[Senate Hearing 117-656]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-656
STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
51-973PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont Virginia
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JONI ERNST, Iowa
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 1
Capito, Hon. Shelly More, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Goldstein, Michael, Managing Partner, Goldstein Environmental Law
Firm........................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Buschur, Brad, Project Director, Groundwork Lawrence............. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Responses to Additional Questions from Senators:
Carper................................................... 21
Kelly.................................................... 21
Pouncey, Gerald, Chairman, Morris, Manning, And Martin, LLP...... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Responses to Additional Questions from Senators:
Carper................................................... 28
Kelly.................................................... 29
Carico, George, Director, West Virginia Brownfields Assistance
Center, Marshall University.................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Responses to Additional Questions from Senators:
Carper................................................... 36
Kelly.................................................... 37
Sullivan................................................. 38
STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Padilla, Sullivan, Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. I call this hearing to order. Good morning
one and all, Senator Capito, good to see you. To our staffs,
thank you for helping us put this important hearing together.
Today we are going to discuss the Environmental Protection
Agency's Brownfields Program as we begin to work on the
program's reauthorization. For nearly three decades now, the
Brownfields program has proven to be an important source of
help for communities forced to contend with the long-term
impacts of hazardous waste and other types of contamination.
The program provides Federal assistance for communities to
clean up contaminated lands, to revitalize the areas and
rededicate the land to productive centers of civic and economic
activity.
We most recently reauthorized appropriations for this
program with strong bipartisan support about 5 years ago, I
think it was 2018. So it is time now to review the State of the
Brownfields Program, and to examine what works well, to
identify potential ways to update the program so it can best
meet the evolving challenges that communities face. I like to
say, everything I do I know I can do better. That includes our
oversight of this program and the way this program operates
throughout the Country.
Fortunately, we have four distinguished witnesses joining,
actually three this morning, and a fourth remotely. We have
three distinguished witnesses joining us in person, and another
remotely. They each possess decades of hands-on experience
working with communities, working with State and local
governments, private developers on brownfield sites across our
Country.
Mr. Goldstein is joining us remotely. Mr. Carico, Mr.
Buschur, and Mr. Pouncey are here. Thank you all for joining us
today. Senator Capito will in a minute introduce George Carico,
a fellow from West Virginia. We have already had a chance to
chat.
We look forward to hearing from each of you. Before we do,
I will deliver the history of this important program. The EPA's
Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program began in 1995 with
the purpose of cleaning up thousands of lower-risk
pollutionsites across our Country known as brownfields. The
program provided seed money and technical assistance to State
and local authorities working with private developers to
revitalize these brownfields, transform them. In other words,
the program took the adversity of pollution and turned it into
an opportunity for economic development and growth.
Since that time, the program has grown both in scope and in
impact. In 2002, Congress codified the program into law,
authorizing EPA to assist with assessments, remediation, with
job training, and site planning. In our most recent
reauthorization of the program in 2018, we also broadened the
types of assistance that could be provided and expanded
eligibility for the program.
The benefits of this program have proven themselves time
and time again. According to EPA, the Brownfields Program has
assisted in the assessment of over 35,000 contaminated
properties and cleanups of over 2,300 sites across our Nation,
probably in every State. The agency also reports that every
dollar of Federal assistance leverages over $20 of non-Federal
money for revitalization. This has contributed to the creation
of over 180,000 jobs since 1995. That is a lot of jobs for a
little State like Delaware, and even for a big State like West
Virginia.
We have seen the positive impacts of the program first-hand
in Delaware. Since the program began, the First State has
received millions in grants, helping to revitalize areas such
as our riverfront along the Christina River in Wilmington,
Delaware. Once a shipbuilding site turned toxic site, it is a
site right close to our train station. If we go back to World
War II, about 60, 70 years ago, 10,000 people worked along the
Christina River close to the train station, for about a mile
either way. Ten thousand people, mostly women, building the
ships that helped win the war in World War II.
When the war was over, we ended up with a toxic site. The
question was what to do about it. What we have done about it is
replaced it with something called the Wilmington Riverfront. It
is a thriving place to live and work and we have a lot to thank
with respect to the Brownfields Program and this wonderful
outcome. Many Americans may remember that also as a place that
President-Elect Biden proclaimed a victory after the election 2
years ago.
So as we consider brownfields reauthorization, this
committee should examine whether specific opportunities exist
to further strengthen this program. I believe this
reexamination should include building upon the program's
existing capacity and resources, however, to help local
authorities with area-wide and regional planning of brownfields
remediation. Increased support for planning will ensure that
communities are better able to maximize the benefits of
projects.
As our Nation continues to grapple with the adverse impacts
of climate change and extreme weather, I am reminded of that
today in thinking of our neighbors and friends in Florida, who
are getting a terrible punishing from the hurricane that is
working its way up the coast.
But the Brownfields program should also encourage
sustainable revitalization projects. By doing so, we can
support community efforts to become more resilient to climate
change while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, the program should incorporate environmental
justice principles and practices to ensure that the people and
communities negatively affected by local land pollution can
fully participate in the benefits of brownfield revitalization.
Finally, as we consider ways to improve the Brownfields
Program, we should ensure that the program not only assists
communities with financial and technical burdens of
revitalizing contaminated lands, but also encourages
stakeholders to fully engage with residents during the planning
and execution of projects.
Let me close by reiterating that now is the right time to
explore and revisit improvements to this vital program. Last
year, we provided EPA with a threefold increase in funding for
the Brownfields Program under the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law, which this committee, Senator Capito knows, we literally
helped to write in this room. We need to ensure that the
program can use these additional resources to the greatest
effect in assisting our cities, our towns, our communities, and
our tribes.
I look forward to our discussion today and the work that
lies ahead of all of us. Again, we welcome all of our witnesses
in person and remotely.
Let me turn now to Senator Capito for her remarks. Thank
you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Carper. I want to thank
you for holding the hearing to talk about EPA's Brownfields
Program. I want to thank all the witnesses for being here with
us today.
It is a rare occasion when an EPA program enjoys strong
bipartisan support along this committee's dais, as we know.
Since first being authorized in 2002, the Brownfields Program
has become a resounding success story for our economy and the
environment. Since we are on the east coast and developed a lot
earlier, we have a lot of these older sites in both of our
States.
Brownfields are pieces of property where redevelopment is
complicated by the presence of hazardous contamination. A large
variety of contaminated properties are potential brownfields
sites. Common examples are abandoned factories, landfills, and
former gas stations, dry cleaners. We had an issue with a dry
cleaner actually in our State.
These underdeveloped properties line the streets of what
once were bustling industrial, commercial, and agricultural
areas across our Nation, discouraging investment in job
creation, reducing local tax revenues and harming property
values. Rather than viewing these properties as a stain on our
community, the Brownfields Program recognizes the vast untapped
economic potential these contaminated sites can have, after
they have been successfully remediated.
Since the program's inception, $36 billion in brownfields
grants funding has been allocated to local communities,
creating about 192,000 jobs. In addition, EPA's Brownfields
Program is one of the most effectively leveraged financing tool
across the entire Federal Government, providing a return of
more than $20 for every $1 contributed by the EPA.
Brownfields grants serve as a valuable financing tool for
local communities and private investors by providing reliable
funding and facilitating long-term re-use planning. The grants
help incentivize private sector participation by reducing
financial risks, and shielding developers from potential
liability under CERCLA.
In order to be successful, the Brownfields Program relies
upon the establishment of effective public-private partnerships
where all parties have a vested interest in the long-term
restoration of a contaminated site. These partnerships help our
local communities enjoy the benefits of economic development
for decades to come.
While we all recognize the successes of brownfields, we
must acknowledge, as the Chairman did, that improvements are
needed. This is particularly important if we are to maximize
that return on the $1.5 billion investment the program received
from the IIJA. For example, Congress appropriately intended
brownfields grants to be awarded on a competitive basis.
However, rigorous and complex application requirements remain a
continued source of confusion within the program. Applicants
typically have only 60 days to compete and submit an
application from the date EPA announces another year's round of
grant solicitations.
The short timeframes and complicated requirements often
lead to situations where rural communities are unable to
compete with their larger, urban counterparts due to a lack of
resources. Unlike larger cities and urban centers, local
municipalities typically are operating on a shoestring budget
and lack the good fortunate of having multiple full-time grant
writers on their staff. This makes it an uphill battle for our
rural communities when they try to compete. As Mr. Carico told
me earlier, you lose points quickly. He says he has had
projects that have been 92s that have not made it. So you can
see how competitive it is.
Discrepancies in staff resources and experience impede
rural communities from competing on a level playing field,
ultimately leaving many promising rural brownfield development
opportunities unrealized in disadvantaged areas that really
need them most. Until you can clean that and remediate, you are
not going to get any development around it.
EPA deserves credit for recognizing that there is a
problem. One way the agency has attempted to address the issue
is through the establishment of the Technical Assistance to
Brownfield communities program, otherwise known as TAB. There
are six recipients of TAB funding, and I understand the
Morgantown office in West Virginia is a TAB-funded place,
referred to as TAB providers, with each being assigned to a
specific region in the Country.
TAB providers serve as an independent resource, assisting
applicants with expert technical assistance and guidance to
help them better navigate the brownfield application process.
They serve an important role in facilitating more grant
applications in small and rural communities that lack their own
grant-writing capacity.
So we are privileged to have with us today someone who has
worked with the TAB program and also has worked in West
Virginia for many, many years, and that is George Carico.
George serves as the Director of the West Virginia Regional
Brownfields Assistance Center at Marshall University. He has
devoted his entire career to the brownfields arena, helping to
bring much-needed funding to our State and the region.
Mr. Carico, I want to recommend you for the high praise the
West Virginia Brownfields Assistance Centers often receive from
the broader brownfields stakeholder community. Thank you. Your
forward-looking and innovative approach to maximizing rural
participation in brownfields grant opportunities should be a
model for other rural areas in the Country. I look forward a to
hearing about the work you have undertaken in rural areas to
facilitate economic redevelopment and community vibrancy.
We are also joined by Gerald Pouncey, thank you, Chairman
of the Morris, Manning and Martin Law Firm, with decades of
experience in the acquisition and redevelopment of hundreds of
brownfield properties. Mr. Pouncey will provide this committee
with a much-needed perspective from the developer side.
Mr. Pouncey's past work was praised by EPA as a best
practice in brownfield redevelopment. He continues to receive
numerous accolades, having been honored as the environmental
lawyer of the year in 2017, and is one of Atlanta's 500 most
influential leaders. Thank you for coming today.
I look forward to hearing about how private sector
participation in the Brownfield Program is so important to
long-term success. I want to thank everybody for being here. It
is an important hearing.
Chairman Carper, I will yield back to you.
Senator Carper. Thanks you very much, Senator Capito.
