U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–967PDF 2014

S. HRG. 112–983 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE BROWNFIELD’S 

PROGRAM—CLEANING UP AND REBUILDING 

COMMUNITIES 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 19, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBAND, New York 

BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex officio) 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

OCTOBER 16, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 6 

WITNESSES 

Lloyd, David R., Office Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 24 

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 26 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 29 

Cornett, Hon. Mick Mayor, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ....................................... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Spinelli, Elizabeth, Executive Director, Hudson County Economic Development Corporation ................................................................................................. 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Scheff, Aaron, Brownfields Program Manager, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ..................................................................................................... 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 77 

Paull, E. Evans, Executive Director, National Brownfields Coalition ................ 81 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Buckholtz, Marjorie Weidenfeld, President, Environmental Consulting Solutions ....................................................................................................................... 90

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE BROWNFIELD’S 

PROGRAM - CLEANING UP AND REBUILDING COMMUNITIES 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS AND

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, 

Washington, DC. 

The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank Lautenberg [chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental 

Health] presiding. 

Present: Senators Lautenberg, Inhofe, Carper, Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The first thing I want to establish is that 

I am not Senator Boxer. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. She is the Chairman, normally. But she 

could not be here, but she is here in spirit and very much supporting our interests and our effort on the Brownfields opportunity. 

So I thank you witnesses for being here. And Senator Inhofe is 

here, I know, as well. 

I welcome everyone to today’s oversight hearing. We are going to 

focus, obviously, on the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Brownfields program. Brownfields are blighted properties that have 

been a drag on local economies because of contamination or the 

mere perception of contamination. Often, these are abandoned industrial sites where parents don’t want their kids to play, and few 

businesses will take the chance to locate in one of these sites. 

Now, the EPA started its Brownfields program more than a decade ago to transform these community eyesores into community assets. Since then, EPA has cleared up more than 600 Brownfields 

in communities across our Country, putting more than 20,000 acres 

back to productive use. Much of that is urban, but also in rural 

areas as well. And when you think about that kind of opportunity 

to have property available for community use, it is a wonderful 

gain. 

These cleanups have created more than 72,000 jobs, attracted 

more than $17 billion in private investment. Once Brownfields are 

rehabilitated, they often spark neighborhood revitalization, boost 

2 

property values and make communities more attractive places to 

live, work and do business. 

In my home State of New Jersey, Elizabeth, a city in our State, 

used a Federal brownfields grant to help transform abandoned industrial land into new affordable housing. In Trenton, New Jersey, 

our State capital, they are using brownfields funding to clean up 

a site where lead acid batteries were once made and stored. When 

they are done with it, the property is safe and usable. Hudson 

County, one of our more crowded counties, is using Brownfields 

funding to attract new investments. As you will hear when we are 

joined by Betty Spinelli, Hudson County’s Economic Development 

Chief, she will tell us about these new investments. 

Successful projects like these demonstrate why we should reauthorize the Brownfields program and invest more in it. Congress 

first authorized the Brownfields program in 2002. While the authorization ended 4 years later, Congress has continued to fund it 

because we recognize that it is good for ongoing business success. 

It is time to reauthorize the program, because we still have a lot 

of work to do, and a lot of opportunity to gain. 

There are 450,000 brownfields sites across this Country. The 

communities where these sites are located need help to reclaim 

them. We also should take this opportunity to strengthen the 

brownfields laws. For example, some have suggested that the law 

should explicitly allow EPA to award both assessment and cleanup 

grants at the same time, which conceivably could streamline the 

process and make sure that the resources reach communities faster. 

In addition, non-profit organizations want to compete for a wider 

variety of Brownfields grants. I believe that we have to do more to 

encourage renewable energy on Brownfields. It just makes sense to 

put new solar or wind facilities on properties, unused properties, 

blighted, that they might have been, rather than open space or sensitive lands. So I believe both parties can find the common ground 

that we need to reauthorize and improve the Brownfields program. 

The program is a proven success and a magnet for community investment. And we should not hesitate to renew it. 

I look forward to moving this issue forward in this Congress, beginning with today’s hearing. And I am pleased to be here with a 

good friend, different perspective. My area is much more open and 

expansive than Senator Inhofe’s. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I come from the most crowded State in the 

Country. And it is hard to make a turn if you are not looking 

where you are going. 

But here we are, Senator Inhofe. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:] 

3 


24967.072
4 


24967.073
5 


24967.074
6 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This will be a shock to a lot of you out there, and I hate to do 

it at this time in the morning, but Frank Lautenberg and I don’t 

always agree. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. In this area, I think we do agree. Except for one 

thing you said just a minute ago on what they should be doing with 

property that come back. I think that should be left to the cities 

and the States to make determinations as to what is best for them. 

But I think this is one of the programs, and I have been very 

critical of the EPA, one that I think has worked real well. The 

Brownfields program is an example of a program that EPA administers which does increase economic opportunities. But there are 

many more opportunities for improvement, and I am pleased with 

the liability reforms that we passed in 2002. That was the Small 

Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. 

However, more needs to be done on the liability front. Under currently law, if a city or municipality has acquired a Brownfields 

property prior to 2002, they are ineligible to apply for a 

Brownfields grant, unless they have performed ‘‘all appropriate inquiry.’‘ And this means that properties that a city has acquired 

through no action of their own prior to 2002 are ineligible to apply 

to the Brownfields program unless they are able to prove that they 

have provided ‘‘all appropriate inquiry’‘ into the previous owner’s 

use of the property. 

This can’t be done in many cases. The end result is that a number of these properties sit stagnant and vacant because cities are 

unable to demonstrate that they have performed all appropriate inquiries, and thus they are unable to apply to the Brownfields program. 

We should allow these cities and local governments to be eligible 

to apply for the program and not require them to prove that they 

performed all appropriate inquiry, provided that they did not cause 

or contribute to the contamination. In other words, if this happens 

through no cause of their own, they should be able to do this. 

By providing this liability relief, we would bring a number of 

these vacant and stagnant properties into meaningful use. This in 

turn would create much-needed local jobs and provide new stream 

of potential revenue for local governments who already are short on 

revenues. Given our current economic situation, this is not the time 

to push for an authorization increase for the Brownfields program. 

We need to do more with less. One example would be to decrease 

the amount of funding that goes toward administrative costs, and 

redirect those funds to be spent on the ground. 

Although the EPA has made a conscious effort toward balancing 

rural and urban needs with the program, smaller communities, 

that is what we have in Oklahoma, smaller communities, and very 

rural areas are still in need of better access to this program. This 

is an area I would like to work to improve. 

Finally, I would like to extend a warm welcome to, on the second 

panel, one of our witnesses is the Mayor of Oklahoma City, Mick 

Cornett. He has done such an incredible job and he has a great 

7 

story to tell us on how the Brownfields program can and does good 

work. Oklahoma City has been particularly successful in using that 

program to improve their community and increase economic opportunities for the citizens. 

I am not the only one impressed with the Mayor’s work. He was 

recently awarded the USEPA’s Phoenix award for Oklahoma City’s 

work with the Dell Center project, a former landfill that has since 

revitalized and now employs a number of Oklahomans. 

Also, welcome Aaron Scheff, Brownfields Program Manager for 

Idaho. 

I think about what is happening in Oklahoma City. I was Mayor 

of Tulsa. At that time, I think most people would look at it and say, 

oh, Tulsa actually did a better job than Oklahoma City. These are 

the two largest cities in Oklahoma. But starting back, I guess it 

was Kirk Humphreys then Ron Norick then of course Mick Cornett, 

have come through and put this program together. When you go 

through the Oklahoma City area right now, Mr. Chairman, you are 

looking down at Bricktown, the use of the waterway in there, and 

a lot of this is tied to this program. 

So I congratulate Oklahoma City on the great work they have 

done. I hope that we will pay particular attention to Mick Cornett 

when he makes his presentation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

8 


24967.070
9 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lloyd, we look forward to hearing from you. Mr. Lloyd is the 

Director of the Brownfields Program for the Environmental Protection Agency. In this role, Mr. Lloyd oversees EPA’s efforts to review 

applications, issue Brownfields grants to communities, States and 

non-profit organizations. 

So Mr. Lloyd, we welcome you and you may begin your testimony 

now, please. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. LLOYD, OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF BROWNFIELDS AND LAND REVITALIZATION, OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. LLOYD. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. 

