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

95–581 PDF 2017

HELPING REVITALIZE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES 

THROUGH THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM 

(114–25) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 22, 2015 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

WITNESSES 

PANEL 1 

Hon. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio ............................................................................ 55 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano of California ................................................... 67 

PANEL 2 

Cynthia A. Hafner, Chief Legal Counsel, Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio ............................................................................ 77 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano of California ................................................... 80 

Hon. J. Christian Bollwage, Mayor of the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey, 

on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio ............................................................................ 89 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano of California ................................................... 93 

Kelley C. Race, P.G., L.S.P., Brownfields Program Manager, TRC Companies, 

Inc.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 95 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio ............................................................................ 104 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano of California ................................................... 112 

Paul Gruber, P.G., on behalf of the National Ground Water Association: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 116 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio ............................................................................ 124 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano of California ................................................... 128 

Vernice Miller-Travis, Vice Chair, Maryland Commission on Environmental 

Justice and Sustainable Communities, and Member, National Environmental Justice Advisory Council to U.S. EPA: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 131 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Janice Hahn of California .............................................................................. 36 

Page

VI 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Letter of July 20, 2015, from Clarence E. Anthony, CEO and Executive 

Director, National League of Cities, to Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking 

Member Peter A. DeFazio, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Chairman Bob Gibbs and Ranking Member Grace F. Napolitano, 

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment ...................................... 138 

Letter of August 6, 2015, from Michael Forbeck (PA), P.E., President, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, to Chairman Bob Gibbs, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment .......... 141 

Written statement of Jonathan Philips, Managing Director, Anka Funds ......... 144 

Written statement of Scott A. Thompson, Executive Director, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality ................................................................... 163 

Questions for the record to Vernice Miller-Travis, Vice Chair, Maryland Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities, and Member, National Environmental Justice Advisory Council to U.S. EPA, from 

the following Representatives: 

Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio .................................................................................... 167 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano of California .......................................................... 170 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 95581.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 95581.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 95581.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 95581.004
(1) 

HELPING REVITALIZE AMERICAN 

COMMUNITIES THROUGH THE 

BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

will come to order. I want to thank everybody for attending today. 

I know there will be Members in and out. There is a lot going on 

today. I think everybody is trying to finish up a lot of loose ends, 

cross the t’s and dot the i’s here before we go back and meet with 

our constituents in August. Some housekeeping business first. I ask 

unanimous consent that the hearing record be kept open for 30 

days after this hearing in order to accept written testimony for the 

hearing record. Is there objection? Without objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that written testimony submitted 

on behalf of the following parties be included in this hearing’s 

record: Scott Thompson, the executive director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality; Clarence Anthony, the CEO 

and executive director of the National League of Cities; Jonathan 

Philips, the managing director of Anka Funds; and Congresswoman 

Janice Hahn from California. Is there objection? Hearing none, 

without objection, so ordered. 

OK. I will open up with my opening remarks. Today, we are here 

to talk about helping revitalize America’s communities through the 

Brownfields Program. Following the passage of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 

also known as Superfund, a new kind of property emerged, 

brownfields. Brownfields are properties where contamination was 

suspected but unknown. These sites include inactive factories, gas 

stations, salvage yards, and many other previously used properties 

where possible environmental liability and cleanup standards prevented their continued use and redevelopment. 

Fear of environmental liability at these sites caused developers 

to look outside cities to previously undeveloped properties for new 

opportunities. This left many sites untouched, driving down propVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:20 May 11, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\7-22-1~1\95581.TXT JEAN
2 

erty values, contributing to blight, and providing no tax revenue to 

cities. Both the States and the EPA [Environmental Protection 

Agency] began looking for ways to more successfully address the 

concerns of potential contamination to get these sites back to productive use. 

In 1995, the EPA issued demonstration grants to help assess 

sites to determine what cleanup might be needed. States, cities, 

and developers also began looking for better ways to address these 

sites. In 2001, Congress created the specific authority for dealing 

with brownfields, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, amended the Superfund law, and 

authorized funding to the EPA to provide grants for assessment 

and cleanup, provided targeted liability relief for property owners, 

and increased Federal support for the State and tribal programs 

that were already underway. 