I want to add, a lot of people, they watch what goes on in
Washington and they think we never agree on anything. You are
welcome to a committee today where we actually work across the
aisle remarkably well. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that
the President signed into law 10 months ago, the most far-
reaching, transformative infrastructure legislation in the
history of the Country, we reported it out, the roads,
highways, bridges portion unanimously. We reported out the
water and wastewater, flood part unanimously. We reported it
out, and that really became the foundation on which the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was built.
More recently, we passed out unanimously WRDA, water
resources development legislation for the Senate. We have done
similar things with recycling legislation this year. More often
than not, we find the middle and work toward getting stuff
done. I am a practical politician, recovering Governor, and
Senator Capito is very much a practical politician. We are both
West Virginians at heart.
So it is a pleasure to work with her, her team, and we are
delighted that you are all with us today.
In terms of introductions, Senator Capito has already that
for a couple of our witnesses. I would add to that Mr.
Goldstein, who is an environmental law attorney and leader in
brownfield development joining us from Florida. He is the
founding chairman of the Florida Brownfields Association. I
know Mr. Goldstein wanted to join us in person, but Hurricane
Ian has prevented his travel. We are glad he can join us over
WebEx, which I understand he is literally doing from the middle
of the hurricane.
My parents lived the last 30 years of their lives in
Clearwater. I think they are under the gun there today. So we
are thinking of them and the neighbors up and down the Gulf
Coast.
Mr. Brad Buschur, Brad, nice of you to join us. He is the
Project Director for the Groundwork Lawrence, in Lawrence,
Massachusetts, where I understand you have led a number of
brownfield redevelopment within that particular area.
Mr. Pouncey, we have had comments already from Senator
Capito. The chairman, I said to him before, we are both
chairmen. You can never have too many of them.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. He is Chairman of the Morris, Manning and
Martin Law Firm in Atlanta, Georgia, which along with Mr.
Goldstein's firm is a member of the National Brownfields
Coalition. I understand you are the principal author of
Georgia's new brownfields legislation as well. So it will be
interesting to hear the insights you will provide.
Finally, our friend from West Virginia, Mr. Carico, who is
the Director of West Virginia Brownfields Assistance Center at
Marshall University, Thundering Herd, and We Are Marshall,
which assists communities across West Virginia on brownfields
redevelopment. I told him before we started, Senator Capito,
that my sister is a proud graduate of Marshall and a bunch of
my cousins as well. About every 10, 20 years, they just knock
somebody off in college football. Michigan State about 15 years
ago, and earlier this year, Notre Dame. My sister and cousins
are hard to live with when that happens. But I will get through
it, and so will they.
Our thanks to each of you for joining us. Mr. Goldstein, we
are going to lead off with you. Again, thank you for connecting
with us in this very difficult and trying time in Florida.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ., THE GOLDSTEIN
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FIRM
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Carper,
Ranking Member Capito, and members of the committee.
My name is Michael Goldstein. I am the Managing Partner of
The Goldstein Environmental Law Firm, a principal of Goldstein
Kite Environmental, the past president of the Florida
Brownfields Foundation, and chair of the National Brownfields
Coalition's Public Policy, Redevelopment Incentives, and
Regulatory Partnerships Committee.
The Coalition, jointly managed by Smart Growth America and
the Center for Creative Land Recycling, is a non-partisan
alliance advocating for equitable remediation and redevelopment
of brownfields nationwide. It is an honor to participate, thank
you for this opportunity.
My remarks today are informed by three decades of
experience assisting businesses, local governments and
community stakeholders remediate, redevelopment and re-use
contaminated sites. Other witnesses today will no doubt speak
to the magnificent Brownfields Grant Program administered by
EPA, which has transformed how environmentally challenged and
marginalized communities think about pollution, where they
live, work, pray, and play.
EPA's Brownfields Program and the funding that Congress has
increasingly made available beginning in the mid-1990's has
given the voiceless a voice and the powerless agency. This
program is constantly evolving, innovating and reinventing. In
terms of a regulatory strategy, it is as close to perfect as
one could possibly want.
Of course, the program is animated by the people who
implement it. So I also want to take a moment to acknowledge
and celebrate EPA staff in the Brownfields Program and the
Superfund Redevelopment Program. If there are harder-working,
more committed professionals in the environmental arena that
make a difference in the millions of Americans every single
day, I haven't met them yet.
Turning to our substantive recommendations, the Coalition
encourages this committee to double down on the boldness of the
Federal Brownfields Program by adding to the resources that are
currently available, not just enhancing those on the books. We
need to add more tools to the toolbox by one, innovating
legislatively with respect to financial resources, and two,
providing additional mandates to certain Federal agencies to
increase the regulatory firepower that communities and
stakeholders can tap into.
On the financial side, we recommend three new discrete
funding opportunities. First, as part of a reauthorization
bill, renew the Federal Brownfield Tax Deduction. Before it
expired in 2011, this incentive allowed a party who voluntarily
cleaned up contaminated property to deduct its cleanup costs in
the year incurred. A report prepared by the Coalition showed
that Section 198 of the Tax Code reduced remediation costs by
one-third to one-half. Before sunsetting, it was used more than
625 times in more than 40 States.
Second, we strongly recommend the creation of a Brownfields
Loan Guarantee Program. This program would combine the aspects
of the DOE Loan Guarantee program with the New Markets Tax
Credit Program to leverage many billions of private sector
dollars for early stage bridge financing of redevelopment
projects that are considered too risky for conventional
lenders. In my professional experience, there are countless
projects that fail in the concept stage because they are caught
in an unwinnable position. They are not loan-worthy until the
environmental risks are cleared, but the environmental risks
can't be cleared until loan funding becomes available.
Third, Brownfields Reauthorization is an elegant and timely
vehicle to combat the affordable housing crisis in this
Country. So we are recommending a significant expansion of the
way in which affordable housing is funded at the Federal level.
To that end, we would like to see an increase of a 4 percent
and 9 percent low-income housing tax credit under Section 42 of
the IRS Code to 6 percent and 12 percent for affordable housing
built on brownfield sites, a stepped-up basis under Section 42
of the Tax Code of between 130 percent to 150 percent for
affordable housing built on brownfield sites, and a huge game
changer: a new, one-time LIHTC in the amount of 80 percent of
the cost of land acquisition to develop affordable housing
built on brownfields.
On the agency resources side, Mr. Chairman, we believe
there is a much more active role that at least three agencies
under this committee's jurisdiction can play in support of
brownfields revitalization: the Federal Highway Administration,
the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Economic Development
Administration. Each of these agencies is deeply resourced,
experienced, and credentialed, but to date has been
functionally absent in the Federal brownfields arena.
First, through reauthorization, Congress should direct FHA
to provide technical and financial assistance including grant
funding for brownfield redevelopment projects that are transit-
oriented, that invest in environmental justice neighborhoods,
that provide multiple transit options, and that reduce the
distance, the cost, and the impact on climate of connecting
people from home to school or work and all points in between.
Second, the Army Corps likely has the largest working
storehouse of environmental data and information regarding the
remediation technologies in the Country. Access to this
information should be readily available to stakeholders
everywhere.
Relatedly, the Corps could and should publish guidance
documents regarding lessons learned, involving cleanup of
common contaminants at brownfield sites, as well as emerging
contaminants like PFAS. The Corps' rich experience with coastal
communities creates tremendous opportunities for disseminating
climate change-focused brownfields strategies. Also relatedly,
we would like to see a brownfields grant program administered
through the Corps that emphasizes climate change, sea level
rise, acute public health risks, and environmental justice.
Finally, Mr. Chair, through reauthorization, Congress
should expand on EDA's mandate to promote sustainable job
growth and the building of durable regional economies in two
ways. First by directing that EDA convene a national public-
private summit on brownfields economic policy and priorities,
and second, by directing the creation of a standalone
brownfield grant program that pulls from EDA's existing funding
appropriations and repackages them to be utilized for a
combination of cleanup, public health, job creation and job
training activities with an emphasis on climate stewardship,
energy security, and creative, affordable, and transit-oriented
housing.
The National Brownfields Coalition thanks the committee for
its consideration of these remarks and I look forward to
responding to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you so much for that thoughtful
testimony. I would say to the witnesses who are here, one of
the things I look for in hearings, as Senator Capito knows, is
where is there consensus among the witnesses. Mr. Goldstein has
laid out quite a list there. I am interested in seeing what you
agree with, and maybe a couple of areas where you don't. That
would be helpful.
OK, thanks, Mr. Goldstein. We wish everyone down there in
Florida our very best. We are here to help.
Mr. Buschur, you are up. We are delighted that you are able
to be here in person. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF BRAD BUSCHUR, PROJECT DIRECTOR, GROUNDWORK
LAWRENCE
Mr. Buschur. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
members of the committee, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify today on the Environmental Protection
Agency's Brownfields Program. I represent Groundwork Lawrence,
where I am a project director responsible for leading the
organization's environmental improvement programs.
Groundwork Lawrence is a community-based organization
working to create a high quality built and natural environment
by renovating existing parks, creating new recreational
opportunities, and stewarding Lawrence's three rivers. We
transform vacant and contaminated properties into parks and
green spaces to support healthy active lifestyles.
We are part of a network of independent locally based
Groundwork Trusts in 25 cities and 18 states. Trusts are
established with support from the National Park Service, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and local stakeholders.
Groundwork Trusts deploy a collaborative, community-wide and
people-centered approach in the development of greenspaces and
the restoration of the environment in the city, ensuring all
stakeholders are invested in the project.
I am speaking to you today, on behalf of Groundwork
Lawrence, about the organization's work in the city of
Lawrence, Massachusetts. Located 30 miles north of Boston,
Lawrence is a planned industrial city founded in the early
1840's. Central to the city's rise as a center of textile and
paper production is the construction of the Great Stone Dam
along the Merrimack River, which diverted water to the north
and south canals to provide power to the mills along its banks.
Lawrence quickly became known as the immigrant city. By
1910, 90 percent of the city's 80,000 residents were either
first-or second-generation Americans, and the city had become
the largest manufacturer of worsted woolen textiles in the
world. However, by the end of World War II, deindustrialization
was in full force as mill owners moved their capital and
employment out of Lawrence to lower cost regions.
The challenges associated with Lawrence's
deindustrialization are significant. Abandoned mills are
impacted by polyaromatic hydrocarbons, petroleum, chlorinated
solvents, arsenic, lead, PCBs, and cadmium. A wave of arson and
abandonment in the 1980's left vacant housing lots potentially
contaminated by lead and asbestos.
Multiple trash incinerators formerly located in Lawrence
have all been shuttered, but they left behind soils
contaminated with dioxins from burning plastics and medical
waste. The city's densely populated neighborhoods frequently
abut industrial and commercial areas, exposing residents to
contaminants by direct contact or inhalation of vapors via
migration from soil into indoor air.