My name is David Lloyd, as was said. I am the Director of EPA’s 

Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization in the Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response. I am very pleased to appear today 

to talk about EPA’s Brownfields Program. I would like to thank 

members of this Committee and the Subcommittee for their longterm bipartisan support of the EPA Brownfields Program. 

As you know, and as has been said, Brownfields are all around 

us, really, in the smallest towns and in the largest cities. Empty 

warehouses, abandoned deteriorating factories, vacant corner gas 

stations and junk-filled lots, they are often in town and city center 

locations, both in small and large cities. And they are very visible. 

But they are, and have the efficiency and benefit of often being 

located near existing infrastructure, such as road access power and 

other utilities. EPA’s Brownfields program is able to provide resources for the assessment, cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund grants, 

technical assistance and job training that can help move these 

properties to productive use. 

Since the program’s inception in 1995, as the Senator noted, we 

have continued to provide tools and have been able to help in the 

assessment, fund the assessment of 17,500 properties, made over 

24,000 acres ready for re-use, leveraged more than 72,000 jobs for 

cleanup and redevelopment, and leveraged more than $17.5 billion 

in economic development. Working with communities, States, tribes 

and other Federal agencies, we think the program has really become a coordinated national effort that is community-based, looking at the needs of the communities and not the desires of the Federal program. 

In addition to the grant programs, we conducted targeted 

Brownfield assessments and we fund those through contracts with 

both small and large businesses and inter-agency agreements. 

These single property assessments really help communities, particularly smaller and rural communities, to look at their sites and 

figure out what the next path forward. A good example is the Meridian Creamery in Idaho, where EPA founded a targeted assessment, and we are following that assessment. The property was redeveloped as a 100,000 square foot facility, used as the City’s new 

municipal complex, that employees over 100 people. 

Last year, EPA also began a pilot program that provides research 

and technical assistance support for Brownfields Area-Wide PlanVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Oct 26, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\24967.TXT VERN
10 

ning. Brownfields Area-Wide Planning looks at individual 

Brownfield sites or collections of sites and helps a community decide what is needed to get those properties cleaned and back into 

re-use. They might be a neighborhood, a commercial corridor, a 

downtown district or a greenway. But they help them develop 

cleanup and re-use strategies. 

We had 23 recipients, including several small rural communities, 

that received this funding. Some examples would include a project, 

a large project we have ongoing in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which will 

focus on 69 Brownfields sites, but really will benefit a whole 

range—— 

Senator INHOFE. Let me, without losing his time, ask him to repeat what he just said, because I was distracted by a staffer. 

Mr. LLOYD. I was, Senator, describing a program that we put in 

place last year, using our existing authority, called Brownfields 

Area-Wide Planning. What we are doing is funding, we are in a 

pilot phase now, but we will be moving forward with a new round. 

We selected 23 communities of many sizes, rural and urban, to 

help them plan around either a group of Brownfields sites or one 

large Brownfields site and look not just at cleaning up that one 

site, but looking at the connectivity to what infrastructure is needed, business planning, economic planning, to help revitalize that 

whole area. 

So for example, we have a project ongoing in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 

that is looking at 69 Brownfields sites in the northern part of that 

city. And really, they are touching a wide range of communities. 

Ranson, West Virginia, Kalispell, Montana, National City, California, Newark, New Jersey, and also tribal lands. We have a 

project on the Colville Reservation in Washington State, just to 

name a few. 

As other witnesses will point out that are on the second panel, 

States and tribes are critically important partners, and are at the 

forefront of Brownfields cleanup and redevelopment. The majority 

of Brownfields cleanups are supervised and overseen by State response programs. Since 2006, nearly 44,000 properties have enrolled in State and Tribal Response programs, and more than 

549,000 acres have been made ready for re-use through those programs. 

Additionally, the State and Tribal Response programs provide 

technical assistance. 

In 2012, EPA is going to continue to focus efforts on streamlining 

our grant application process, strengthening our State and tribal 

programs, piloting multi-purpose grants as were referenced, providing broader technical assistance and expanding land revitalization across the programs, all of the Office’s programs. 

In closing, really our continued success will require collaboration 

among all levels of government, the private sector and non-governmental organizations. EPA will continue to implement the 

Brownfields program to protect human health and the environment, enhance public participation in the local decision-making 

needed to build safe and sustainable communities through public 

and private partnerships, and to demonstrate that Environmental 

cleanup can be accomplished in a way that promotes economic redevelopment. 

11 

This concludes my statement, and I am happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lloyd follows:] 

12 


24967.001
13 


24967.002
14 


24967.003
15 


24967.004
16 


24967.005
17 


24967.006
18 


24967.007
19 


24967.008
20 


24967.009
21 


24967.010
22 


24967.011
23 


24967.012
24 


24967.013
25 


24967.014
26 


24967.015
27 


24967.016
28 


24967.017
29 


24967.018
30 


24967.019
31 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Lloyd. 

I asked a question about renewable energy products. Now, those 

sited on Brownfields locations can spur community development 

while cleaning up pollution and reducing our dependence on other 

fuels. As we consider reauthorizing the Brownfields law, what 

might we do to better encouraging using contaminated lands for 

clean energy production? 

Mr. LLOYD. First I would note, as you mentioned, there is nothing in the current statute that would certainly prohibit that end 

use, and in fact, we actively encourage renewable energy on 

Brownfields and other contaminated lands as a very viable and 

positive re-use. There is an initiative that the Office of Solid Waste 

is leading called the Repower Initiative. Essentially that provides 

funding and technical assistance to projects to help them see how 

renewable energy can be used. And many of those are Brownfields. 

A great example would be technical assistance that we have provided to help a community develop solar arrays on a landfill, and 

do that in a way that not only is protective of the remedy, but will 

produce the energy results. 

I think generally, as I have said in different forums, we like the 

community to decide what they need at a Brownfields site, and not 

to try to direct them toward any specific end use. But I think what 

we can do, Senator, to help expand this area that you have expressed interest in, and I think is a very positive area, is continue 

our technical assistance, I think strengthen it, and I think really 

we have to provide the kind of technical assistance to communities 

that help them solve some of the more complicated problems related to renewable energy. It is in some pats of the Country still 

a challenge to find connectivity to the grid and those things. I 

think that is where we could help, is by continuing to provide robust technical assistance on those projects. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Good. Because I don’t know how you measure the amount of contamination existing in a place like this. Is 

there an easier mark if it is going to be used for non-direct personal human use? If it is an energy site? 

Mr. LLOYD. Well, I think, as I understand your question, I think, 

this is one of the reasons I think contaminated sites, in many instances, do lend themselves so well to renewable energy uses. Because they can be protected from direct contact by large numbers 

of people, and still be providing a productive benefit for the community or broader. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Funding for the Brownfields Program has 

stayed roughly flat since the program was first authorized. Are we 

turning away proposals that have merit as a result of lack of funding each year? Can you give any indication at all how many you 

have to say no to as a result of the limited funds? 

Mr. LLOYD. Well, first of all, I would just reiterate what I had 

said earlier, I think the funding that we are able to provide, and 

looks like in the near future we will be able to provide, is going 

to do the things we want to do in terms of supporting State and 

tribal programs, helping communities clean and redevelop these 

sites. 

The program is very popular, and I think part of the reason is 

because it really is a program where communities are sort of in 

32 

charge of what they are doing. So it is somewhat over-subscribed. 

We have roughly between 700 and 800 applications each year for 

our grant funding. And we typically award between 200 and 300 

grants, depending on the types of applications we get, and their 

specific funding level. 

We are continually thinking of ways that we can, like the targeted Brownfield assessment program, get resources out to communities that either aren’t able to apply or aren’t successful in applying. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The estimates are that there are, you said 

this in your comments, 450,000 Brownfield sites across the Country. The number is hard to conceive of, 450,000 sites. Yet since the 

program’s inception in 1995, only 17,500 sites have been assessed. 

What can we do to change the law to help EPA make properties 

safe and productive more quickly? 

Mr. LLOYD. I think one, that figure, 17,500 would be assessments 

that were completed, completely entirely with EPA funding. I think 

looking, and I referenced the State and tribal response program 

numbers, there are vastly more assessment and cleanup activity 

going on both at a State level as well. 