The authorization for brownfield grants under the Brownfields 

Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 expired 

at the end of fiscal year 2006, though Congress has continued to 

appropriate funds for the Brownfields Program. To say this program has been a success is understating its achievements. As of 

June last year, the EPA and the State and tribal programs had assessed more than 21,000 properties, completed over 99,450 cleanups, and made more than 900,000 acres ready for reuse. On average, $17.79 was leveraged for every EPA dollar spent in the 

Brownfields Program. And nearly 106,000 jobs have been leveraged 

since the start of the program. The benefits of having these sites 

redeveloped include increased property values of between 5 percent 

and nearly 13 percent, and measurable environmental benefits, 

such as fewer vehicle miles traveled and decreased stormwater run 

off. 

To quote a line from our upcoming witness from the Ohio EPA, 

Cindy Hafner, Ohio has been ‘‘blessed with a rich industrial history, which resulted in a very large number of brownfields that no 

one wanted to use.’’ I know Ohio is not alone in its appreciation 

for this important program. The Brownfields Program has been a 

successful partnership between the EPA—I want to stress that, 

partnership—between the EPA, States, communities, investors, 

and developers. Because it applies to so many sites and generates 

such a high return in investment, it is an incredibly popular program throughout the country. But like many other good programs, 

there may be ways to make it more effective. And I think this is 

a good time to look at this, since the authorization expired in 2007, 

it is a good time to see what is happening, see what adjustments 

might be needed, and how we can make the programs better, and 

be more successful. 

Today, we will hear from the Honorable Mathy Stanislaus, the 

Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the U.S. EPA. Our second panel, we have Ms. 

Cindy Hafner, the chief legal counsel for the Ohio EPA; the Honorable Christian Bollwage, mayor of Elizabeth, New Jersey; Ms. 

Kelley Race, Mr. Paul Gruber, and Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis. I 

want to thank the witnesses for taking the time out of their schedules to be here today. I now recognize Ranking Member Napolitano 

for any remarks she may have. 

3 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much, Chairman Gibbs, for 

holding today’s hearing on the status of the EPA’s program. Welcome to our witnesses again. The EPA’s brownfields was conceived 

and initiated as a pilot program, as was indicated by my colleague, 

during the Clinton administration and the fully fledged program 

was enacted during the Bush administration. It has proven to be 

a critical community development tool that transforms some, not 

all, underutilized and potentially contaminated sites into productive and useful environments. The term ‘‘brownfield’’ refers to 

abandoned and underutilized properties where, with expansion or 

redevelopment, it is hampered by either real or perceived environmental contamination. They are not Superfund sites, but are properties that are former gas stations, dry cleaning establishments, 

warehouses, industrial properties and other things as such where 

the potential stigma of contamination was enough to hamper redevelopment. As one can imagine, these types of sites are located in 

almost every community in our country. The brownfield signed in 

2002 represented a needed and unique solution to the challenges 

facing redevelopment on these sites into productive spaces with 

grants as seed money for assessment or cleanup of brownfields, and 

eases legitimate liability concerns of potential developers. 

Benefits are twofold: First, the redevelopment of these brownfield 

sites discourages development of greenfields, which would exacerbate the problem of suburban sprawl. Second, creating new uses for 

these otherwise underutilized sites reinvigorates the tax base and 

generates job growth with sustainable economic development in the 

areas surrounding these sites. The Brownfields Program has been 

very successful because it facilitated the redevelopment of approximately 49,000 acres of land, and created nearly 106,000 jobs. And 

EPA estimates that it has created 7.3 jobs for every $100,000 invested, leveraging over $17 of investment for every Federal dollar 

invested. 

It is a highly effective and productive program. And it is not surprising that the competition for brownfield grants is highly competitive. These results beg the question then: Why are we not investing more in redevelopment of brownfield spaces? Further, if 

this is a success rate of an underfunded program, imagine the potential economic impact and potential for job creation that would 

come from fully funding this program. EPA estimates that over the 

past 5 years, as my colleague has pointed out, funding deficiencies 

have caused 1,767 viable programs to go unfunded. 

