits, I think that has been testified to here today,
demonstrating that intelligent Federal spending on brownfields
will provide the needed economic investment for cities and
communities nationwide. The message is clear, investing in
brownfields will boost the economic vitality of our cities, our
communities, create jobs, stimulate the economy at a time when
Congress is exploring ways to do that, to stimulate the
economy, particularly in the housing and real estate sections.
Investing in brownfields should be an important priority.
Therefore, we strongly urge the Committee to increase
funding levels in the program and reauthorize this legislation.
It is clear more brownfields exist than can be redeveloped.
Each year, EPA is faced with the difficult task of choosing
which projects to provide grant monies, and which projects to
exclude. Given the extensive competition among applicants for
limited grant funding, we feel that including additional
project qualifications in the programs grant-making criteria
would direct funding to the best possible projects.
One such condition is energy efficiency, mentioned by you,
Congresswoman. We believe that the efficiency in green building
standards should be a factor in determining which grant
applications do receive this funding. Most brownfield
redevelopment projects will require major renovation of
buildings onsite and in most cases, new buildings altogether.
It makes sense for buildings to be designed in an intelligent,
energy-efficient way. Architects and builders across this
Country are utilizing the most modern design techniques,
materials and building systems to achieve the significant
energy savings in new and renovated buildings.
Energy-efficient or green buildings offer countless
benefits to their inhabitants, including reduced energy use.
Given that many brownfields are located in low-income areas,
such as Newark, reduced energy costs for future building
occupants should be factors in determining which projects
receive these grant monies.
Furthermore, reclaiming contaminated sites helps improve
the natural environment. Once a brownfield site is cleaned up,
it is counter-productive then to build an energy-guzzling
building on that very same site, especially when the cost of
green buildings are negligible. Thus, we strongly believe that
brownfield redevelopment projects that will result in energy-
efficient and green buildings should be given a preference as
the EPA chooses which projects to do in the future.
When this Committee attempted to reauthorize the
brownfields law during the 109th Congress, language was
included requiring the EPA to include the use of green
standards and energy efficiency as criterion in grant-making.
We urge the Committee once again to take this route to ensure
our Nation that the brownfields are redeveloped in the smartest
and most energy-efficient way.
America's architects are committed to designing healthy
communities. In order to redevelop some of the most
economically depressed neighborhoods, the Federal Government's
brownfields program must be expanded. This will facilitate the
cleanup of blighted areas across America. The AIA strongly
supports this Committee's efforts to improve the brownfields
program, and I welcome your questions.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Eben.
We are going to take a brief pause, if you don't mind, Mr.
Silversmith. We realize Mr. Albrecht has to hop on a plane in
five minutes. So we are going to deter for a slight second and
have Mr. Boozman, who is our Ranking Member from Arkansas, ask
a question. Then we will continue on.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you. I have one that I would like to
throw out for the panel, and why don't you start, Mr. Albrecht,
then you can go ahead and leave if you would like. Believe me,
it doesn't matter if I start, if I have a 1:00 o'clock flight
or a 5:00 o'clock or an 8:00 o'clock at night, I am constantly
running, as all of us are, to catch that. So I understand.
Dr. Leigh mentioned about the mothballed sites in her
testimony. How can we make it possible for the so-called
mothball sites to be cleaned up and put into productive use?
Would mothballed sites be cleaned up if protections from
liability were made available?
Mr. Albrecht. I am not an environmental attorney, but from
a practical standpoint at the city, the one slide that I showed
you of an old Imperial Electric that was an arson fire, we took
ownership of that just probably eight months prior to the
January 11th, 2002 rule that kicked in the all appropriate
inquiry. What we were able to do, through the cooperation of
Region 5 in Chicago was we had to demonstrate that we did do
some level of due diligence prior to that.
We really feel locally that that particular benchmark rule
is inappropriate. As Cleveland demonstrated, we have been land-
banking properties for 10 years. Some of those have been in our
portfolio, the first project I showed you was the AES Elastomer
Systems project. We took that on initially to demolish the
building. It turned out the company wanted it rehabbed.
But we took it on blind faith. So you need to provide us
some flexibility in how our ownership patterns work in that
regard. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman. With the Chair's permission, then, you can go
ahead and go. Is that all right, Madam Chair?
Ms. Richardson. Yes, you are released, and thank you very
much for your testimony.
Mr. Boozman. Yes, thank you very much.
Do the rest of you have anything to say about that?
Mr. Silversmith. If I may, just a few things. Number one,
some of the cities are afraid to exercise eminent domain or
otherwise foreclose for back taxes on these mothballed
properties. Because under CERCLA, they are not liable if it is
an involuntary acquisition. The issue among the lawyers is, if
you take it by eminent domain or for back taxes, was it an
involuntary acquisition. So consequently, some of the
properties remain mothballed because the liability relief is
not broad enough for the cities.
In addition, there are some tenants who come into
properties that are already contaminated. The responsible party
is the owner, and the tenant does not have a liability release
under CERCLA. Then finally, gas stations are not exempt. So
when we come in to clean up gas stations, there is an issue
there for liability.