But I think that really, we are looking at some ways that we 

might make our grants more efficient to make it faster, both in the 

process by which we assess and evaluate grant applications and 

then also the process by which we get the money out there. That 

is a priority of my Assistant Administrators, that we move the 

money out as quickly as possible. 

So we do have some plans there to help do that. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am going to ask Senator Inhofe for his 

questions. But we will keep the record open and send our requests 

to you in writing and ask that you give us a prompt response. 

Mr. LLOYD. Yes, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Inhofe? 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to think 

of ways that we might be able to, without expanding the funding 

for the program, get more from it. We have talked about it, and I 

mentioned this in my opening statement. I know that each year 

there is a conference called the Brownfields conference. And it costs 

about, some of them, in excess of $2 million. I don’t understand 

why, first of all, it is a good conference and I am all for it, it is 

well-attended and very popular. I support it. 

But I am thinking that we, since a lot of the stuff that you are 

doing is partnership type of thing, that we ought to be able to 

maybe have that program underwritten in the private sector. Have 

you thought about that? 

Mr. LLOYD. Yes, Senator, in a couple of ways. First, the program 

a few years ago moved away from the annual conference to an 18- 

month conference. But now we are actually going to move to an 

every 2-year conference. That is one thing we think will help. 

But second, we recognize also that while it is an extremely valuable training conference and it is a national training conference, we 

need to spread the cost of that more efficiently. So we are looking 

at, for example, I think a very modest, reasonable fee strictures 

that will still give the ability of non-profits and community groups 

33 

and smaller communities to participate, but will spread the cost 

more appropriately. 

And also, we are in the process of, we will re-compete the grant 

that we used to provide our content management, look at how conference vendors and companies that come in to advertise there at 

the conference, that they pay a fair share. Because we see, we understand your concern and we are also under that pressure to 

make sure we reduce expenses of that kind. 

Senator INHOFE. Good. I think that is a good idea. But let me 

volunteer something I am willing to do. 

Prior, during the planning stage of your next conference, I would 

be willing to go to the private sector and enlist people who are willing to come in to promote this. I really believe we can get the entire conference paid for in the private sector, and I would be glad 

to assist in that. 

Now, the only other thing I would mention to you is, as I mentioned in my opening statement, in terms of the percentage of the 

program that is funded, that goes to administration, I understand 

about $24 million does out of a total, I hope my figures are right, 

out of a total of $165 million, which is about one-sixth of the total 

amounts going to the administration. I think that is a little bit too 

high in terms of percentage allocated for administration. Do you 

have any thoughts on that? 

Mr. LLOYD. Yes. Your numbers are basically correct, approximately correct. I think that one reason that administrative cost is 

higher than it might seem appropriate, I mean, just the machinery 

of accepting that many grant applications, not just in our assessment revolving loan fund and cleanup grant, but also job training 

grant and other competitions we have, there is a fair amount of 

labor. We do that internally and with assistance from contractor 

support. 

So a good part of the cost goes to things like that. But we also 

are looking at, we recognize too the need to reduce that, because 

every penny we spend on administrative costs is one less dollar of 

any that goes to a community directly. For example, the data that 

we collect is critically important. Our grantees are truly partners 

in that, in that all of our data, the data that I read off in my opening statement, comes from grants, grantees reporting their 

progress. 

So we have a system in place, a data base that collects that directly, which is not a typical way to get data, but it has worked 

very well. But we are really looking, and have looked last year, and 

continue to look this year, on ways to make that as inexpensive as 

possible. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that, this day when we are talking 

about billions and trillions, this is nothing. I understand that. But 

I have seen in Oklahoma, for example, which you are going to hear 

from Mayor Cornett, some of the great things that can happen that 

really don’t cost much money. I figure if we can squeeze a little bit 

and get one more project out there, it would probably be worthwhile. I know, Mr. Lloyd, that you want to do that and we will look 

forward to working with you on that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

34 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Now we thank you, Mr. Lloyd, and I welcome our second panel. 

We will hear now from a range of experts who have significant 

experience with the Brownfields program. They include Mayor 

Mick Cornett of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Betty Spinelli from my 

State, my home State, Executive Director of the Hudson County 

Economic Development Corporation in New Jersey; Mr. Aaron 

Scheff, Brownfields Program Manager for the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality; Evans Paull is the Executive Director of 

the National Brownfields Coalition; and Mary Buckholtz, President 

of Environmental Consulting Solutions. Ms. Buckholtz previously 

worked at EPA to help establish the Brownfields program and now 

works in the private sector, identifying ways to use renewable energy on brownfields. 

We welcome all of you. I would ask Senator Inhofe if he has a 

special welcoming word for Mayor Cornett. 

Senator INHOFE. First of all, I think I stated that in my opening 

statement, but I would just say that he has done a miraculous job. 

And let me clarify something I said, because it was kind of off the 

cuff. Oklahoma City, any objective person would look at Oklahoma 

City and say, they have really done great things. 

As Mick knows, I used to use an airport that I am sorry they 

closed, it was called Downtown Air Park. And on my final approach, I always went over that area of Bricktown in the waterway 

there and the ball park. I have looked down and watched that develop, and it just has been amazing. I don’t think there is any city 

in America that has done a better job. And a lot of it is due to our 

witness sitting before us, and I mentioned two of his predecessors 

who were also involved in that. 

I think that we, or that he and Oklahoma City provided an example of what we should all strive for. He has done a great job, 

and with that, I am delighted to have him as our witness before 

this Committee. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mayor Cornett? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICK CORNETT, MAYOR, OKLAHOMA 

CITY, OKLAHOMA 

Mayor Cornett. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify before you today. 

My name is Mick Cornett. I am the Mayor of Oklahoma City and 

a trustee for the U.S. Conference of Mayors. 

I am pleased to be here to discuss the impact that Brownfields 

redevelopment has had on our city. We have been very successful 

in being able to utilize a lot of the EPA programs, including the 

revolving loan fund program, assessment grants, and we have used 

EPA fund to provide technical assistance. These programs have all 

helped us leverage additional funding, helped us create jobs and 

they have made a lot of improvements in our community. 

I am going to highlight a few of the examples. First of all, Oklahoma City has had a successful and recognized Brownfields program. We are the recipient of two Region VI Phoenix awards and 

a National Brownfields Renewal award. Our relationship with the 

EPA Brownfields program began in 2003, with a $225,000 cluster 

35 

grant, which was used to reevaluate potential re-use options for 

four former Superfund sites. 

Our other early program involvement was with the Skirvin 

Hotel. This is preservation effort that has been really a poster child 

of the regional and national program. We used the Brownfields revolving loan funds in the amount of $717,000 to clean up the asbestos, which eliminated a substantial barrier in making the numbers 

work and allowing us to reopen that hotel. Cleanup was completed 

in 2005, the restoration completed in February 2007, and this 

week, the Skirvin is celebrating its 100th anniversary as a property 

in Oklahoma City. But keep in mind, for 25 years it was shuttered 

until we got the EPA money and could work to reopen it. 

That restored Skirvin Hotel is celebrating its centennial this 

week. It serves as a model for successful public-private cooperation. 

There were $56 million in total funds, $22 million of which were 

public funds. 

Now, the revolving loan fund offer low interest loans to qualifying property owners for cleanup and remediation. This has been 

very helpful in our gap financing that traditional lenders won’t risk 

funding. Since 2005, Oklahoma City has found three revolving loan 

funds grants that have been helpful. We have had supplemental 

funding for a little more than $6 million. 

These funds have leveraged about $4.5 million in private funds 

for every Federal dollar spent. So the city has funded the following 

projects: the Dowell Center, which is just in the near north part of 

Oklahoma City. The loan total was $1.7 million. We expect the private leverage to be a total of $8.25 million. That building was built 

in 1926, but had been vacant since the early 1990’s. It was purchased in 1996, but it had asbestos issues, and that abatement 

needed to take place before it could be renovated. Once the abatement was completed, the building is now being redeveloped. That 

cleanup alone created 40 temporary jobs and the renovation is expected to create another 16 and a half construction jobs, which will 

generate a construction payroll of $4.5 million. 

We have also done a project at Oklahoma City Community College. The grant was $200,000. We expect the total of local dollars 

to be nearly a million. OCCC purchased that building in December 

2008 and is renovating it to house the Oklahoma City Community 

College Capital Hill Center. That center will provide a quality educational experience to the city’s Hispanic community. That cleanup 

has created 26 temporary jobs. 