This is a backlog of $693.6 million worth of projects. These sites 

are not only sitting idle and unproductive, but are missing out on 

the return of investment that these sites could realize if these proposals had received the funding. And it is estimated the grants 

would have leveraged approximately 50,600 jobs and over $12 billion in public and private financing. 

In my world, I call that a missed opportunity. There is an area 

where the Brownfields Program has yet to achieve its goal. It is my 

impression the program was originally created with two goals in 

mind. First, spurring economic redevelopment of formerly underutilized and potentially contaminated sites; and, secondly, targeted redevelopment of sites located in economically distressed communities in particular, which begs the question, are we then not lookVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:20 May 11, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\7-22-1~1\95581.TXT JEAN
4 

ing at areas where we have more need? In other words, checking 

whether or not they really are in need of this economic development. 

While the program’s success speaks for itself on the first mission, 

I am interested to hear whether or not our witnesses feel as though 

gains are being made on the second mission. Put another way, are 

we doing enough to encourage the redevelopment of brownfield 

sites located in communities throughout the country where the 

market forces may not be as strong? Are there ways to make sure 

the successes of the Brownfields Program can be amplified for 

urban neighborhoods away from city centers or rural or smaller 

communities where redevelopment may need just a little more 

push to get started. 

And I can tell you, Chairman Gibbs, and everybody that might 

be interested, is that there was an EDI and a BEDI [HUD Economic Development Initiative and Brownfield Economic Development Initiative grants] in my background in Santa Fe Springs 

which created 3,000 jobs, 3,000 jobs with the EDI and the BEDI. 

So does it work? Yes, it works. And I think we need to take a 

longer look in how we can spur more funding into this program to 

make it more available where it is most needed. Again, welcome to 

our witnesses. And thank you, Chairman Gibbs, for holding this 

hearing. And I yield back my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. At this time, I want to recognize the 

chairman of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs. I appreciate you 

holding this hearing. I think most people who have been around 

here long know that there aren’t many times that I give great compliments to the EPA. But this is one of those programs that has 

been very beneficial. And I think the EPA has done a good job. But 

we always can do better. When we are dealing with these 

brownfield sites, I know there are hundreds of thousands around 

the country. My home State of Pennsylvania, there are thousands 

and thousands. And we have seen great examples of how you can 

take those brownfield sites and turn them into valuable productive 

pieces of land. As we know, the property values, tax revenues, 

when those are able to be brought back online, things improve in 

the area in general. So we want to continue to view these things 

and work with the EPA. It makes good economic and environmental sense to move forward with these. 

And in 2001, we passed legislation, the Small Business Liability 

Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. That was really the 

starting point for many of these brownfields to be turned back into, 

as I said, productive pieces of land. And, again, we appreciate what 

the EPA has done. I am not going to be here for the second panel 

of witnesses. But Kelley Race spends a lot of time working 

brownfield issues in Pennsylvania. We appreciate you being here 

with your expertise in helping us to move forward. So I thank you 

and all of our witnesses for being here today. I appreciate that. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. I thank the chairman. At this time, I want to welcome our first panel, our witness, the Honorable Mathy Stanislaus, 

5 

Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the U.S. EPA. Welcome. And the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MATHY STANISLAUS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, 

Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the subcommittee. I 

am Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator of the Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. And really, thank you for your recognition of the value and benefit of the program. And we welcome this 

exchange. The brownfield sites are the heart of American’s downtowns and economic centers. And reclaiming these vacant, underutilized properties are a real core to EPA’s community economic revitalization efforts. Our Brownfields Program has been a catalyst 

for redevelopment, revitalization, and really hinges on the success 

of local partners working together to implement the vision of local 

communities. It achieves public health protection by cleaning up 

these properties. It achieves economic development and community 

revitalization. And it addresses social issues like unemployment. 

EPA’s Brownfields Program provides direct funding to communities, States, tribes, and not-for-profits for brownfield assessment, 

cleanup, revolving loans, technical assistance, areawide planning, 

and environmental job training. The Brownfields Program is premised on partnerships between the public and private sector. The 

EPA’s critical early resources provide certainty to leverage funding 

from other Government agencies and the private sector to achieve 

economic, environmental, and social outcomes. 