Many of Lawrence's contaminated properties are small and
interspersed throughout residential areas and present potential
risks to human health for the homes and businesses surrounding
them. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
lists 332 identified sites with environmental constraints
spread across Lawrence's seven square miles.
Today the city is an economic and cultural center of the
Merrimack Valley with over 90,000 residents, 80 percent of whom
are Latino. The city has benefited from hundreds of millions of
dollars of private investment in the redevelopment of its
historic mills that now provide market rate and affordable
homes for residents.
Unlike many older urban areas, the city has a young and
growing population, fueled by the influx of Caribbean
immigrants who bring new energy, businesses, and dreams. In a
city notorious for ethnic tensions, there is growing momentum
behind the city's broad-based community revitalization efforts,
a hard-working and entrepreneurial community, a high-
functioning nonprofit sector, and renewed community vitality
with the election of Mayor Brian DePena who recently led a tour
of the city's brownfield redevelopment targets.
Since 1996, the city of Lawrence has received $3.65 million
in EPA Brownfields Program funding. The city has successfully
utilized these grants to bring forth substantial economic
benefits including leveraging $12 million in State and Federal
funds and $51 million in private funding to assess, cleanup,
and redevelop complex industrial properties and the creation of
more than 200 construction jobs as well as an additional 200
permanent jobs. This is related to the Union Crossing project.
Lawrence currently has two active brownfield cleanup grants
to support redevelopment of the largest remaining parcels in
the city. The most challenging project is the Tombarello Site,
a 14-acre former recycling facility abutting residential
properties and a school with extensive PCB contamination.
The other project is the Merrimac Paper Site, comprised of
27 interconnected dilapidated buildings encompassing over 1.3
million square feet. Built in 1866, the site has become a
perennial fire hazard placing first responders and public
health at risk.
Both properties have benefited from actions taken by the
EPA Brownfields Program prior to the city taking ownership.
EPA's Region I Emergency Planning and Response Branch undertook
significant remedial actions to address imminent public health
risks created by private property owners.
Groundwork Lawrence has been fortunate to support the
city's efforts to reclaim brownfields to provide residents with
access to recreational opportunities within neighborhoods where
the poverty rate, income levels, and sensitive populations are
drastically higher than the rest of the State. Central to this
work is the creation of the Spicket River Greenway. Over 12
years, Groundwork and the city created six new riverfront parks
and connected them with a 3.5 mile long shared-use path
providing residents with close-to-home high-quality parks. EPA
Brownfield Program funding supported remediation of four of the
new parks by providing $600,000 of the over $10 million
required to create these projects.
Additionally, the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the
Community Development Block Grant programs are vital to
supporting the creation of these spaces.
As this committee undertakes reauthorization of the
Brownfields Program, Groundwork Lawrence recommends evaluating
three areas of the program. The statutory limit placed on EPA's
cleanup grants is $500,000 per parcel which is a significant
amount of money, but offsite disposal and transportation costs
have increased dramatically over the past 5 years.
Another item future legislation should address is making
building demolition an eligible cleanup expense. Uncontrolled
demolition of buildings through fire or neglect is often the
source of environmental contamination placing public health and
the environment at risk.
Most importantly, future legislation should require strong
community engagement to ensure all impacted residents have a
strong voice in the redevelopment process of brownfields.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buschur follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Mr. Buschur, thank you very much.
Now, we are going to turn to Mr. Pouncey. Please proceed.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF GERALD POUNCEY, CHAIRMAN, MORRIS, MANNING, AND
MARTIN, LLP
Mr. Pouncey. Mr. Chairman, Senator Capito, members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today.
This is a very personal issue to me. I grew up in a textile
mill village in central Alabama, where my family and I worked
either in the mills or the surrounding manufacturing facilities
around those mills. Both of those mills are now closed and
abandoned. So I am very sensitive, Senator Capito, to some of
the questions and issues you raised about how we redevelop in
some of these rural or not-so-urban areas which suffer from the
same concerns about brownfields that you suffer from in the
metropolitan areas that Mr. Buschur mentioned.
In discussing brownfields, it is important to understand
the consequences of the failure to clean up these sites. In
large measure, these properties have either been, as in the
case with the mills that I mentioned, completely abandoned, or
in some instances, they are severely underutilized, meaning
they are operating on a skeletal crew, to avoid intentionally
certain EPA permitting requires kicking in once they are
closed.
They become significant safety hazards, particularly to
young children, as an attractive nuisance. They represent a
threat to the communities in that condition. The serve as a
magnet for crime in many instances. They also constitute an
environmental risk to the surrounding communities simply
because of deteriorating buildings very often containing a
number of hazardous substances, asbestos is one that comes to
mind immediately, and the contamination that exists in the soil
or the stormwater.
What I don't think we have focused on, and I am going to
take a little bit of a departure from the first two witnesses'
comments, is the challenges that we have to redevelop these
sites, particularly from a private perspective. These
brownfield sites require a significant upfront investment in
capital and in cost. Very often, the testing that you do to
determine if the site is even viable for redevelopment can cost
five to ten times what you would do if you are developing a
greenfield.
Similarly, you are making that investment with no certainty
that you are going to realize on the ultimate redevelopment.
Very often, those test results may say that the redevelopment
is not viable because of the level of impacts that exist at
that site.
So we need to recognize that challenge for a private
developer coming in and making this investment, that he is
putting a significant amount of his working capital at risk
with no certainty, in fact with some real odds to realize on
that risk. I will come back to that in a few minutes in terms
of the financial incentives that we have created.
The second difficulty, and I say this both as leading a lot
of brownfields redevelopment efforts across the Country but
also personally doing some redevelopment in these areas as
well, is there is an inherent delay in cleaning these sites up
before you start the redevelopment. And there is an inherent
additional cost that must occur with respect to that cleanup
after you purchase the property. So it is not just the
investment you make before you buy it, it is the investment you
make after you buy it for purposes of cleanup. I will come back
to that in a minute as well.
So the question becomes, how do we create the incentive
that encourages the private sector, either on its own or
jointly with the public sector, to redevelop these sites. I
would offer that one of the most effective ways to do this is
to move these sites to State brownfield programs that exist in
all of your States and in many of the States of the committee
members. I will give you one example of the effectiveness of
those State brownfield programs.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that I was the author of the
Georgia Brownfield Law, which we actually began implementation
of that law in 2004. Since that law was implemented just in the
State of Georgia, over 1,300 properties have gone into that
brownfield program. Almost 800 properties have achieved cleanup
under that program. That is a private incentivized program for
cleanup. It has been effective not just in the metropolitan
areas of Georgia; it has been effective in the rural areas of
Georgia.
The reason, like most programs, it provides two things that
are critical. No. 1, it provides a financial incentive to
conduct that cleanup. You are able to recover your cleanup
costs back from your property taxes. So if I spend a million
dollars on cleanup, and my property, because of the
redevelopment, has increased in value, I am able to recover
from that increase in value my cleanup cost. We are also able
to monetize that, which means that if I sell the property
later, my buyer will also then benefit from that offset in
taxes that I can recover that sum from my buyer. That is a
major incentive which has, quite frankly, underwritten a lot of
these deals that otherwise would not have occurred.
The second protection it provides, which is common with a
lot of the State programs that I have discussed, is a liability
protection. Senator Capito, you mentioned that earlier. That
is, if I am a buyer who had no responsibility for the
contamination, I didn't even own the property when the
contamination occurred, and I am agreeing to come in and
conduct a State or federally approved cleanup, if I don't have
certain liability protections that attach to me in doing that,
I have no incentive to come in and perform that cleanup. Most
of the States have recognized that and introduced these
liability protection provisions, some broader than others, that
give you protection, and quite candidly, and perhaps even more
importantly, give your lenders protection, so that I am able to
get the financing necessary to fund those projects.
That also is important when we are dealing with rural
redevelopment or small-town redevelopment, as well as urban
redevelopment, is being able to get the financing resources.
The other item that I would note, and I will pause for a
moment because in anticipation of my testimony over the last 2
weeks, I have spoken with the heads of several brownfield
programs across the south, individuals with whom I deal on a
weekly basis. I have asked them what is the biggest issue for
them in terms of their ability to even more successfully
implement these brownfield programs. For them, honestly, it is
funding for the grant programs. The States, we talk about where
we can invest this money, in assessments, in cleanup, and I am
about to come back to your cleanup issue as well.
Senator Carper. I do mean to say, your time is expired. But
I am not going to cut you off. But we have other witnesses, and
we have to ask you to wrap up.
Mr. Pouncey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will tie this up
really quickly. The predominant comment by all these brownfield
programs has been, we need the funding to keep these programs
active. Some of them are fee-based. But the fees don't cover
all the costs of the program. That is the predominant concern
that I hear among those brownfield programs.
Finally, I would note an item that my co-witness mentioned
earlier, that is, there has been a lot of money spent in these
grant programs on assessment. But the real price, the real cost
is on the cleanup side. So raising the limit on the funds
associated with cleanup is absolutely imperative in terms of
allowing these programs to move forward. If there is one thing
I can point to, and I think that is a great comment, but that
is a burden when you get to the front door but you can't get in
the front door because you don't have the funds to do the
cleanup.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pouncey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you very, very much for that
testimony, all of it.
Mr. Carico, you are on. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE CARICO, DIRECTOR, WEST VIRGINIA BROWNFIELDS
ASSISTANCE CENTER, MARSHALL UNIVERSITY
Mr. Carico. Thank you, Senator Carper, and Senator Capito.
I really appreciate the opportunity to be here.
I am George Carico. I am Director of the West Virginia
Brownfields Assistance Center at Marshall University. I am here
today to offer our experience on the value and importance of
redeveloping brownfield properties and show our support for
continuation of the Brownfields Program and offer some input on
how this valuable program can be strengthened.
Our Brownfields Assistance Center works in conjunction with
the Brownfields Center at West Virginia University. These
centers were established in 2005 by State legislation to assist
communities and organizations across West Virginia in
redeveloping brownfield properties for new and productive use.
We have seen first-hand the importance of EPA brownfields
funding, how these investments have resulted in strengthening
of local and regional economies while adding new community
vibrancy and resiliency to our cities and towns.
Reutilizing brownfield properties for new commercial and
industrial businesses, residential use, government, and
recreational use has been quite prosperous for several
communities, and it is our goal to see more successes,
especially in our smaller communities and rural areas. West
Virginia is just like most States, we have thousands of
brownfield properties, found in all sizes and conditions. These
properties can be quite challenging to redevelop, primarily due
to the environmental hazards they contain, or are perceived to
contain. Properly assessing and, if needed, remediating
environmental hazards is vital to transforming these properties
into new, productive use while ensuring the future safety of
human health and the environment. EPA brownfields funding is
providing this vital component.