We have also used assessment funds. Since 2006, we have been 

awarded five $200,000 community-wide assessment grants. With 

these funds, we performed about 60 environmental site assessments. These assessment dollars are often well-leveraged, and we 

have many examples documented within our written testimony 

that I have provided. 

Some of the assessments have been for properties acquired for 

major public projects, paid for through local bonds and sales tax 

measures. We have had some Core to Shore park acquisition properties. We had a fire station open up in the Bricktown area, as well 

as sites involving the Goodwill company and also the United States 

Postal Service. 

36 

Other assessments have supported private development and nonprofits, such as educational buildings, a faith-based charity organization and a hospital. 

I would like to speak briefly about the national impact of 

Brownfields. The Brownfields laws had a positive impact throughout the Country. In a survey done by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 84 percent of the cities that responded said they have successfully redeveloped a Brownfields site. And 150 cities reported that 

their 2,100 sites have been redeveloped and 187,000 jobs have been 

created. 

In every survey that we have done, the top three impediments 

for redevelopment were the same: a lack of cleanup funds, the need 

for more environmental assistance and liability issues. 

Bringing some ways that we can improve the program, the 

Brownfields law and program has a proven track record of 

leveraging investment and creating jobs and of course, improving 

the environment. However, there is additional work that we would 

like to see done. The GAO estimates there are about 400,000 to 

600,000 Brownfields sites in the United States. 

So the challenge that a lot of communities face now is that a lot 

of the easier sites have already been developed, and the economic 

conditions for both the public and private sector is challenging. The 

U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Brownfields Coalition believe 

that there are some minor changes that would allow some additional redevelopment and economic growth that would be realized. 

We would like to see full funding of the Brownfields program, we 

would like to see the creation of a multi-purpose grant, we would 

like to see the cleanup grants amount increased. And we would like 

to clarify the eligibility of publicly owned sites that were acquired 

before 2002. I am hoping in some of the question and answer period we can probably get into that. 

In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me 

to testify today. We really believe that Brownfields is a win-win situation for the local government, as well as the Federal Government. We believe it cleans up the environment, it is pro-business, 

it is pro-community. I thank you for the opportunity to speak about 

the reauthorization opportunities. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Cornett follows:] 

37 


24967.020
38 


24967.021
39 


24967.022
40 


24967.023
41 


24967.024
42 


24967.025
43 


24967.026
44 


24967.027
45 


24967.028
46 


24967.029
47 


24967.030
48 


24967.031
49 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Mayor. 

Now we will hear from Ms. Betty Spinelli. She is the Executive 

Director of the Hudson County Economic Development Corporation, 

and has seen some awards for projects that she has managed in 

Hudson County. Her program was awarded the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s first Environmental Excellence award. We congratulate you for that, and welcome you here 

and await your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH SPINELLI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

HUDSON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

Ms. SPINELLI. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for the opportunity to come and speak today about the Brownfields program. 

In Hudson County, there are over 600,000 people living in 46.6 

square miles. With over 1,000 known contaminated Brownfields 

sites on our local EPA website, that gives us 21 sites per square 

mile. There is literally a Brownfield site for everyone that lives in 

Hudson County. 

And the tragedy of Brownfields is, we are always learning more 

and more about sites every day. It is not like there is a definitive 

number that we can just go cleanup and then walk away and say, 

job well done. It is as we discover them we must take care of them. 

In Hudson County, we were lucky enough to receive the first 

Brownfields grant back in 1998. And we had the opportunity at 

that time, being a not-for-profit and not a municipality, to go out 

to the municipalities and offer our help to clean up some sites at 

a time when people were not even speaking about Brownfields. We 

put together a Brownfields work force group. That group is still together today and still working toward Brownfield cleanup. It includes bankers, developers, educators, individuals who are just interested in Brownfields. And it is open to the public. We get every 

kind of person from every walk of life who wants to come and find 

out more about Brownfields funding, Brownfields sites and how to 

master the challenges that are Brownfields. 

We have in fact mastered it to some degree, not as well as some 

other towns. But we have mastered it to the point that in Harrison, 

New Jersey, we put up a hotel, which was one of the first hotels 

in stagecoach days, a Hampton Inn and Suites. And the same time, 

there was no other Development going on in the town of Harrison. 

Since then, there has been a 257 redevelopment area of Harrison, 

New Jersey where many old factories lay abandoned for years, 

were now taken down, and Red Bull Stadium was put up, a soccer 

stadium that now attracts large numbers of people from all over 

the region to come and to watch games and to use it for open space. 

The leveraging of funds for that stadium alone was $200 million 

toward Development of that, private money. So the leveraging of 

funds against the Brownfields money is ten-fold. For every dollar 

spent, we end up receiving more money privately for the development of the area. In the area right now, we have housing going up. 

Jobs have been created at the hotel. There were 45 full-time jobs, 

full-time positions. That site laid fallow for over 30 years. So once 

where you had a fenced site on the waterfront you now have a 

hotel that is thriving and welcoming and has contributed tax revVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Oct 26, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\24967.TXT VERN
50 

enue as well as major jobs in an area that is so lacking in jobs at 

the moment. 

We also had the opportunity to work with the town of Kearney 

to put up affordable senior housing. In that town, unfortunately, 

there was no opportunity for affordable senior housing. Now seniors do not have to leave the town that they love in order to live 

the rest of their lives. They now have a place where they can go 

and call their own that is an absolutely beautiful situation. It has 

a view, a vista of New York City. When you pass there at night, 

it is not uncommon to see many of the residents sitting out on 

what we term in Hudson County a stoop and having the camaraderie of friendship and knowing that they are safe in a good environment. 

We were lucky enough to win the first ever Environmental Excellence award, Senator, and we won it for open and effective government. We won it because we are inclusive of the communities 

around us. We are very sensitive to the fact that the people in the 

town want to know what is going on. We host many open public 

meetings. That had been one of the suggestions in working with 

the EPA. They have locked step with us, been there every moment, 

encouraging, educating and helping us. It has been a wonderful collaboration. 

The EPA has done more to help us find economic ground to stand 

on, and I say that in the best possible light. Because without those 

funds, all the mayors would be glad to say, there but for the funding from the EPA, many of the projects that you are hearing about 

would never have been done. 

I thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Spinelli follows:] 

51 


24967.032
52 


24967.033
53 


24967.034
54 


24967.035
55 


24967.036
56 


24967.037
57 


24967.038
58 


24967.039
59 


24967.040
60 


24967.041
61 


24967.042
62 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Ms. Spinelli. I hasten 

to point out the fact that in our densely populated State, one of the 

most densely populated counties is Hudson County. But it had a 

wonderful history and it was the beginning of economic development of New Jersey, and the east coast, the harbors, the transportation needs, et cetera, just created that place where lots of people 

wanted to live and work and so forth. And the problems became 

one of lots of abandoned sites, as a result of companies having been 

there so long and finding better or newer places to go. 

So it is good to hear your report, Ms. Spinelli, and we welcome 

you. 

Mr. Scheff, from the beautiful State of Idaho. It is hard to imagine Idaho, with its expansive mountains and forests, and the natural beauty, that there are brownfield sites there that need attention. Please, give us your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF AARON SCHEFF, BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM 

MANAGER, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

Mr. SCHEFF. Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Inhofe, 

and Senator Boozman, thank you very much for your invitation to 

speak here today. I am Aaron Scheff, I manage the State of Idaho’s 

Brownfield Response program. And I truly do appreciate the opportunity to present a rural State’s perspective on implementing the 

Brownfields program in small communities. 

Since late 2003, our program conducted assessments and cleanups at over 100 properties in dozens of rural communities, making 

thousands of acres ready for redevelopment, ultimately leading to 

community revitalization and job creation. We helped rural communities turn landfills and abandoned mines into parks and trails, a 

wood mill into a water park, a historic grain silo into a performing 

arts theater, a historic laundry into an events center, and a methamphetamine lab in a former Methodist church into a children’s 

arts academy, among many other projects. 

These efforts led to job creation, community development and 

protection of human health and the environment. There are two 

main sources of EPA Brownfield funding available to Idaho stakeholders. Those are the EPA competitive grants and the EPA-funded 

State assistance grant, which funds our program. 