On average, as recognized earlier, for every dollar EPA invests 

in a community, it leverages about $18 of public and private investment. We think, as a model, that works. The Brownfields Program 

is also a key component of the administration’s effort to advance 

manufacturing in the United States through the investing and 

manufacturing community partnership. It is also a key aspect of 

the administration’s work on advancing sustainable communities in 

partnership with HUD [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development] and DOT [U.S. Department of Transportation]. As 

recognized earlier, the Brownfields Program grantees for fiscal year 

2014 are projected to assess more than 1,300 properties, and clean 

up more than 120 properties, leverage about $1.1 billion in cleanup 

and redevelopment, and create at least 5,000 jobs in communities 

across the country. 

Additionally, EPA’s research has shown that redeveloping a 

brownfield site, rather than a greenfield site, has significant, environmental, and public health benefits, including reducing vehicle 

miles travel, reducing emissions by 32 to 57 percent, and reducing 

stormwater runoff estimated by 47 to 62 percent. It also reduces 

the infrastructure investment necessary to promote economic revitalization. Over many years, the Brownfields Program implementation has taught us that it is a real model for successful projects. 

And it is a real model for maximizing limited Federal dollars to 

really achieve local outcomes. And that occurs, again, through pubVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:20 May 11, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\7-22-1~1\95581.TXT JEAN
6 

lic-private partnerships and leveraging the limited Federal dollars 

to State, local, and private investment. 

The job training program is highly successful. We have a 70-percent hiring rate. It is really targeted in areas of high unemployment. And it is a multiskill, multicertificate program. Over the 

years, we have heard from stakeholders lots of things about the 

Brownfields Program, how it can be improved. One of the issues 

that we have heard is whether we should consider increasing the 

size of the cleanup grants. We actually think that it could have the 

unintended impact of actually reducing the total number of communities that receive grants, and actually, potentially get in the way 

of this good model of leveraging EPA dollars with local and private 

dollars. 

We have also heard some focus on particular kinds of end uses. 

And we actually think that it should be the community to decide 

the end use that works for them and for us to administer a nationally competitive process that looks at the key factors of additional 

resources, strong local partners, and a real plan to really implement that rather than the Federal Government determining what 

uses are best, be it waterfront, manufacturing, or housing kind of 

issues. The Brownfields Program also provides on a noncompetitive 

basis tremendous resources for State and tribal programs to build 

and administer a cleanup program. As you all know, the cleanup 

side of the Brownfields Program is largely administered by States 

and tribes, as really critical resources to States to administer that 

program. 

Now, a critical aspect of what EPA provides is, as technical assistance, is really critical, particularly for communities with limited 

capacity. And we believe that has been really successful in the real 

spread of communities receiving grants. So in the last grant cycle, 

56 percent of communities under 100,000 population receive our 

grants. And 24 percent of communities under 10,000 receive our 

grants. With that, I will close. I am out of time. I look forward to 

your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I will lead off here. First of all, I like your 

comment about the communities deciding what the end use is going 

to be. That is better, I always believe they know what is best in 

their local communities. So I am glad to see the U.S. EPA recognizes that. I am curious, approximately how many applications 

each year do you get? And how do you make the decisions which 

sites get it? And has it become more competitive? Is it a competitive process? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I can get you the specific numbers over the 

years. But in terms of how many we actually award, about a third 

of the applicants that we award every year. And how we make determinations, it is a national competition based on criteria that we 

establish the basic elements of a project, how far in advance the 

project is, what kind of leveraging other resources. Because ultimately we want to make sure that these projects are successful. 

Mr. GIBBS. And, I think, to go along with that, if you can get us 

the information later on. But how many brownfield sites since the 

program has been in use have been cleaned up and put in new use? 

And of that, how many was the U.S. EPA involved in versus the 

States doing it all, you know, how that works? 

7 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. We can provide information regarding 

where EPA has invested in projects, as well as through States and 

State resources where States have invested in cleanups. 