Since 2005, our Centers have seen a wide variety of
successful brownfield projects. EPA states they have invested
approximately $41 million in brownfield funding in West
Virginia, resulting in an estimated $1.6 billion in leveraged
funds, and creating about 5,400 jobs in our State. While I can
provide dozens of examples, I will quickly focus on three
different but important projects to illustrate this success.
The first one is the Shepherdstown Library. Shepherdstown
is one of the oldest towns in West Virginia, and they were in
dire need of a new library building, as the old building was
way too small and they had inadequate parking, lots of issues
there. The most suitable location that could provide enough
space was identified at the edge of their town. Decades ago,
that was the former town dump. The site was fully assessed, and
corrective actions were conducted. In July of this year, the
town celebrated its new library.
Second example is the Huntington Fire Station. This
brownfield site consisted of a former gas station and a dry
cleaner facility. Brownfield funds were utilized to assess the
property, identify the hazardous contaminants in the soil and
groundwaters. The site was entered into the West Virginia
voluntary remediation program. Just recently, a certificate of
completion as issued. Now a new and strategically located fire
station is under construction.
The last example I will give you is the Beech Bottom
Industrial Park. A steel mill operated here for decades along
the Ohio River. After closing and sitting vacant for many, many
years, brownfield funding was used to assess and remediate the
site. In August of this year, it was announced that an electric
pontoon boat manufacturing company will be the first tenant on
part of the property, providing 100 new jobs and investing $5
million into the facility there.
These are again just a few examples of projects where EPA's
brownfields investments have played a critical role. If this
funding were not available, most of these projects would not
have happened. This funding gets environmentally impacted
properties ready for new use, clearing the way for other
funding streams to be utilized that will result in successful
projects.
While we have a lot of success stories, we have many, many
more sites that still need attention, especially in our smaller
communities and our rural areas, where the number of brownfield
properties may be less but are equally as important. Due to
limited capacity and resources, it is much more difficult for
these smaller communities to compete against the larger cities
and urban areas. Successfully applying for brownfield grant
funding and meeting all the requirements can be a daunting
challenge for these communities. They are often at a
disadvantage to successfully compete.
In closing, I will say this. The EPA has numerous programs
that are of tremendous value and importance to the U.S. We,
like many others, we consider the Brownfield Program to be
their crown jewel. Some changes to the competitive process
should be considered to make it easier for smaller communities
to compete. But the Brownfields Program is definitely a true
champion.
I thank you, and look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carico follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. We have been looking forward to your
testimony. Let me just say, you have met and exceeded, all of
you, our hopes. I want to again commend our staffs for finding
you and convincing you to come and join us.
I already telegraphed my pitch and indicated one of the
things I am looking for is finding consensus. We work well in
this committee in finding consensus on major issues. I
mentioned some of those earlier.
I am going to start off by asking each of you to briefly
respond to this. We will start with you, Mr. Buschur. I am
interested in two areas, two ideas where you think there is
consensus among the four of you that are important, that you
think we should really pursue. Of all the things you have heard
said, where are a couple of really great areas we should
pursue? Because there is a lot of consensus.
Mr. Buschur. I spend a lot of my time building parks. There
is never enough money to do everything that the community
wants. As illustrated by my testimony, EPA cleanup moneys
provides a very small sliver of the overall amount of funding
provided to construct these spaces. Communities are then
obligated to maintain that engineered barrier to make sure the
space is safe for residents.
So the statutory limit increase is important. I would also
go further to say that sites that remain fallow but have
received funding from the EPA should also, previous funding for
cleanup should also be eligible for additional cleanup funds.
The statutory limit used to be $200,000. So I think there is
consensus on increasing the statutory limit.
The second area where I think, we didn't hear it from the
individuals today, but I know listening sessions in Region 1
really highlighted the need for building demolition to be an
eligible cleanup expense. It is pretty wild that a mill
building has to burn and the contaminants have to end up in the
soils to be eligible for cleanup.
Senator Carper. Thanks. Mr. Pouncey, just quickly, two
areas where there is good consensus that we ought to drill down
on.
Mr. Pouncey. Mr. Chairman, I agree, raising the limit on
the remediation cost component is a big issue for purposes of
these grants. As I mentioned earlier, very often you have the
assessed money, so you get to the front door but you can't walk
in because you can't afford the cleanup. I would consider that
to be a significant item, along with, as part of that,
including demolition costs.
The second item with which I would agree, and I think Mr.
Goldstein may have mentioned it, that is reintroducing,
enacting or extending the Brownfield Tax Credit which allows
you at the Federal level to expense your costs in the year they
are incurred from a remediation standpoint.
Senator Carper. OK, thank you. Same question, Mr. Carico.
What great ideas do you think there is a lot of consensus
around?
Mr. Carico. First, I completely agree with the cleanup
aspects. I will add, though, one good thing, this round of
current funding that has come up, there are actually three
layers to the cleanup grant process, or three levels of
funding: $500,000, $1 million, and $2 million. The higher grant
numbers, the funding numbers are a reduced number of grants.
There probably need to be more in that higher level. But it is
good to see that that is advancing, because it is costing a lot
more to remediate sites.
Second, I want to give a big amen to the demo side. Finding
demolition money is always a very, very difficult one.
The third one I would add is, the complexity of the
application process for small communities with their limited
capacity and their resources, it is very daunting and
challenging for them. It is very hard to compete against the
larger cities and urban areas. So putting in some items that
could help them to where they can compete on a little bit more
level playing field would be a great benefit for everybody, I
think.
Senator Carper. Thanks for those. Mr. Goldstein, are you
still with us?
Mr. Goldstein. Absolutely. Following along very, very
closely, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much.
My first item where I see consensus starts with an
observation that Ranking Member Capito made, and that is with
respect to reforming the grant administrative process. It is
overly burdensome and if we could streamline that, that would,
I think, increase the competitiveness of not only rural
communities but environmental justice communities who are also
under-resourced, even though they are in urban areas. That is
No. 1.
And amen to the amen that we just heard on including
demolition costs in the grant process. But the second main
areas of consensus I see is with my brother, Gerald Pouncey,
and that is finding a way to have EPA relinquish jurisdiction
in sites with primary Federal enforcement, so we can get those
sites into State brownfield programs where they can enjoy
State-based liability protection incentives and economic
incentives.
In many States, including my State, Florida, the two are
mutually exclusive. If a site is under Federal enforcement, it
is ineligible to participate in a State brownfield program. So
I think there is a lot of bang for the buck in looking at,
exploring that relinquishing of Federal enforcement
jurisdiction.
Senator Carper. Thank you for those.
Senator Ernst, Senator Capito has graciously offered to
step aside and let you go ahead and ask your questions. Thank
you for being a faithful attender of these hearings.
Senator Ernst. Thank you. I appreciate that. I had a tough
battle here with the chair when I got in, but I won.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Let the record show Ernst 1, chair zero.
Senator Ernst. I won this one.
Thanks to all of our witnesses for being here today. We
really do appreciate the discussion.
The city of Des Moines has recently gained ownership of
what is known as the former Dico site, which has been on the
EPA's National Priority List since 1983. So Des Moines has
actually taken a number of steps forward in collaboration with
the EPA and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources in an
attempt to redevelop this property.
The goal is to house a professional soccer stadium and
bring economic development opportunities to the community.
However, there is always a however, sites on the National
Priority List are not eligible for brownfields funds.
Mr. Pouncey, in your experience, how many sites have you
worked with that are no longer owned by that original pollution
source, such as the Dico site in Des Moines?
Mr. Pouncey. Many. Many. And I would offer to the entire
committee, one of the things we have met with EPA regarding is
the effort to get these sites off the National Priority List so
that they can be eligible for State programs that allow for the
items which I mentioned earlier, which is tax relief,
potentially, which is liability protection for the buyer that
is coming in to buy that site and redevelop that site.
We have also introduced the concept of partial deletion,
which means even though all the site may not be removed, at
least the lion's share of the site can be removed from the NPL.
So that portion would be eligible for the State program and can
proceed to the State program.
Senator Ernst. That is wonderful. I think you just answered
my second question. I was going to ask if you believed it would
be appropriate for sites who have transferred that ownership
then to be eligible for those brownfields funds. So absolutely,
I think we have work to do there. We are blocking a lot of
really great economic development by not engaging with those
properties. I really do appreciate that.
Mr. Carico, given your experience, what steps do you think
would be most impactful in streamlining both the brownfields
grant application and the implementation process?
Mr. Carico. Streamlining the process, that would be a
wonderful step in the right direction. It is extremely
cumbersome to put these applications together. We work with
communities, as an example, we have been doing webinars with
communities this past summer, telling them about the grant
process and helping them understand this is not an easy task
that you are about to encounter, trying to take them through
step by step what is required in the overall application
process.
By being able to streamline that a little bit, there is so
much information that is required, it gets down into things
like health statistics, cancer rates, lung disease, all these
different things. As EPA says, they want you to tell a good
story with your application. You have to fit the contaminants
that are in your community that you are looking to deal with
against those health concerns.
A lot of times, especially in our more rural communities,
it is hard to get that data that can be presented. So we are
already at a disadvantage. Then you lose points for that,
because you can't score well in that particular category.
We should make sure we keep more of the focus on assessing
that property, figuring out what is there, what needs to be
cleaned up, and then figuring out the strategy to do just that,
then apply the cleanup grant funding to go do just that.
Simplifying that a little bit is going to help all of us down
the road, especially with our smaller communities.
Senator Ernst. That is great to hear. Thank you so much. I
do think that is important as well. Let's get on it.
Thank you very much, Ranking Member Capito and Chairman
Carper, thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Senator Cardin has joined us from Maryland, and we have
been joined by the Senator from Alaska, Senator Sullivan, and
by Sheldon Whitehouse. Welcome. Ben, you are recognized.
Senator Cardin. First of all, let me thank the Chairman and
Ranking Member for conducting this hearing. The brownfields
legislation has been critically important. I represent the
State of Maryland. So let me talk about Tradepoint Atlantic,
which is one of the largest brownfield sites in the Country.
For those who are not familiar, it was the Sparrows Point steel
yards from the 1800's to 2012. At one time it was the largest
steel producing facility in the United States.
When it shuttered in 2012, there was close to $70 million
of immediate work that had to be done to clean up the
environment. Today, as a result of the brownfields legislation,
this property has been reprogrammed. We now have Amazon, Home
Depot, Under Armour, BMW, Volkswagen, we have the DOE Offshore
Wind Initiative, as well as large railyards connecting two
Class 1 railroads, CSX and Norfolk Southern. So it is a hub for
economic growth for the future, transitioning from a steel yard
production facility to its modern needs. So I am a strong
advocate for brownfields and for the legislation that we are
talking about today.
I would like to focus on one aspect of it, as to how we
could do perhaps even a stronger job. We know that most
brownfields are located in challenging communities. These are
older communities by definition, and have had older types of
facilities.