There are also two worlds in brownfields programs. There are 

the rural communities and the metropolitan areas. In our experience, State assistance grants are of greater benefit and 

accessability to rural communities seeking to assess and cleanup 

brownfield sites. 

There are 39 metropolitan areas in the United States with populations greater than the State of Idaho. These areas, with their 

staff grant writers, grant managers, and environmental experts, 

are competing for EPA grants against rural communities without 

the same level of staffing or experience. Absent the State’s help in 

applying for and implementing these competitive grants, small 

communities either don’t apply for the grants or become completely 

over-burdened trying to manage them. 

For rural States, the expertise needed to implement the 

Brownfield program truly does reside at the State level. However, 

63 

State programs are effectively losing Federal funding every year as 

more participants apply for the same source of funding. The statistics show that rural States and communities are being left out of 

the competitive grant award process. When you consider, of all 

EPA competitive grants awarded each year, approximately 50 percent of those awards are made in EPA Regions I and V alone, predominantly in metropolitan areas. 

EPA Region X on average receives 4 percent of the competitive 

EPA grant awards annually, despite comprising over 25 percent of 

the United States’ land mass. Rural communities need Brownfield 

funds, they just can’t compete for them under the current system. 

Instead, rural communities turn to our State program for assistance. Our program is able to assess properties in approximately 

one-third the time and at one-third the cost when compared to an 

EPA competitive grant. We can remove environmental barriers to 

redevelopment with a total expenditure of generally under $50,000, 

depending upon the site. These costs would largely be unattainable 

to most rural communities due to their limited resources, and most 

of the sites we address would not even be able to successfully compete in the EPA grant competition. 

It generally takes two to 4 years to complete an EPA competitive 

grant project from application until final report, and at least 300 

hours of staff time to manage. Our State Brownfields program completes brownfield assessment projects in under 6 months from the 

time we receive an application until we deliver a final report, with 

no burden on our local communities. 

If you can imagine shepherding the exact same project through 

the EPA competitive grant process and Idaho’s Brownfields program simultaneously, the result would be that our State-led project 

would reach completion before the competitive grant proposal was 

even selected for funding, if it were an EPA grant. 

While the current allocation of Federal funding for State 

Brownfield programs remains static, the addition of new States and 

tribes receiving EPA assistance is increasing. The result is that our 

annual State assistance funding is being effectively reduced. This 

reduction is negatively impacting the amount of direct assessments 

and cleanups we perform for rural communities who are not able 

to compete for funds on the national level. 

There is a solution to this dilemma without the need to appropriate additional funding at the Federal level. Funds can be moved 

from the EPA competitive grant program into the EPA-funded 

State assistance grants without a change in the Brownfields law or 

an increase in total appropriation. Utilizing some funds from the 

competitive grants to stabilize State assistance programs will ensure that we can effectively target and directly assist rural communities with assessments and cleanups. 

Based on the current performance of Idaho’s Brownfields program, such a shift in funds would be bargain for taxpayers, given 

our performance to date, and would represent more Brownfield 

funds dedicated to redevelopment projects on the ground, rather 

than administrative costs. 

This has been a great program. It has been a great program for 

Idaho, it has been a great program for Alaska, Washington and Oregon, states that I represent on the Oswomo. 

64 

[phonetic] Brownfields Task Force. It has been an excellent collaboration with EPA and our local communities, and I do think 

that there are some ways that we can tweak the law to increase 

the effectiveness and the efficiency of the program. I really look forward to seeing what the Committee comes up with during this reauthorization process. 

Thank you, and I of course welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scheff follows:] 

65 


24967.043
66 


24967.044
67 


24967.045
68 


24967.046
69 


24967.047
70 


24967.048
71 


24967.049
72 


24967.050
73 


24967.051
74 


24967.052
75 


24967.053
76 


24967.054
77 


24967.055
78 


24967.056
79 


24967.057
80 


24967.058
81 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. Paull, we ask you now to give your testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF E. EVANS PAULL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL BROWNFIELDS COALITION 

Mr. PAULL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. My name is Evans Paull, and I have the privilege of 

speaking to you today on behalf of the National Brownfields Coalition. 

The National Brownfields Coalition represents national, State, 

local and public, private and non-profit organizations that share 

the common goal of promoting brownfields redevelopment as a 

means of achieving community economic revitalization, sustainable 

growth and development, and the environmental restoration of 

land. Some of our diverse national members include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Smart Growth America, NAIOP, the Commercial Real EState Development Association and the Trust for Public 

Land. 

I wanted to call your attention to several Brownfields community 

turnaround projects that have been carried out in some of the 

States that are represented on the Committee today. There are two 

recurring themes that I want to stress. First, EPA Brownfields 

funds, although modest in the larger picture of multi-million dollar 

redevelopment projects, are often eh first funds in to help communities lay the groundwork for turning blighted, contaminated properties into new community assets. It would be hard to overState 

the importance of these critical resources. 

The payoffs from these modest investments in leveling the playing field are enormous, because it is not just about cleaning up and 

redeveloping X, Y and Z sites, it is also about enabling communities to reposition their economies, taking the failed industries of 

the past and restoring those sites to enable future growth and improved quality of life. 

Second, I want to emphasize that it actually makes perfect sense 

for Brownfields investments in the middle of a real eState recession. Public expenditures and site assessments and cleanups are 

far-sighted investments in future responsible growth. More 

Brownfields sites will be development-ready and future growth can 

be steered to land where infrastructure is in place, existing communities can be revitalized and the negative externalities associated 

with sprawl can be avoided. 

To illustrate, in Omaha, Nebraska, EPA site assessments of 

three key waterfront properties have paved the way for 750 jobs 

and $140 million in new investment, including the Gallup Corporation’s world operational headquarters and a riverfront trail that 

will enable local populations to enjoy 64 miles of newly accessible 

riverfront property. 

In Little Rock, Arkansas, an EPA site assessment of the Union 

Pacific rail yard near downtown paid dividends in 2006 when Heifer International, a non-profit international anti-poverty organization, chose to locate their world headquarters on a 4.2 acre site, 

bringing 225 jobs and 225,000 visitors to Little Rock. 

In New Orleans, Louisiana, an EPA site assessment helped 

unlock the hidden potential of the Falstaff Brewery, which had 

82 

been vacant for 30 years. The dilapidated property was transformed into 147 mixed income apartments in 2008. This pioneering 

investment helped lead to the revival of the Tulane Avenue Corridor as more redevelopment projects totaling 700 units took form 

between 2008 and 2010. 

These are three examples where EPA investments have been instrumental in transformative redevelopment projects, helping communities achieve a new vision for outmoded industrial corridors. 

But as important as that point is, the takeaway I want to stress 

is that in case, the EPA funds were injected several years before 

the actual redevelopment. This reinforces the previous point that 

we have to keep making these investments, even in an economic 

slowdown. Then when the economy picks up, we will have development-ready sites and the reward will be community-altering 

projects like Heifer International, the Gallup headquarters, and the 

Falstaff Brewery. 

These projects are just a few of the Brownfields investments that 

are replacing lost jobs and revenue with vibrant new uses onsites 

where closed industrial plants have left a legacy of blight and contamination. We strongly recommend that Congress reauthorize the 

program; however, reauthorization represents an opportunity for 

improvement. Many of the other panelists and Senator Lautenberg 

as well have mentioned some of those improvements and I won’t 

repeat them here, since I am out of time. 

We look forward to working with the Committee as we move forward with reauthorization. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paull follows:] 

83 


24967.059
84 


24967.060
85 


24967.061
86 


24967.062
87 


24967.063
88 


24967.064
89 


24967.065
90 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

And apologies, too, to Ms. Buckholtz. I mistook your first name 

for being Mary, but Marjorie sounds good with Buckholtz. 

STATEMENT OF MARJORIE WEIDENFELD BUCKHOLTZ, 

PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS 

Ms. BUCKHOLTZ. Thank you. If we could get something going on 

reforming Brownfields, I will change my name to Mary. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BUCKHOLTZ. Good morning. Senator Lautenberg and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

EPA’s Brownfields program. As one of its founders, it remains a 

subject close to my heart. 