Mr. GIBBS. I am curious about administrative costs. This program, how does it compare to other programs within the EPA for 

administrative costs? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. The comparison to other programs, I don’t have 

that in front of me. Again, I can get that to you. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Do you expect it is higher or lower? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I think it is a model program. I think it is a 

lean program. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yesterday, the EPA’s inspector general released findings that some sites which had been cleared by the EPA, regions 

4 and 6, for redevelopment may still contain levels of toxic substances above public health standards. Can you please explain how 

your office plans to handle this report? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. I need to take a look at the details of that 

report. But cleanups, in any redevelopment of a site, in some cases, 

may require a complete cleanup of contaminants. Some places 

leave the contaminants in place with effective engineering and institutional controls. A lot of that is administered through the State 

programs. So we will look at the details of that report. We completely are in support of, we want to make sure these cleanups are 

protected, while also advancing redevelopment. 

Mr. GIBBS. Personally, I didn’t see the report, but I know that 

the two regions, that they cleared it for redevelopment. And, obviously, according to the IG [inspector general] anyway, there are 

toxic substances still there. So that is something we really need to 

address to make sure that our processes and our end processes are 

adequate so we don’t have problems down the road, especially for 

a new owner. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. There are many successful projects where contaminants continue to be in the ground, but it is still protective. 

And if you have effective engineering mechanisms, effective legal 

mechanisms, it can still be protective while the contaminants are 

left in place. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. One thing I know that was in the original authorization is a 25-percent set-aside for petroleum, i.e., abandoned 

gas tanks. And I think through this, you know, over the years, it 

used to be, if you were in an urban area, it seemed like almost 

every intersection, on three of the four corners there would be a 

gas station. Now, that is not the case anymore. So we have gone 

through a lot of cleanup. The 25-percent set-aside, is that still 

needed, or is that causing problems for you when you only have so 

many dollars to work with? But if you have to allocate 25 percent 

to an earmark, essentially, I am assuming we have made a lot of 

progress, the program is working, that should be a declining setaside percentage. What are your thoughts on that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Actually, we have suggested elimination of that 

provision. Because I think the administration of that provision 

really requires upfront dividing—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Wait. Did you say you suggested eliminating the 25 

percent? 

8 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That provision, that 25-percent provision. Because what that does is it, in a sense, requires us to set aside 25 

percent. And what we prefer is a consistent national competition 

among all sites, and all sites should compete in the same way, 

whether it is petroleum or hazardous substances and all the other 

elements. 

Mr. GIBBS. I agree. The reason we are having this hearing today 

is see what we need to do to make this program better. Briefly 

here, do you have any other ideas or suggestions where you see, 

if we are looking at a reauthorization bill, that we should be—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, a couple—administrative costs have clearly been raised. Particularly by smaller applicants, it continues to 

be a burden. And the current legal prohibition of administrative 

costs, I think, has been raised by grantees to us. Extending the 

not-for-profit eligibility for also assessments. Not-for-profits play a 

real strong role with local governments, like the housing organizations. And so right now, they are ineligible. Those are the things 

that immediately come to mind. But we can provide broader technical assistance to you. 

Mr. GIBBS. I am out of time. I do have one question I do want 

to get to before I move on. The small business liability protection, 

liability protection in general, how do you see that? Has that been 

working well? Or are there problems we should be addressing with 

that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, yes, I think the law does provide the acquisition, be it voluntary, involuntary, and the kind of due diligence. I know that looking at the testimony of the National League 

of Cities, there, potentially, is either a concern about a perception 

or reality in terms of how do we make sure we protect from liability. We have done a lot of things in this way. For example, we have 

heard from lessees, particularly, a number of projects rely on lease 

arrangements, not fee simple arrangements. So we issued a guidance to make clear that a lessee would fall into the same shoes as 

an owner. But I think there is more, we want to engage more with, 

be it the National League of Cities or other kind of local mayors 

and communities on this issue. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Next, to Mrs. Napolitano for any questions you may have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. Administrator Stanislaus, on 

the topic of liability, there are some that would claim that local 

governments are left unprotected by CERCLA’s [Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980] 

liabilities defenses and exemptions due to how they acquire the 

site. Even properties acquired through tax delinquency may not be 

exempt if local government took voluntary steps in a tax delinquency process. However, has EPA taken action to address this 

over the years, or have you come up with some remedy for this? 