So how do we focus the legislation to be more effective in
regard to environmental justice and helping the underserved
communities? I welcome your thoughts as to how, as we look at
reauthorization, how would we want to provide additional
incentives so that we can reach those communities? Sometimes
these brownfields sites might be kind of small, other times
they may be large. They may be located in urban centers, they
may be located in rural communities.
But how do we deal with the unusual commitments to
communities that don't have the same resources that other
communities may have in their brownfields sites? Who is the
first person willing to help here?
Mr. Carico. Yes, sir, I am happy to try to answer that. I
am in West Virginia. We have a little different setup there. We
actually have two Brownfield Assistance Centers. Our State
legislation put those into effect back in 2005. So it is
actually our job to go out and work with local communities to
help them to understand the daunting challenges of going after
these grant funds. It is literally hand-holding 101, a step-by-
step getting them to understand what the environmental
contaminants are all about, how do you address them, all the
different issues that are there.
So we are doing that in our State, and we have had a lot of
success with it.
Senator Cardin. Are we helping you do that?
Mr. Carico. No, sir.
Senator Cardin. How can the Federal Government help you do
this?
Mr. Carico. You have the TAB providers, the Technical
Assistance providers that EPA has throughout the Country. I
think there are six of them. My counterpart at West Virginia
University is one of those TAB providers. So they work in EPA
Region 3, for example, to do that same thing, to start
interacting there.
There probably needs to be a lot more work done there if
you are going to get out to those more rural, smaller
communities. I have to tell you, it takes a whole lot of one-
on-one meetings in order to really get them on board.
Senator Cardin. I agree with you. So you are saying, we
could help, the Federal Government, in providing the resources
for technical assistance for communities that have challenges
working through the application process for grants and
eligibility. Can we make the grants a little bit simpler and
more focused to make it easier for these communities?
Mr. Carico. That would make us all happier, I can assure
you. Again, for our smaller communities, they are really kind
of a step behind just because it is very difficult to be able
to pull all the needed requirements into those applications. If
you don't score well in just one little subsection of an
application, you probably won't get funded. As was mentioned
earlier, we have had projects that scored 92 points out of 100.
In school, that is an ``A'' paper, but these were not funded
because they didn't score high enough.
Senator Cardin. I know my time is just about out, but I
think Mr. Goldstein might want to add something to this.
Mr. Goldstein. I am out here in the brownfields, ether, but
I am listening carefully and eagerly. Senator, thank you for
your question. There are two specific strategies that the
Federal Government can employ to address your important
concern. One is to overly induce the private sector. Here in
the State of Florida, the legislature has put its thumb on the
scale for affordable housing on brownfields sites, and for
access to health care on brownfields sites. In my earlier
testimony, I suggested ways in which the Federal Government
could provide heightened subsidies to affordable housing
developers through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program
for developers that invest in communities that need critical
affordable housing.
I also provided testimony regarding a brownfield loan
guarantee which in my experience would likely move billions of
dollars off the sidelines in private capital into rural and
environmental justice communities, provided that you
incentivize those loan guarantees in that fashion. So that is
on the one end, using a broader basket of financial tools to
overly induce the private sector, and just make it a bad
business decision to ignore rural communities and environmental
justice communities.
The other leg of the approach, the second leg of that
approach would be to super-empower those EJ communities and
rural communities by providing them direct and unique access to
other Federal agencies with massive resources that currently
aren't in the Federal Brownfields arena, like the Army Corps of
Engineers, like the Federal Highway Administration, like the
Economic Development Administration and other agencies that
this committee doesn't have jurisdiction over, like HUD.
But those are two very discrete and meaningful and material
approaches that could help you execute on that important issue
of concern you identified: how do we help those communities
where the current marketplace hasn't organically produced an
incentive for private sector investment.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Senator Capito.
[Presiding.] Thank you. Chairman Carper had to go a
Homeland Security meeting, so he handed me the gavel, which I
love.
I am going to do my questioning, and start with you, Mr.
Carico. Thank you for coming from the beautiful State of West
Virginia.
I think we have pretty much made the case here by everybody
that rural areas, whether they are EJ communities or not
characterized as such, need more capacity, need more help, and
need maybe a different lens through which to look.
So I am going to ask you a little bit more specific
question. I understand that you are allowed to have
administrative costs of 5 percent, is that correct? Is that an
accurate figure? Should there be more, less? Does that reflect
well on meeting the needs administratively?
Mr. Carico. First of all, some years ago not too many years
ago, you could not have any administrative costs. So first, it
was great to see when EPA added that 5 percent administrative
cost fee. That was really good for everybody.
From what I can tell, and this is just my opinion on the
matter and the folks that I work with, for our larger cities
and our larger urban areas, I think the 5 percent fee is
actually fairly sufficient for them. They have staff, they have
other resources, et cetera, that they can draw from.
For our smaller communities, where they don't have that
many resources or they don't have the capacity, et cetera,
possibly a little bump-up to that 5 percent allowance would
definitely be of help to them. I would also add this as a
caution, if I could. The vast majority of the funding should
always focus on assisting those sites, figuring out what the
contaminants are, and all those things that are needed,
followed by the cleanup. The primary funding should always be
focused on that, with a secondary focus on your site
redevelopment and planning gaps.
Again, the 5 percent is great. Maybe bumping it up a little
for our smaller communities would probably help them out a
little bit more, but may not be too big an issue for some of
the larger communities.
Senator Capito. All right, thank you.
Mr. Pouncey, your testimony really brings into focus the
partnership aspect of this. You talked about the State of
Georgia and what you are doing there. You have all talked about
States that are active here. Then also the private developers
aspect of this.
So as you are looking at that, and I know you mentioned
some tax issues that would be helpful, opening up to
demolition. We need to do demolition not just on brownfield
sites, but on urban areas and rural areas that just have these
dilapidated, uncared-for properties that are havens for ill
use, unsafe and unhealthy.
If you are looking at how would you improve and strengthen
those partnerships to make sure that we are maximizing all the
benefits, and I am curious to know as well, because I did work
on the Opportunity Zone legislation with Senator Scott, are you
using that, can you use that in this whole universe of
brownfield redevelopment? Has that been useful?
Mr. Pouncey. Senator, I will address those in reverse
order. Yes, the Opportunity Zones play a huge role in our
redevelopment activities. I think a number of the changes that
are proposed are worthwhile changes. We have seen census tracks
in areas that have grown out of poverty and may no longer be
appropriate for treatment as Opportunity Zones. But certainly,
they provide a real incentive for patient capital to come in
and restore and help redevelop some of these neighborhoods.
On the public-private partnership, and perhaps let me speak
to the grant issue first. Respectfully, we have seen many
instances in which the grants funded testing but that testing
really was for no specific purpose toward cleanup. As a result,
at the end of the day, nor for redevelopment of the community
or improvement of the community, so at the end of the day, it
becomes a report that goes into someone's desk and sits there.
I would propose, and we have championed in some instances,
the local communities who are applying for or receiving these
grants, partnering with the private sector as well. So there is
a real opportunity, because so many times the cleanup occurs as
part of the redevelopment itself. The dirt that is moved, the
yellow line that is out there moving this dirt is going to be
there whether it is construction or whether it is cleanup. It
is just where the material is taken afterwards.
So I do think there is real benefit in the local
communities that are applying for or receiving these grants
partnering with the private sector, with interested entities or
developers that can come in and say to them, here's the testing
we need to come in and do this development, which very often
includes both a public and the private component to it. I would
suggest that is one way to more effectively use or ensure the
effective use of these funds, is having that public-private
partnership at the outset before the assessment begins.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman. Welcome
to all the witnesses.
I think we can probably all agree that Superfund sites
burning or flooding is a very bad outcome. I see heads nodding.
For that reason, wildfire and flood risk is important in
dealing with our existing and emerging Superfund site
population, if you will. GAO did a report entitled EPA Should
Take Additional Actions to Manage Risks from Climate Change, in
which GAO found that EPA had omitted, omitted, climate change
from its agency strategy and further, that many Superfund sites
would be at increased risk of flooding and wildfires, and that
obviously, if you have omitted that from your risk calculation,
you have kind of missed the pitch.
My question to you, and I guess I will start with our voice
from the ether, if I may, Mr. Goldstein, is what did we lose in
the denial years when EPA wouldn't count climate change into
the Superfund risk factor? And have we caught up for whatever
went wrong in those years? How prepared are we now in terms of
a proper scientifically based accurate assessment of which
Superfund sites face new risks from flooding and from wildfire?
Mr. Goldstein. I think that the industry and the agencies,
both at the Federal level and at the State level, are catching
up very quickly. There is and has been over the last I would
say five or 6 years a very significant effort to understand the
remedies that are appropriate to implement for contamination in
coastal zone areas that are acutely subject to sea rise and
whether those remedies should continue to include encapsulation
of waste onsite or source removal.
This is an ongoing discussion that has technical
implications, regulatory implications, legal implications,
economic implications and equity implications. Not all cleanups
are created equal, and not all cleanups are financially sourced
reliable in the same way.
This goes back to some of the testimony that we have heard
in this hearing, and some of the testimony I provided,
regarding the ability of the Federal Government to achieve
better outcomes and better results in the age of climate change
by putting our thumb on the scale with respect to certain
outcomes and approaches to clean up where here specifically,
the legislature could, Congress could prioritize source removal
in coastal communities, the removal of all impacted
contaminated soil or sediments, so that when waters rise from
below or fall from above, the caps that are in place, which may
no longer be an effective remedy, are not an issue, because the
source of contamination has been eliminated.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. I have a minute left, so if
I may, let me ask the other witnesses to offer whatever
thoughts they may have in response to those questions as
responses for the record, put them in writing. It wouldn't be
right for a Rhode Island Senator not to say a kind word about
the Rhode Island role in establishing brownfields led by a
chairman, once, of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
John Chaffee, whose picture is right in that room as one of the
former chairmen of this committee. And then reauthorized by his
son, Lincoln Chaffee, years later when he assumed his father's
seat.
So we take a certain amount of pride in the Brownfields
Program around Rhode Island, because it has good Rhode Island
fingerprints all over it.
Another Rhode Island credential that relates to this is
that the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council at
the University of Rhode Island has worked to improve the
mapping of flood risk along the Rhode Island coast. We
discovered that the FEMA mapping was absolutely horrible, it
was terrible. If you followed the FEMA mapping, it led to
internal inconsistencies within its own program. It produced
results for worse storms that were lower than what was measured
for actual less bad storms.
How is it possible to even come up with a flood risk map
that shows for X level of storms it is actually going to be
better than we actually experienced for a lesser level of
storm? It doesn't even make sense. The sloppiness of the FEMA
process, the inconsistencies within the FEMA process, and the
flinch that they had about looking at sea level rise because,
oh, my God, you might have to touch on climate change, and oh,
my God, we can't talk about that. It just created a disaster.