So pursuant to your questions, there clearly could be an
expansion of the liability relief.
Mr. Boozman. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Richardson. Did anyone else want to respond? Okay, we
will continue with our last panelist here. We have Mr. Gary
Silversmith. Thank you for comment on that question. He is
President of P&L Investments, Inc. here in Washington, D.C.
Thank you, and welcome.
Mr. Silversmith. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and my
Valentine to the Subcommittee is that I am your last witness.
I am the President, as you mentioned, of P&L Investments, a
national brownfields investor and developer headquartered here
in Washington, D.C. We are involved in the cleanup and
redevelopment of dozens of properties around the Country,
ranging from an abandoned gas station in Los Angeles that we
are converting to affordable housing to cleaning up an old
shopping center in Maine that we are releasing.
We not only acquire large brownfields held by major
corporations, such as AIG Environmental and General Motors, but
we also clean up and redevelop many small properties, including
a truck stop in Denton, Texas, near Madam Chairwoman's district
office.
We were told that were are the first company in America to
get permission to convert a Superfund site to residential use.
Before cleaning up the Superfund site, it was contaminated with
PCBs, mercury, and asbestos. The property consisted of a
dilapidated factory building occupied by drug dealers and
arsonists. In fact, the EPA's onsite trailer was burned down.
We demolished these buildings and we cleaned up the site.
The townhouses built on the land appreciated over 300 percent
in the first four years. So the community not only got rid of a
drug-infested blight, but the residents made money. Also, the
EPA wrote a complimentary article about the project in their
Cleanup News publication, and EPA gave us a very important
liability release.
In Pennsylvania, we took an abandoned 90-acre asbestos
brake plant and asbestos landfill, and we converted the plant
to an industrial park with high-tech companies. We capped the
landfill with asphalt and converted it to a commercial parking
lot. For this project, we received a liability release from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We would have never undertaken
this project without the liability relief for innocent
purchasers provided in the brownfields law.
The Federal brownfields law also recognizes the critical
importance of public-private partnerships in bringing these
contaminated properties back to productive use. We are
currently involved in an innovative public-private partnership
with an Ohio community where we are converting a landfill to a
golf course with new commercial buildings around the golf
course. As part of this partnership, the local government
entity will receive 25 percent of the profits. This project
would not have been possible without the investment of both
State and Federal grant monies.
While the Federal brownfields law has stimulated the
revitalization of thousands of properties around the Country,
those of us in the industry have learned a great deal since the
law was passed six years ago. As part of my written testimony,
I have attached recommendations developed by the National
Brownfields Coalition, which I wholeheartedly support. Based
upon my experience in the field, I would like to highlight just
a few of the recommendations.
Number one and most importantly to me, Congress should
increase the ceiling on brownfield cleanup grants. As you know,
the maximum amount that EPA can provide for a cleanup grant
under the current law is $200,000. There are many sites where
the cleanup cost is millions of dollars. In these cases,
$200,000 from EPA is usually not enough help, even taking into
account funding from other sources. As a result, these sites
are usually mothballed.
Number two, pursuant to Congressman Arcuri's question, the
Government should provide flexible multi-purpose grants. The
slow timing and the lack of flexibility with the Federal
brownfield grants is a real problem. Under the current grant
process, there is a lengthy delay between the time of the grant
application and the time the funding is available. In addition,
the grants are for only either assessment or cleanup. Moreover,
the cleanup grants are typically tied to a specific site.
Local governments could really use multi-purpose grants
that are processed quickly that can be used for assessment and/
or cleanup and that can be employed in a variety of brownfield
properties.
Congress should make it clear that Federal grants can be
used for demolition and site clearance. For many of the larger
projects we undertake, demolition and site clearance are major
costs. For example, we are now converting an abandoned factory
in Baltimore County to mostly park land. One reason the cleanup
is delayed is because the prospective purchaser, the Maryland
State Park System, would like the abandoned factory demolished
as part of the cleanup. But the State Park System cannot get an
EPA grant for all of the demolition. If EPA could award a more
flexible grant, then the demolition could proceed.
In summary, the 2002 brownfields law was a milestone for
brownfield redevelopment. And it should be expanded to fund
both bigger grants and to be more flexible in its application.
In addition, pursuant to Congressman Boozman's question,
its liability relief should be expanded. After all, brown to
green is good. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you very much, Mr. Silversmith.
Any further questions, Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. I don't think so, Madam Chair. We probably
will have some that we would like to submit, with your
permission, though.
Ms. Richardson. Absolutely. Seeing no further questions,
first of all, I would like to thank the panelists for your
work, for your testimony as well as your time today. On behalf
of Chairwoman Johnson, and the entire Subcommittee, we want to
recognize your comments and your recommendations into the
record and assure you that they will be considered in our
future deliberations. As we close, we want to thank the
witnesses and suggest that any Members, whether present at this
moment or coming forward on this Subcommittee, that we might
have follow-up questions that we would submit to you. We ask
that you would respond to them in a timely fashion.
We appreciate your cooperation and your valuable
participation today, especially given the hour and your
patience with us. This hearing is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]