During a 25-year EPA career, I was lucky. I was often sent to 

communities where EPA had the opportunity to effect the most significant change. I saw that Superfund’s prioritization of worst sites 

first meant that lesser contaminated sites fell outside Federal purview. Some abandoned properties fell below the cut line for Superfund or State programs, and yet they were too polluted to attract 

investment. EPA needed a new approach, so we began thinking 

about tailoring a program that had assessment, cleanup and redevelopment elements to serve across a range of rural, urban and 

tribal communities. That was the start of the Brownfields program. 

At its core was the emphasis that local solutions work best under 

local stewardship. The new model that was born was different from 

Superfund in several important ways. First, many of the sites were 

perceived to be contaminated rather than actually contaminated. 

Seed money for local site assessment solved that mystery. Eventually, one-third of the sites on the Superfund inventory were proven 

not to be contaminated at all and were ready for re-use. 

There is still a need for a strong Superfund program for sites 

with major technical issues and high levels of contamination. The 

Brownfields program complements those efforts. 

EPA’s job training program in the Brownfields program, from the 

very earliest beginning, emphasized local employment. When the 

program began, I was shocked that communities needed to ship in 

workers because they lacked people with the proper training. In response, the Brownfields Job Training program was created, in concert with local community colleges and work force development 

groups. As you heard from David Lloyd, this successful program 

continues and thrives. This year, it has been expanded to cover 

many of EPA’s cleanup programs. I respectfully urge the Committee to protect the viability of this program. 

The Brownfields program has flourished in ways that would have 

been unimaginable to me 20 years ago. But there is still work to 

be done. To improve this program, I would respectfully recommend 

several things in addition to Brownfields job training. David Lloyd 

talked about area-wide planning, and I would like to emphasize its 

importance. 

Non-profit eligibility for all types of Brownfields grants is also 

very important. Because in many communities, especially small 

towns and rural areas, non-profit development corporations and 

community development corporations drive the economy and carry 

out redevelopment. 

91 

EPA launched the Repowering America’s Land program in September 2008 to encourage the siting of renewable energy facilities 

on current and former contaminated lands across the Country. I 

know that I am preaching to the choir, Senator Lautenberg, when 

I say that language for repowering on Brownfields sites is critical 

for reauthorization. Your forward-thinking proposal last year on 

the Energy Bill is exactly what is needed to jump start productive 

use of Brownfields as renewable energy facilities in the U.S. 

My recent consulting work with Brownfields LLC, a Massachusetts solar firm, has focused on the conversion of community liabilities, like closed landfills, into assets. From this experience, I have 

seen that repowering works and needs to be emphasized and continued. 

I would like to close with just a couple of lessons learned. The 

cooperation evidenced on this Committee is a heartening reminder 

of Brownfields’ bipartisan popularity. This spirit will be the key to 

successful reauthorization and an effective program. Second, 

leveraging and partnerships are at the heart of this program. 

There have been attempts to make it a block grant program, which 

would have destroyed our efforts. It works because it provides technical support and leverages local resources. 

And third, please remember, real people thrive or suffer as a result of our actions. Brownfields began to extend hope and prosperity to those unlucky enough to live and work near contaminated 

sites. Countless citizens of once-forgotten communities have benefited from these efforts. We must resolve not to forget them again. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Buckholtz follows:] 

92 


24967.066
93 


24967.067
94 


24967.068
95 


24967.069
96 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

We hear a resounding round of applause and congratulations for 

the Brownfields program altogether. I thank you for your encouragement, because I believe it is so essential that we get on with 

doing what we can to make these sites available for community use 

and for the well-being and health of citizens in the area. So as Ms. 

Buckholtz said, Senator Inhofe, that this shows bipartisanship at 

its best. So I guess we ought to say there are other Brownfields beside those we heard about that we ought to be able to clean up and 

get going on with, too. 

Senator INHOFE. Sure. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I ask the witnesses who are here today 

from across the political spectrum and from States and local governments, non-profits, private sector, and it is amazing when one 

hears the universality of interests in States that are highly populated to less populated, from the urban setting to the more rural 

kind of thing. And when we think of some of the most beautiful 

parts of our Country, we think always of the mountains and the 

lakes and the forests and all of those things. But their lies 

Brownfields sites that are problems and could be used effectively 

in all States, if we can make the program generally more available 

and with more funding. 

Just going down the line, we will start with the Mayor, do you 

believe that, the question has almost been answered, about that 

EPA’s Brownfields program has provided the kinds of benefits that 

really matter and ought to continue and be expanded if possible? 

Mayor Cornett. Yes. It has made a remarkable difference in 

Oklahoma City. If you could see the Skirvin Hotel, which was built 

a 100 years ago this week, and shuttered for 20 years with really 

no hope of ever being able to be reopened without some level of 

government assistance, we used Brownfields money to get in there 

and help close that gap. 

We had an environmental site along our river, which 60 years 

ago had been a city dump. We were able to address the environmental needs there, and currently Dell Computer has built a campus with 1,500 employees. And we have future needs down the 

line. So we have success stories to tell you about, but we also have 

a number of sites that we believe with some more additional help 

could really improve our Nation’s economy. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Anybody disagree with that? No? 

Ms. Spinelli, EPA estimates that Brownfields projects raise the 

value of surrounding properties by 2 to 3 percent. I think that is 

fairly marginal. Maybe by twice its value or three times its value 

as it sits there forlorn and abandoned. DO you agree with that, the 

value improvements? 

Ms. SPINELLI. Totally, Senator. In Hudson County, and I am sure 

you know this, we saw sites that laid fallow for 30, 40 years. And 

with the EPA money being able to go in and do the assessments, 

we were able to attract developers to sites that they would have 

never considered in the past. So the moneys that have come in, the 

amount of money that has been leveraged between the Brownfields 

assessment moneys and the moneys that have come in from developers and putting these sites back to good, productive use is totally 

immeasurable. 

97 

But I do want to reiterate what Marjorie said. Lest we ever forget that there are people, citizens who are living around all parts 

of the Country, whether it be Hudson County or in the Midwest, 

people need to be thought of in this process. Because it is very important that our citizens be entitled to a healthy, safe environment 

to grow and to have their children grow up in. It is a scourge on 

our cities and our areas to have these brownfields sites be there 

just fenced in behind bars and not be put back to good, productive 

use. It is very important that the EPA continue to put these programs forward. 

And we all realize, in these hard economic times, it is very difficult to sit here and say, don’t give it more money. Give it all the 

money you can. Because this doesn’t go to any one particular 

group. This goes to help strengthen America and bring our Country 

and all our communities back to good, productive use, bringing in 

jobs, making beautiful sites that were once wonderfully used back 

into good, productive use within the communities. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Ms. Buckholtz, in short form, how might current law be changed 

to better promote renewable Development? 

Ms. BUCKHOLTZ. I have a lot of thoughts on that, but only 30 seconds. So I will tell you, the first thing that I would recommend is 

working closely with the Energy Committee to create a renewable 

portfolio standard that is consistent across the Country. That is the 

single most important thing that would drive redevelopment of 

solar onto Brownfields sites. 

And the second thing, you mentioned in your bill last year triple 

credits. That would be a triple win. That would be more than 

enough to get people really investing in these sites. 

The second thing is to press for extension of Section 1603 of the 

Energy Bill. But I would adjust it to be extended solely for those 

properties to incentivize utilities to work on contaminated lands. 

Thirty percent cash grant incentives for new repowering projects 

have a huge potential to drive re-use. 

The last thing I would just say is that the EPA, in this economy, 

is not expecting a broad infusion of funds. The Brownfields program was built on doing more with less. A steady State budget that 

would emphasize leveraging and the new initiatives would build 

repowering to a new level without a major budget increase. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Senator Inhofe, I owe you a couple of minutes, Jim, which you 

can easily recapture. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my hope that 

we don’t’ turn this successful program around into a program to enhance green technology and all this stuff. It is working well now, 

let’s don’t mess around with it. 

Let me ask you first of all, Mr. Scheff, you would be the one, I 

think, who would be responding to one of the concerns I mentioned 

in my opening statement, that is, Oklahoma has a lot of the small, 

rural communities. And have you, I had to leave during part of 

yours, but I did read your written statement. Do you have any comments on how we could enhance this program in terms of using a 

greater amount for the smaller, rural communities? 

98 

Mr. SCHEFF. Senator, yes, I do have some thoughts on that. For 

one thing, I need to point out that for every EPA competitive grant 

that is awarded to a small community, and it does seem to skew 

more toward metropolitan areas, but these rural communities don’t 

have staff grant writers, they don’t have grant managers, they 

don’t have experts in Brownfields law or guidance. 