The State really stepped up and has done absolutely first-
quality mapping. I encourage anybody who is in that predicament
now to take a look at what Rhode Island did. It is called the
Storm Tools App and Resource, is really pretty remarkable.
Unfortunately, it tends to be coastal, but I am sure that in
West Virginia some of those rain burst storm floods have a
similar outcome on folks.
I just wanted to say those thank yous to Rhode Island. Much
appreciated.
Senator Capito. I will thank Rhode Island as well, and I
can speak to the 2016 flood where the maps in Rainelle showed
that there would be no flooding, and they were flooded six to
eight feet in these houses. If you talked to people in the
community, they would say, oh, sure, sure they flooded, they
would get water in their yard every spring. So they knew. But
the maps showed no. These folks hadn't bought any flood
insurance. So it didn't have a very happy outcome for many of
them.
So here is a question I want to ask everybody. We have
talked about successful brownfields applications and projects
that you have worked on. Have you ever had a project where you
looked at it for a brownfield and you deemed that it would be
not worth the effort, or something that was premature? We will
start with you, Mr. Carico, then we will go back to the whole
group.
Mr. Carico. Yes, ma'am. The short answer is yes. Many times
we interact with the community. I will give you an example, in
the little community of Mullens, had a little project there.
All they needed, when all was said and done, was about $30,000
to do some asbestos abatement.
The EPA Brownfields Program is not the route to go to try
to get that funding. It is just way too much effort for that
one single project. We do often sit down with, especially in
our smaller, more rural communities, and after meeting with
them and going through all the details, we tell them, you are
not ready to try to get into this brownfields arena. Maybe then
we try to help them with one particular site.
They have a little site, it is their highest-ranking site
they want to do something about. We try to work with them on
that one site. That kind of gets their appetite wet and gets
them to learn the process a little bit, and then prepares them
to where they can move forward into the brownfields arena.
I will let these other fellows comment as well.
Senator Capito. Yes, Mr. Pouncey.
Mr. Pouncey. Senator, there are two categories of sites
that we have had to walk away from. One are sites that are on
the National Priority List because it just takes so long to get
those sites off the list.
Senator Capito. That is the Superfund?
Mr. Pouncey. It is. We had one where we spent close to 15
years to ultimately get it off the National Priority List and
went through four series of purchasers, because of the lack of
patience. They just couldn't wait that amount of time to get it
off. So that is why I think it is so important to develop
innovative ways to get these sites off the Superfund list.
The second is less subject to how you correct it, but it is
simply where we are approached by a developer for a particular
type of use and it turns out the site just wasn't appropriate
for that use. That may be, if you are looking at a single
family or multi-family residential development, and the cleanup
is such that it is really only going to support an industrial
use, or a warehouse/last mile use or something like that.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Mr. Buschur?
Mr. Buschur. We have two types of sites in Lawrence. We
have scatter sites, smaller properties, smaller industrial
properties in residential areas, then we have large properties
with great proximity to transit, to highways, riverfront
properties as well. The ones that are along the waterfront
close to transit, they are going to find a private partner to
complete that redevelopment and to really show that leverage
that the EPA Brownfields Program is so known for.
But when you get to the scatter sites in residential areas,
the smaller industrial sites less than an acre with triple
deckers or high density housing right adjacent to them, the end
use is not very visible, and the partners with the brownfields
expertise required to reposition these and get them back on the
tax rolls, they are not really out there. So you are really
relying quite frequently on somebody like a Groundwork to come
in and do a park, or a community-based organization, community
development corporation, that is going to take down the site
and hopefully create some housing.
But at the end of the day, it all requires a private
partner who is willing to take on the risk associated with this
redevelopment. If the market is moving fast, you are likely to
have more traction. When the real eState market is slow, things
tend to slow down.
Senator Capito. Right. Mr. Goldstein?
Mr. Goldstein. On our end, we from time-to-time experience
many of the factors that the previous witnesses mentioned.
Florida has been blessed with a very active economy. So that
hasn't been a significant driver in terms of having to walk
away from brownfield sites.
On our end, what we find most as being too significant a
hurdle to overcome is where the public health risk is acute,
where there has been actual injury to public health and claims
may be asserted or may be assertable in the future with respect
to public health that could be absorbed by a prospective
purchaser. That makes redevelopment very difficult.
Senator Capito. I think Mr. Pouncey addressed that in his
opening statement on liability issues.
So if you have a site that you have decided, or it has been
decided that you are not going to go forward on, is it
remediated or does it just sit there with the contaminants?
What happens to those sites. Do they sit there until somebody
comes along later and tries to redevelop?
Mr. Buschur. Until the leadership, until the political
leadership is there, I want my staff, who has limited staff
time, to go out and tackle this site. Within Lawrence, these
are sites that are off the tax rolls, the cities take them for
taxes.
Senator Capito. It could be an old gas station or something
like that.
Mr. Buschur. Yes, we have a dry-cleaning site that is now a
park. But we have former manufacturing facilities nestled
between a river, a school, and residential areas that just
aren't right for redevelopment, and the city is trying to
figure out what to do with them. As Mr. Pouncey noted, you
really need a private partner to make this happen. You can't
just make it parking.
Senator Capito. Thanks.
Mr. Goldstein. Senator, if I may?
Senator Carper.
[Presiding.] Go ahead, please.
Mr. Goldstein. Your question is a great one, because that
is where we originally came into the Brownfields Program in the
first instance in the 1990's. There were dozens and dozens of
obstacles to clean up and redevelopment that were too high to
surmount. Steadily, over the decades, EPA and State partners
have been lowering those obstacles. There are not many that
remain, but those that remain can be significant. We have just
addressed many of those.
That is why I return again to the suggestion that I made a
few times where obstacles remain too significant for the
marketplace to respond under existing conditions, the Federal
Government should come in and change the conversation by super-
inducing the private sector to absorb risk through the use of
loan guarantees or expand grants or expanded access to
liability protection.
Mr. Pouncey. Senator, if I may, one comment on that. I
think it is a number that is very reflective of this issue. We
have had a superfund program in Georgia since 1992. Over the
life of that program, which now is 30 years, we have had about
700 properties put on our State superfund list. Of those I
think we are approaching 250 or so that have been cleaned up,
of the 700, over a 30-year period.
You compare that to the Brownfield Program, which is a
private incentivized program, where we have had 1,300
properties go into the program in just a little over half the
time and 750 or so of those properties are now cleaned up. So
you compare that enforcement component versus the private
incentive component, and you see the dramatic effect is has on
the opportunity for cleanup.
Senator Capito. That is a good point.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to say goodbye, I have
another obligation. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Thanks so much. Thanks for running the
show.
Senator Sullivan was here, but he had to leave. I don't'
know if any of our other Republican colleagues will be able to
join us this morning. But we have been joined by Senator
Padilla. He is recognized for any questions or comments. Thank
you, Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you
for holding this hearing on the need to reauthorize the EPA's
Brownfields Program. The Brownfields Program has a long history
of supporting safe and responsible redevelopment. Since its
inception, it has made nearly 10,000 properties ready for re-
use, many of which are in my home State of California, many of
which are in my hometown of Los Angeles, and many of which are
literally in my backyard, in the neighborhood I grew up in,
Pacoima, California. I have seen and worked in these issues as
a State legislator, putting State government resources to
leverage Federal resources in redevelopment. I am familiar with
these efforts, once upon a time as a city council member,
trying to navigate some of these cleanup efforts and effort to
redevelop into productive use and economic benefit, often in
underserved communities.
Mr. Buschur, I appreciated your written testimony for
touching on the challenges of de-industrialization. The example
I want to focus on today is actually not in my back yard but in
the city and county of San Francisco. The shipping industry was
the lifeblood of San Francisco's Bayview-Hunter's Point
neighborhood for decades. The concentration of industrial sites
has resulted in more than 150 brownfields in Bayview-Hunter's
Point, many of which are not further threatened by sea level
rise. So you see a convergence of challenges here.
The actual shipyard itself is now a Federal Superfund site
and one of America's most polluted places. Just last week, San
Francisco broke ground on a project that will connect
disadvantaged communities and Bayview-Hunter's Point to the
kind of outdoor recreation opportunities that other shoreline
neighborhoods in San Francisco have long enjoyed. Working with
the EPA and a diverse group of community partners, San
Francisco is redeveloping a 13-mile corridor of green space
with trails and parks along the waterfront.
Redevelopment of this site would not have been possible
without first cleaning up the contaminated soil and debris and
structures on the property, efforts which were supported by
EPA's Brownfields Program. Now in a few short years, thanks to
this program, the community members in Bayview-Hunter's Point
will be able to enjoy shoreline trails on what was once an
abandoned and blighted former industrial site.
This project was successful thanks to the engagement and
support from various State and local entities. While the
project received almost $350,000 from the EPA Brownfields
Program, the city also leveraged separate EPA funds as well as
other sources of funding.
But not every environmental justice community has the same
access to technical assistance to be able to complete projects.
There are surely other Federal agencies that can and should be
brought into the brownfields redevelopment projects.
My question is for Mr. Goldstein. How should we think about
a whole-of-government approach to funding brownfield
redevelopment projects and improving interagency coordination?
Mr. Goldstein. That is a great question, Senator. I am glad
you asked it. You are absolutely right, there are other
agencies that should be part of this conversation and should be
providing resources. I identified three that are under this
committee's jurisdiction in my testimony earlier this morning:
the Federal Highway Administration, the Army Corps of
Engineers, which has massive resources to bring to the table
and can absolutely partner and collaborate with environmental
justice communities in an immediate and very material way, and
the Economic Development Administration.
The EPA has put out a wonderful guidance document which
they have been doing every several years called the Federal
Brownfields Program, which identifies aspirational brownfield
agendas within 24 different Federal agencies and departments.
But if you look at what is actually happening in the
brownfields universe, really EPA is the only agency that has
any meaningful involvement.
So what I would suggest is a corollary to a friendly
amendment to the testimony I gave earlier. Have EDA convene a
national brownfields summit. Bring representatives from each of
those 24 agencies and departments to the table, along with
private and public sector stakeholders, State, local, tribal,
NGO's, environmental justice, et cetera, and collectively
identify what resources, human resources and financial
resources, each of these agencies that are already part of the
Federal brownfields constellation can bring to the table.
Specific to reauthorization, which is what this hearing is
about, again, we recommend new funding of resources be
allocated specifically to the Corps, specifically to EDA, and
specifically to FHWA for these purposes. Let's put our thumb on
the scale to prioritize funding for EJ communities and rural
communities.
Senator Padilla. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but I would like to ask
one quick followup question for Mr. Goldstein. Another reason
this project was so successful is because San Francisco
accounted for potential climate change and sea level rise
impacts by using EPA's Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives
checklist. For example, they chose soil excavation as the
preferred cleanup method, as opposed to remediation, because it
would reduce the risk of re-mobilizing soil contaminants as sea
levels continued to rise.