They have to come up to speed very rapidly on all the different 

Federal requirements that are tagged under these grants, procurement, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act 

compliance, a myriad of things that these folks have A, never heard 

about before and B, don’t even know where to go to get assistance. 

They immediately go to the State, which is great, that is part of 

our role, is to assist these folks. 

But for us, it makes a lot more sense, when we have the content 

and the field experts at the State level through our State assistance grant program, we can crank these things out and really get 

into the communities, do outreach, help them figure out the scope 

and nature of their programs and projects, and go in and quickly 

and efficiently remove the environmental barriers to their project. 

Senator INHOFE. Can you not do that now? 

Mr. SCHEFF. We can, Senator, but the problem is that year to 

year, additional States, additional tribes, additional territories, are 

asking for funding from the same pot that we get our funding from 

now. That funding source doesn’t go up or down, it stays the same. 

So as more people come in, our funding is reduced. 

To further complicate that, the amount of site-specific assessment work that we are able to do currently through our grant is 

limited to 50 percent of the grant itself. So as that expenditure 

shrinks, the amount of money that we can spend on the ground in 

these small communities shrinks as well. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that. And Mr. Chairman, I have 

nothing against professional grant writers. I am saying, when you 

go into one of my small communities in Oklahoma, and they talk 

about how do you do this and how do you put this together, yes, 

they do have access to the State. We are going to be working with 

them to try to get more help for them. But they will say, we are 

paying, and to them it is an astronomical amount of money you pay 

to someone to do this, and frankly, they don’t have it. 

So what I would like to have you do, for the record, is to write 

down some recommendations that you could make in this program 

that would allow easier access to the small communities. Why don’t 

you do that just for the record for us? 

And the rest of my time, Mayor Cornett, I just wish, Mr. Chairman, that you could come to Oklahoma, stay in the Skirvin Hotel. 

Now, New Jersey is not like Oklahoma. Something in Oklahoma 

that is 100 years old is ancient. In New Jersey, it is new. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Notice how he glances at me as he says 

that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. But the Skirvin Hotel, I can remember when I 

was in the State legislature, that was many years ago, and it was 

a palace. Of course, it deteriorated over this period of time. And 

they did a masterful job of putting it back together the way it was 

99 

originally. We are doing the same thing in Tulsa with the Mayo 

Hotel. 

And it is just really, when you see the things they have done in 

Oklahoma City, and that is what, I only wish that during your 

presentation we had some big pictures to hold up. That would better show the before and after contrast of what we have. 

I guess I would like to ask you, is there anything that we would 

be able to do, when I pointed out the problem of the pre-2002 problem that we had, is there anything in your city, in Oklahoma City, 

that you would not be able to do with that restriction that is there? 

Mayor Cornett. We do have a number of sites that were acquired 

prior to the 2002 legislation. I can think of one site specifically at 

Northeast 4th and Loddy, which would be an under-performing section of our city, that would fall into the category of a site that 

would need some assessing at the Environmental issues, and it is 

probably right for redevelopment if we had this type of enabling 

legislation to allow us to go in there and work on it. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, that is good. I think, Mr. Chairman, we 

ought to really look seriously at that and see what obstacles are 

there to keep us from doing that and maybe correct it. I think the 

Director, who was on the first panel, would probably agree with 

that. 

Last, in the time that I have, Mick, when you look at Dell City, 

Bricktown, the canal, the Skirvin Hotel, all these projects that you 

talked about that were so successful, have you put an employment 

figure down that would cover these as to how employment has been 

enhanced as a result of that? I have to say that we are fortunate 

in Oklahoma, our unemployment rate is 5.5 percent. We are very 

fortunate with that, I understand that. But how has this enhanced 

our employment situation? 

Mayor Cornett. I don’t have a number for you, and I have asked 

my staff to try and answer that question specifically. I can tell you 

that we have the lowest unemployment in the United States among 

large metros with the 5 percent flat. 

Senator INHOFE. Why don’t you do that, and send it for the 

record, in writing, so I can use that up here in trying to help sell 

this very successful program? 

Mayor Cornett. I would be glad to, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much. Despite the fact that 

you have the good fortune to have that kind of unemployment rate, 

nevertheless, Mayor, you can use help in the Brownfields program 

and extend job opportunity and economic opportunity for your city 

and your State? 

Mayor Cornett. Absolutely. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That is a noteworthy thing in this environment. 

Senator Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we appreciate 

all of you all being here. The Federal and State Brownfields program really has been very successful. I think we all agree with 

that. We appreciate your being here to help us sort out some of the 

problems that we need to fix, perhaps in the future, as we reauthorize. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality adVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:25 Oct 26, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\24967.TXT VERN
100 

ministers it in Arkansas. You mentioned the great job that they 

had done with the Heifer program in Little Rock. We have another, 

I think the most recent one that is going to come online is an area 

in downtown Hope, Arkansas, where they are going to very soon, 

I think within the next year or so, have a charitable clinic that will 

be at that site. 

So there is really just a lot of positive stuff that is going on as 

a result of the program. 

I would like to ask you, Mr. Scheff, why do you feel that funds 

should be moved from the EPA competitive grant program and into 

the State assistance grant programs? 

Mr. SCHEFF. Senator, simply put, our smaller communities, and 

we are talking about communities largely under 10,000 people, 

simply they don’t have the capacity to look at and understand the 

scope of the 53-page competitive grant guideline booklet. A lot of 

the concepts that are scored as part of the competitive grant systems, they don’t necessarily understand how to answer. A lot of the 

things that are asked for, for instance, support from communitybased organizations, information on disease registries, things like 

that, just do not exist in those small communities. 

Additionally, a lot of the projects that they are involved in are 

fairly small projects. They may only yield one, two, three, four jobs. 

But 4 jobs in a town of 3,000 people is incredibly significant. I 

think a lot of times EPA grant reviewers are looking at projects in 

major cities of maybe a million and they say, oh, this is going to 

get us 50 jobs. But when you crunch the numbers, the 50 jobs in 

a 1 million person community is not nearly as significant as 5 jobs 

in a 2,000 or 3,000 person community. 

Simply put, it really does come down to capacity. Most of the 

folks running these small governments actually have real jobs, jobs 

that they go to, Wal-Mart, mowing lawns, whatever. And then they 

come back to the city at night and they are the treasurer, they are 

the clerk, they are actually help perform the city functions while 

they are not working. They don’t have the many, many, many 

hours that you have to put into applying for and managing these 

grants. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I think you make a very good point. And that 

point is being made over and over again. I just want to kind of reiterate it. 

Can you tell us perhaps if we did that, you are not asking for 

an increase in appropriation, you are just asking for the shift of 

funds, can you tell us specifically what kind of, you mentioned jobs, 

can you tell us some specific examples of what creates those five 

jobs that would come about as a result of doing that? 

Mr. SCHEFF. Absolutely. I can give you a specific example on a 

project we just finished. It was a relatively inexpensive project, it 

only cost us $30,000 to go in and assess and do a targeted cleanup 

at an old gas stationsite. The folks purchased the site, it was a site 

that had been abandoned for years, was no longer on the tax rolls, 

so it wasn’t paying any property taxes, nobody was working there. 

But some folks went in, they purchased the site and they opened 

it up as, it is kind of a funky place, but it is a combination bakery, 

cafe, plus photography studio. So you go there and people have 

their artwork out and every month it sort of circulates out, there 

101 

are different people who can come in and have their artwork purchased. There is someone working the counter, there are a couple 

cooks at the bakery, and then there is someone who is always in 

the photo shop part of the establishment, doing either digital or old 

school darkroom photography. But it works. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Sounds like there is a little something for everybody there. 

Mr. SCHEFF. Yes, Senator. And it is also in a community of 5,000 

people where there is not a lot of opportunity for photography clubs 

and things of that nature. So it really has become an interesting 

kind of place for people to congregate. And total employment, five 

full-time employees work there. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you all very much for your testimony. While we kind of joked for a couple minutes about the fact 

that we are agreeing, it shows you the power of the value of the 

Brownfields program. 

Now we call on Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. Thanks for holding this 

hearing. 

Mayor Cornett, could I ask you a question? Thinking of past 

mayors of larger cities in Oklahoma, have any of them ever turned 

out well? Can you think of any who ever amounted to much? 