How can the EPA ensure that climate change and potential
sea level rise are adequately considered during brownfield
redevelopment efforts? If I could ask for a brief response and
we will continue the conversation after the hearing.
Mr. Goldstein. Absolutely, Senator Padilla, thank you. I am
glad you asked that question because it gives me an opportunity
to supplement my response to Senator Whitehouse on this very
same issue.
EPA is laser-focused on climate change and brownfields.
They have released several guidance documents that are
encyclopedic in the way in which they approach this particular
challenge including focusing, as you pointed out, source
removal in coastal areas as a remedy. Why is that important? It
is important because if you leave contaminated soil in place
and it is subject to flooding, the waters rise and soak through
that contaminated material. Like a sponge that may contain hot
chocolate that is wiped up from a kitchen counter, that
material is going to leak out of the soil or the sponge and
further exacerbate contamination in communities.
So remedies at the regulatory level should be focused on
source removal as the first component of a climate change
strategy for brownfields.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
submit questions for the record relative to the recommendations
and suggestion of codifying some of our environmental justice
and equity directives into the Brownfields Program. Thank you
very much.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much for joining us and for your
participation and questions.
I have a couple more questions I want to ask before we
break for the day. I was out of the room for a while, we all
serve on a bunch of different committees. One my committees,
the Homeland Security was voting on a bunch of nominations and
legislation. I had to go, they needed somebody to show up and I
am always happy to do that. So I missed a little bit of what
was going on, but not too much.
I am told, Mr. Pouncey, that you mentioned addressing
developer liability as a way to better incentivize
redevelopment.
Mr. Pouncey. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. And I think Mr. Goldstein, I am told by my
staff, you may have started to touch on this, some approaches
in this regard in your earlier comments.
Let me ask each of you to describe for us ways that this
might be accomplished while still incentivizing health
protection. Again, Mr. Pouncey, you mentioned addressing
developer liability as a way to better incentivize
redevelopment. The question would be to ask each of you to
describe ways that this might be accomplishing while still
incentivizing health protection.
Mr. Buschur, would you like to go first?
Mr. Buschur. Liability associated with ownership of
brownfield sites is a barrier for all actors, whether they are
trying to create parks or trying to redevelop sites. Within
Lawrence, the State administers the brownfield program except
for contaminants covered by TSCA. Covenants not to sue have
been used through the State AG's office to absolve future
owners of brownfields, particularly in certain park projects. I
think it has been a barrier for us to act on certain park
projects as well, to take ownership of properties when they are
presented with us and they fit within our long-term vision for
the city.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Mr. Pouncey, you may have raised this. Go ahead with any
further comments you have, please share them.
Mr. Pouncey. Yes, Senator. I do think that as part of the
reauthorization there may be want to be some consideration to
looking at a number of the States that have enacted liability
protection and see if that can be applied to the Federal side
as well for those brownfield buyers. I would note that there is
still the requirement that you perform the cleanup that is
agreed upon. That is the way to ensure the health and safety of
those who might be impacted by liability relief.
But I would also remind us the Superfund took a very
remarkable approach when it was first drafted, and it has done
tremendous things for this Country. But it did impose the
liability upon an owner of property, whether they had caused
contamination, whether they had owned it when it occurred or
not.
So I do think that is a disincentive in many instances for
buyers as they have an opportunity to acquire this property
versus a greenfield very often that is used to invest the
resources somewhere else, which prevents that property from
actually being cleaned up. So I do think liability protection
is a tool that should be considered as part of the
reauthorization.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Mr. Carico, same question. Could you describe for us ways
that this might be accomplished while still incentivizing
health protection?
Mr. Carico. I want to completely agree with these gentlemen
here. One thing in West Virginia I would add, we have our State
voluntary remediation program. That program does provide that
liability protection. That is oftentimes the only way you can
really get a site to be cleaned up, ready to go, and everybody
on the private side agrees with you. They see it, they realize
that all the effort has been made, and that to me is one of the
best routes to always keep in mind.
I will agree with these gentlemen that the liability
aspects many, many times, the site ends up just sitting there
because of that big challenge, trying to handle that. It is a
big hurdle that is for sure.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Goldstein, I think when I was out of the room attending
my other hearing, you may have started to touch on some
approaches in this regard. Mr. Goldstein, if you would like to
jump in here and share with us what I may have missed, anything
else you want to add on this front, go ahead.
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try and be
brief.
We had some discussion earlier in the testimony about the
tension between the Superfund program at the Federal level and
many State brownfield programs across the Country in that the
liability protections offered under both programs were mutually
exclusive. It was impossible in many States to take advantage
of either liability protection incentive if you are not in that
same program.
So the specific incentive I would offer that I think would
be very meaningful would be a very narrow and discrete
amendment to the Superfund statute to CERCLA that provides that
any party that enters into a State-based brownfield voluntary
cleanup agreement automatically has contribution defense and
other defenses against third party claims under Federal
Superfund law. That way you get the best of both worlds and you
wouldn't necessarily have to worry about EPA relinquishing its
enforcement discretion.
That is a very discrete and I think meaningful approach
that could immediately be taken by Congress to expand the scope
of liability protection available to developers who may be able
to address their State-based legal exposure but not their
Federal legal exposure to third parties. This butters two
pieces of bread with one knife.
Senator Carper. Did you say butters two pieces of bread
with one knife?
Mr. Goldstein. Yes. That is exactly right.
Senator Carper. That is one of the highlights of this
hearing. This has been a great hearing. That is one of my
favorite aspects. Go right ahead.
Mr. Goldstein. Then I would also reinforce the point that
Mr. Pouncey made, and that is to ensure continued protection of
human health and keep developers on task with respect to the
cleanup. This is a quid pro quo environment we are operating
in. All of the incentives, especially the liability protection
incentives, remain viable insofar as a developer complies with
their cleanup and public health obligations. If they fail to do
so, the incentives are lost, including the liability protection
incentive.
Senator Carper. I have three or four other questions, and I
am going to ask you to respond to them just very briefly, if
you could. Then we will call it a morning.
The first one deals with local engagement. Brownfield
cleanups involve government at all levels, Federal and State
and local. Feds provide the cleanup money, the seed money,
through grant funding and State governments dictate the cleanup
standards for the most part. Local governments made land use
decisions and have ultimately control over what brownfield
redevelopment is ultimately going to look like.
This is critical, because remediated land has the potential
to provide, as you know, huge benefits to impacted communities.
We have seen it in our own communities, very close to where I
live, and I am sure you have seen it in your own.
A question for the panel, but especially for Mr. Buschur
and Mr. Carico, and if other colleagues would like to comment,
you are welcome to do that too. We will start off with Mr.
Buschur and Mr. Carico.
Why is local involvement so important for brownfield
redevelopment, and how can we improve our outreach to local
governments and individual communities impacted by brownfield
redevelopment? Mr. Buschur?
Mr. Buschur. Residents just want to be heard, and they want
to know what is going on. They want to be kept in the loop. It
is so important to keep them in the loop. I think we have all
been to a public meeting that has kind of gone off the rails
when residents have not been properly communicated with.
I will just give a quick plug to Avenues for Engagement,
and that is the Groundwork Trust Network. We reach over 6
million people living in environmental justice communities
across the Country, over 75 percent of whom are people of
color. We support the cities' efforts to prepare and draft the
cleanup and the assessment proposals by providing the
statistics that others have referenced is so hard to access.
Expansion of the Groundwork Network, which was created with
support from the National Park Service and EPA, as well as
local stakeholders, will go a long way to achieving the
engagement goals within urban areas, but I would also say rural
areas as well. Let's not overlook the smaller and mid-size
cities. We are in Mobile, Alabama, we are in Atlanta, we are in
Erie, Pennsylvania. The network is strong and can bring a lot
of expertise to local decisionmakers.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you. Mr. Carico?
Mr. Carico. Yes, first, great comments there. The big thing
we have found on the local community with that local engagement
piece is they want to be told the real story. The rumor mill
goes around and around and around, and a lot of times they are
misinformed about a particular property as to what it can and
can't be used for, and then what is going on with it.
Providing that local engagement piece, that gives them the
opportunity where they can be heard and they can provide their
input on what is going on on that property, how the future of
development of it is going to affect them. Then when you do run
into issues at the local level, that platform can then be
addressed.
This Brownfield Program, the way it is set up with that
local engagement and community engagement piece, it provides
that framework where that can be conducted. It is a great way
to get the story out, get everybody involved, and come together
with some consensus on how everything is progressing forward.
That would be my comment.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Carico.
Mr. Pouncey, if you want to add to that, feel free, and Mr.
Goldstein, if you want to add to those comments, feel free, but
you don't have to.
Mr. Pouncey. I think the comments by both those individuals
on my right and left are spot on. A fundamental part of all our
redevelopment is engagement with those local communities. That
is a fundamental part of the zoning process. I do not see very
many developers that are successful if they don't understand
that fundamentally.
Senator Carper. Yes, people like to be asked. Mr.
Goldstein, before I ask my other questions, do you want to add
anything on this one?
Mr. Goldstein. No, sir.
Senator Carper. All right. One down, 14 to go.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Maybe not that many.
All right. We know this deals with brownfields remediation
planning, and this would be for the entire panel, but we know
that thoughtful planning is a vitally important part of land
remediation and the program has been reformed to include more
support for the planning portions of brownfields redevelopment.
For the whole panel, what can we do in Congress to further
strengthen Federal support for brownfields planning so that
communities not only engage in site-by-site planning, but can
dedicate time and resources to develop regional area-wide plans
to land revitalization, so that authorities can develop more
comprehensive land use goals and plans for their communities?
That is a pretty long question. I would be happy to repeat that
if anybody wants me to.
Mr. Buschur, would you like to take a shot at that?
Mr. Buschur. Sure. I have been fortunate to participate in
an EPA area-wide planning project that looked at, it was
probably around 10 acres, north and south of the city's main
commercial corridors. That set the stage for the city to create
a new urban renewal plan and hopefully in 2023 we will begin
construction on the rail trail that bisects that planning area.
These funds were really vital to starting to have the
conversation not only with property owners about thinking what
they could do for the entire district with their individual
small parcels, but also starting the underlying zoning and
making sure that the right overlay district is there,
reflecting the community's interest and the overall goals of
the city.
Then just building support for the conversion of the
corridor to an alternative transportation corridor. It was a
really good project. Hopefully, the reauthorization will
continue supporting it.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you. Again, just a brief
comment if you have it, Mr. Pouncey. Long question. I am
looking for a short answer.
Mr. Pouncey. I am always careful to have EPA get involved
in land use planning. I think that is obviously much more
effective at the local and regional level where they are on the
ground. But I do think that there are areas where grants can be
incentivized in certain forms, transit being one, a great
example of that. There are a number of other categories like
that where there is an ability to incentivize investment
through grants, receiving extra points or receiving some level
of priority if they meet with those categories. Transit, once
again, being the obvious example.
Senator Carper. Thanks for that example. Mr. Carico?
Mr. Carico. I will just add a quick comment to that. With
the brownfield funding, you can use some of that funding for
conducting planning activities. I have seen that work both, we
have had communities that already had some things in place but
there was some additional work done, maybe it was a feasibility
study or market analysis or a structural analysis or whatever,
and it turned out that their original plans were really not the
best plans.
So those things got changed a little bit. So I see very
positive results that have come from that. But again, that has
to be done at that local level. Having our brownfield funding
to help with that is a big key. That is part of the whole
cleanup plan, is that key right there as well.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Two more questions, if I could. It has been well documented
that low-income communities and racial minorities are
disproportionately exposed to environmental harm. We are seeing
that in my own State, frankly, not far from where my wife and I
live. There are concerns that development of brownfields can do
unintended harm by displacing the people who live there. For
example, with remediation, there can be an influx of zoning,
planning, and privately funded new development that can in turn
cause rents to rise above what community members can afford.
Again for the entire panel, this question. How can we
incentivize private entities that invest in brownfield
development to be sure that remediated sites benefit the
communities where they are located and create sustainable,
long-term infrastructure improvement for community residents?
If I could, I am going to ask Mr. Goldstein to lead off on that
one, please.
Mr. Goldstein. Sure, I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
This is the unfortunate secret in our world, in the brownfields
redevelopment world, the unintended consequences of
environmental redevelopment and revitalization, gentrification.
The opposite of gentrification is anchoring in place.
So how do we help communities that have long been in the
neighborhood remain in that neighborhood? We do that by
qualifying the private sector incentives with responsibilities
and obligations to partner with local residents and local
organizations. We require them to take on local partners. We
require them to provide mentoring programs, job creation
programs, job training programs. We require them to establish
micro-lending programs, to invest in cultural amenities and
gathering places and the like.
All of this could be included in what one might call
generically an anti-gentrification plan which could be a
condition to the award of any Federal brownfield grant.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Mr. Carico, same question.
Mr. Carico. I really don't have any additional comments to
make on that.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Mr. Pouncey?
Mr. Pouncey. It is an issue. We see it, we have seen it
dealt with at the local level. I can point to a number of
developments that I have been involved in in Charleston, South
Carolina, where there has been a tremendous amount of public
involvement and comment to ensure that the local communities
are not just informed but also involved and participate.
I don't know the Federal role in that. Where I have seen it
most effectively considered has been at the local level.
Senator Carper. Good, thank you.
Mr. Buschur?
Mr. Buschur. Green gentrification is a concern for
Groundwork and the work we do within the city. Displacement is
an issue within Lawrence. There is a significant housing
crisis, there is a significant affordability crisis.
I was intrigued by some of the concepts Mr. Goldstein put
forward earlier that called for enhanced low-income housing tax
credits associated with brownfield development to actually make
it more appealing to private sector developers to come in,
instead of doing full 100 percent market rate housing, that
perhaps there are other incentives that can be provided from
the Federal Government to make sure that a certain share of
those units created fall to those who are most unable to afford
housing within that city.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you, sir.
One last question. This would also be a question for the
entire panel. The question goes something like this. Earlier,
we discussed detailed policy issues. I want to ask each of you
to share with us briefly your experiences on what the
brownfields program has meant to communities you have worked
with. Can you give us some idea of an experience or two,
briefly, that you have gone through and how the program has
transformed not just land but the lives of people living in
affected communities? Something from your own experience.
Mr. Carico, would you like to share with us a memory or
two?
Mr. Carico. I could actually talk for quite a while on that
subject. I shared a couple examples in my comments earlier. One
that is very interesting and close to me is a little project in
Ceredo, West Virginia.
Senator Carper. Tell people where Ceredo is.
Mr. Carico. It is in Wayne County, near the tip with
Kentucky and Ohio. You can see both from there.
There is a group called the Golden Girls Group Home.
Senator Carper. I yearn to live there someday.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. In the distant, distant future. Don't tell
my wife.
Mr. Carico. It is a great name, but it is a home that was
built for young ladies that have come from horrific home
conditions. It is a place for them to get a second chance, a
new start.
They get safe housing, they get counseling. They get help
with educational assistance and work to find jobs. It is a
wonderful program.
They first approached me back some years ago about a
particular piece of property and said, we hope to build our
facility there. I did some research on it. I am an
environmental geologist by trade, so I have a background in
that. I did a little look and said, there are some issues with
this project. Rather than getting into the brownfields side of
it, I said, do you all have any other properties. They said,
yes, we have a second location that just came up, and we think
it could even be the better location.
So really quick, I did a little look into that. I said, it
is a vacant property that nobody seems to know anything about.
I said, let's find out for sure.
We had Wayne County EDA, they had a brownfields grant, and
I was working with them. I said, let's do a phase 1
environmental site assessment on the property just to see what
the history of this site is, to make sure there are no
recognized environmental conditions.
They did a phase 1. At that time, I suspect that cost was
no more than about $4,000. There were no recognized
environmental issues on that property. That jump-started it and
cleared the way for, I have no idea how many private investors
that came in, the local hospitals, the local businesses, they
all said, OK, we see you have done your homework and we want to
be involved with this.
Now, the facility has been built, all these young ladies go
there, they have a place to stay. Those stories like that
really make your day, quite frankly. And it all got started
because we did a little background work just to make sure they
weren't getting ready, as we say in West Virginia, to buy a pig
in a poke, getting ready to take on something that had
environmental challenges that they would not be able to handle.
Senator Carper. That is a great story.
Mr. Carico. I could tell you more, but I will stop there.
Senator Carper. That is great.
Mr. Pouncey?
Mr. Pouncey. Senator, there is one particular project that
comes to mind. Back in the 1960's, when the interstates were
being built, when what we call our downtown connector in
Atlanta was built, it split the east side and the west side.
Senator Carper. It sounds familiar. There are a lot of
places like that around the Country.
Mr. Pouncey. All of the growth occurred on the east side.
The only thing on the west side was a little school called
Georgia Tech, and an area, an old 100-acre steel mill called
the Atlantic Steel Mill. It was operating on a skeletal crew,
so it avoided some of the EPA closure requirements. It was
still considered to be ``operating.''
Well, in the late 1990's, we put together a group that
ultimately redeveloped that steel mill that had lain in its
underutilized capacity for close to 20 years. What it did is it
sparked so many things on the west side of Atlanta, ultimately
resulting a bridge that now connects the east side and the west
side of Atlanta up in that area that we call 17th Street. It
created grocery stores in areas that had no grocery stores. It
created affordable restaurants in areas where there was no
place to eat. It resulted in additional schools being built. It
resulted in significant infrastructure improvement.
All of that was started, the seed was planted was the
Atlantic Station redevelopment. Fortunately, we did receive
EPA's Brownfield Redevelopment of the year back in 2000.
Senator Carper. That is great. Wonderful story, thank you.
Mr. Buschur. Similar to the rest of the individuals up
here, I have several stories. One that comes to mind is the
Manchester Street Park site, which is a former rail yard right
on Stevens Pond in the Arlington and Malden Mills District of
Lawrence. When we did the park, when the city and Groundwork
did the park, all the mills were quite dilapidated. Now there
are hundreds of units of housing around the pond and near the
park. The rail trail is going to be built that abuts it, and
that connects to 30 miles of additional trails. It is the
beginning of the end of the Spicket River Greenway.
This park serves as that hub for the hundreds of families
that now call that mill section home.
Senator Carper. OK, thank you.
How about one more story, Mr. Goldstein, from you, please?
Mr. Goldstein. There is a story that is being written right
now, a project that is underway involving a 100-year-old site,
which is pretty old for Miami. Miami is not that much older
than 100 years. It is in the neighborhood called Overtown. It
is in the southwest quadrant of Overtown, historic African
American community that had been split in two by I-95 many
years ago. This particular site is bordered by Booker T.
Washington High School, which is the second oldest African
American high school in south Florida, and adjacent to the
Metrorail station that connects to the county's largest job
engine.
This particular site had sat idle for over 30 years as a
result of a pretty horrific spill of chlorinated solvents from
a janitorial supply company. Using the Federal Brownfields
Program and the State brownfields program, one of our clients
came in, acquired the site, cleaned it up, brought up a best-
in-class affordable housing developer who was able to close
because of the affordable housing incentives offered by the
Federal Government.
The fact that the site is in an Opportunity Zone, the fact
that there is State brownfields liability protection, and they
are now going to invest $250 million in this site to build 612
units of affordable housing and put in a fresh food grocer in
what is currently a food desert. So you now have the
connectivity between transit, schools, housing, and the
county's largest job engine, which is the health district.
This is more than just environmental science, this is
poetry.
Senator Carper. Thank you for that poetry.
I wanted to ask Bill Clinton a question, he had come and
spoken at our annual Democratic Senate retreat over at the
Library of Congress. He spoke before lunch, and he killed it.
He is just so good; he was delivering the stories that he told.
I said to him, as we were going through chow line, I said,
``Mr. President, I have heard you speak many times, but I have
never asked you why you are so effective as a speaker.''
He said, ``Tom, what I do is I tend to tell stories,'' he
said, ``I tell a series of stories that put together can
explain more complex concepts. People understand stories. You
draw them in, they get it.'' He said, ``I like to use some
self-deprecating humor.'' He said, ``When I do that, I am
usually fairly effective.''
I find that when I do those things, I am fairly effective
as well. I think maybe the most effective part of a terrific
hearing has been just what you closed with. Those are wonderful
stories that we can all get our heads and our hearts around. We
want to thank you for those, and for being here with us.
Mr. Goldstein, to you and your neighbors down there in
Florida, we send prayers for all of you, hoping that you come
through this OK. There will be a lot of interest in providing
Federal assistance and from others around the Country who are
not government, but want to do it just because they want to be
a good neighbor.
Before we adjourn, a little bit of housekeeping. We have
heard from Senators some of them want to ask more questions for
the record, some of them couldn't join us and want to ask some
questions for the record. We will ask our colleagues to submit
the written questions for the record through the close of
business on Wednesday, October 12th, and we will compile those
questions, we will send them out to each of you and ask you to
reply by Wednesday, October 26th of this year.
I want to again thank our staffs, on the majority side and
the minority side, for helping us put together a really good
hearing on this important issue. It has been an important issue
for a long time. Every member of this panel, Democrat,
Republican, could tell a story, a bunch of stories that really
would mirror what we have heard from each of you in your close.
We want to thank our staffs for making possible this great
hearing, for those who were able to participate on our panel,
and our members of the committee, thank them for joining us,
especially Senator Capito.
All right. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you all so
much. God bless.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]