[Laughter.] 

Mayor Cornett. I am fortunate to have a long string of promising 

mayors that preceded me, absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. How about over in Tulsa? 

Mayor Cornett. I can’t remember Tulsa ever having specifically 

any good mayors. 

[Laughter.] 

Mayor Cornett. You will forgive me, that rivalry is extremely 

strong, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator CARPER. Well, he has turned out OK here. 

Mayor Cornett. He has done well for himself. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let me respond to that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. During the time that I was Mayor of Tulsa, I 

was mayor for three terms. Three terms, four terms? It was a long 

time ago. But anyway, during that time, we put together programs 

that others didn’t. In fact, it was back during the second Reagan 

administration. He used my low water dam, which we did with no 

public funds whatsoever, we did it through the private sector, this 

is Reagan speaking now, as the greatest single public project totally privately funded in America. My case rests. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. First question, if I could, of all the witnesses, 

talking about programs like the Brownfields program, but other 

Federal programs, I would like to find out and ask what is working 

well with respect to this program. I would also like to ask what 

could we do better, what could we change or tinker with in order 

102 

to get a better result. I like to say, everything I do I know I can 

do better. And I think that is true of Federal programs, too. 

Let me just ask if you all can think of one or two things that 

might need some tweaking as we take up reauthorization of 

Brownfields. 

Mayor Cornett. I can think of a couple of things. The $200,000 

limit onsites, it would be helpful if that can be increased. There are 

a number of sites that still don’t quite work. And a lot of the easier 

to do sites have already been done. 

Also, the length of time that it takes for the fund to actually arrive at the city level, it can sometimes be a year or more. Sometimes that development window can shut within that 1-year time 

period. You apply for the grant, it takes maybe 6 months to find 

out if you are going to receive the grant, then it takes another 6 

months perhaps to receive the money. If that timeframe could 

somehow be shortened, I think that would be helpful. 

Senator CARPER. Let me ask the other panelists, just by a show 

of hands, do any of you agree with what Mayor Cornett has just 

said? All right, two do and two are silent. OK, good. Do any disagree with what he said? All right, thank you. Let the record show 

nobody disagrees. 

Ms. Spinelli, anything that you would bring to our attention that 

might need some improvement? 

Ms. SPINELLI. I have to concur with what he said. But more importantly, if it is possible to raise that $200,000, you can’t get a 

gallon of gas for what you used to get a gallon of gas for 10 years 

ago. And we are looking at $200,000 now in an economy where, to 

have an engineering firm come in to do the work, it is not costing 

the same now that it did for us when we first started this program. 

Things do go up. It is just the way the economy works. I realize 

there is little money out there and it is very tough. But it has to 

be looked at objectively. Because it is loaves and fishes. And I wish 

we could say that we could take those loaves and fishes and do 

more with them. But with everyone asking for more on the other 

side of this equation and only that $200,000 to work with, it becomes very difficult. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. Mr. Scheff? And I noticed 

you raised your hand to agree with Mayor Cornett. 

Mr. SCHEFF. Yes, Senator, and so far I have agreed with everything that has been said so far on the panel. 

Senator CARPER. That doesn’t happen every day. Would you just 

say that again for us? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. It warms up the room when you say that. 

Mr. SCHEFF. Aside from the things that have already been mentioned outside of my testimony, I would highly recommend aligning 

the current eligibility for petroleum sites with hazardous substance 

sites. The two sites are treated completely differently. In order to 

be eligible to spend Brownfields funds on petroleum sites, an applicant has to be two owners removed from the last owner who dispensed petroleum at the site and therefore may be considered a responsible party. That is a really tough metric to hit, really tough. 

Especially in small communities where people tend to own land in 

103 

their families essentially forever. That is one that I would definitely focus hard one. 

Senator CARPER. Before you move off of that one, anybody else 

on the panel concur with what Mr. Scheff has said? Yes, you do? 

All right. 

Mr. PAULL. We get feedback on that specific issue all the time. 

Given that Congress designated 25 percent of the funding to go to 

petroleum sites, obviously Congress views that as an important 

part of the program. And we 100 percent agree. But we are also 

handicapping our communities in addressing petroleum sites because of these extra eligibility hurdles. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Anybody else want to comment on 

this particular point? Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. BUCKHOLTZ. Not speaking directly to petroleum sites, but I 

would like to be a little bit the devil’s advocate and say that when 

we started this program, we intentionally did not fully fund the 

site assessment process or the cleanup process. What we were trying to do was put seed money in to leverage local communities to 

invest in themselves. I understand that the prices for everything 

are much higher than they were when we started the program. 

Senator CARPER. Not for everything. Cell phones are a lot cheaper. There are some exceptions. 

Ms. BUCKHOLTZ. That is a good point. And televisions. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BUCKHOLTZ. But the point is, I think that it is really important to, the Federal Government can’t go in every community and 

fix everything. That is not an appropriate role. What they have to 

do is provide technical assistance, in my view, and the tools to get 

it done. I am not sure that raising the ceiling on the grants would 

get us where we want to be. And it is not in keeping with the original intent of the program. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. Let me come back to Mr. Scheff. 

You had another point you wanted to make as well. 

Mr. SCHEFF. Yes, thank you, Senator. The other item I would 

look at is raising the limit that State-funded programs are under. 

Right now we are limited to only 50 percent of our grant which can 

go to on the ground, site specific projects. It would be nice to see 

that limit raised or potentially go away altogether. 

What that effectively does is say that 50 percent of your grant 

now has to go to administrative or programmatic functions versus 

taking those funds and putting them directly on the ground, especially in rural communities where it is important. And I also would 

like to mention that in our program, those sites-specific activities 

generally take place through private contractors. So those funds 

that we do devote to on the ground projects are generally going 

straight into the private sector and are being administered by the 

private sector on the ground. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Paull, did you have another point you wanted to make on 

this question? 

Mr. PAULL. Yes. A couple of the panelists had mentioned multipurpose grants. I would like to put a little bit more meat on the 

bones of that. Multi-purpose grants would be a great tool to kind 

of expedite how things work in the Brownfields program. There are 

104 

two problems with the sort of boxing up of the three grant programs. We have site assessments, revolving loan fund and cleanup 

grants. And we are further bifurcated into hazardous substance 

and petroleum. 

So oftentimes communities, as things change, they put in a grant 

application 1 year but a year or year and a half later, the No. 1 

site that they are trying to move is not in the category that they 

originally applied for. It might need cleanup funds where the city 

has funding for site assessments. There is a great deal of lag time 

involved in this, if you have to do everything in order. 

If you are putting in a site assessment application that involves 

a lag before you actually get the funding in, and then you are probably missing another round, because those funds come in late in 

the year and you have to get your application in short after your 

funding comes in, you are probably missing another year. So it is 

actually a 3-year process to get from site assessment through cleanup. 

So if you had multi-purpose grants where you could move the 

funding back and forth between these three categories, it would be 

a huge advantage and would help expedite the process. 

Senator CARPER. Good, thank you. 

I think, Mayor Cornett, did you mention something about this in 

your testimony? 

Mayor Cornett. Yes. We just had a number of success stories in 

that regard. 

Senator CARPER. Anybody else want to comment for or against 

what Mr. Paull said? And I will wrap up at that point? Anybody 

want to say yea or nay? Yes, Mr. Scheff. 

Mr. SCHEFF. Senator, I would agree with what Mr. Paull said 

and additionally add that it would also help in States like ours and 

areas like ours where our field season can be extremely limited. If 

we are in Sun Valley or north Idaho, when we are under two to 

three feet of snow, it is really hard to do site work during those 

periods of time. And literally, we can end up with only four or 5 

months out of the year where we have a window to do appropriate 

field work. 

So the multi-purpose grant would help to assist in moving those 

projects along without having a separate grant process in between. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. And Mr. Chairman, thanks for 

giving me a few extra minutes. Thanks to the panel. You made 

some really good points. We love it when there is a convergence of 

views. This is very, very helpful. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I add my thanks and make mention of the 

fact that the record will be kept open for some time, so you may 

get a letter request for questions that are raised. So we would ask 

you to answer promptly, please. And once again, thank you. It was 

so nice to have a panel that has bipartisan character and where 

people agree. I thought that wasn’t allowed around here any more. 

[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the committees were adjourned.] 

Æ