And if so, what specifically has been taken? What actions has EPA 

taken to ensure that these procedures, protections, rather, do not 

have the chilling effect on some of the groups they warn of? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. We have taken the liability protections set forth 

in the brownfield law, and provided for the guidance of that and 

provide clarity, that a municipality can acquire, either voluntarily 

or involuntarily, as long as they do certain kinds of due diligence 

9 

actions. We also understand that there may be a need for more to 

provide that certainty. Because none of us want properties to be 

lying idle, even for the perception of liability. So we welcome further engagement with you all, as well as communities around the 

country of what more we can do to, one, better communicate how 

they can protect themselves from liability, but if there is more that 

we can do. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Sir, do you communicate that with either the 

Conference of Mayors or the Governors associations so that they 

understand that this is something you have been addressing, and 

somehow, some of the smaller communities that have no way of 

being able to further look into the issue may be able to garner information to help themselves? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Absolutely. In fact, in September, I invited all 

the members to attend, we are having a brownfields conference. 

And one of the things that a number of communities around the 

country are going to explain how they manage liability, how they 

have been able to underwrite projects—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is this going to be live-streamed? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I don’t know. I will check on that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We need to be able to get all this information. 

See, everybody thinks that local governments know what is happening here or what the Agency’s rules may have now encompassed 

into helping them. But if we don’t get that information to them, we 

are not able then to get enough information from them how we can 

help develop the brownfields into productive land. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I look forward to working with you on that, 

sir. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Then, one witness who will be testifying in 

our second panel indicates we must refocus our efforts in the hope 

of the successful brownfields redevelopment, what it does to broadbased economic opportunity and community revitalization, especially those in the bottom of our economic strata, in other words, 

our poorer areas. So what is EPA doing to ensure that these underserved communities receive their fair share? Not only that if they 

are not successful in the first round, and they should be able to reapply, do you tell them how to better their ability to be successful 

in the second round? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. We put in place a broad technical assistance program for that reason. Because we have heard from smaller 

communities, distressed communities, the issue of how to best put 

together an application. So we do direct outreach. But we are prevented—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How direct, sir? How direct? Because, again, 

I go back to being able to ensure that they have the ability to know 

where to find that information, whether it is through some of their 

organizations, the county governments, et cetera. That is the issue 

I am trying to get across is getting more openness to this process. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Everything from engaging, be it the National 

League of Cities or the Conference of Mayors and local community 

groups, but we also, through our technical assistance, provide and 

conduct workshops around the country. And we also, in some of our 

10 

contract vehicles, enable direct assistance to actually prepare applications. We can provide that direct assistance by providing grants 

to others to help them. So we think that is going a long way of 

dealing with this issue. But we hear from a lot of small towns that 

from budget constraints, that they may not have staff on board to 

really follow these opportunities. So we completely agree that we 

need to really invest in that technical assistance for smaller communities. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Again, sir, I would love to be able to ensure 

that we able to put this in the hands of everybody that would want 

to patch in, if you will, to any of the online discussion. Then the 

other area was, and I think you just touched on that, that there 

are areas where DOT helps out in the Brownfields Program and 

some other agencies. Is there a way to be able to get that information to us and to—well, we can disseminate to our areas, but we 

need to know who the other partners are besides the local government, your county government, and your private parties. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. Sure. I will get that to you. I will give you 

one example of working with DOT. We have something called the 

Areawide Planning Program, which really was a tool designed for 

communities that have broad economic distress, to be able to conduct infrastructure studies, market studies, and planning studies. 

Based on that, DOT has built within its program some preferential 

points for communities who have done that local planning effort. 

That is one of the areas that we are collaborating with DOT. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Great. That would be something I would love 

to see. And I hope that you can get a copy to this subcommittee. 

Thank you, sir. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Rokita. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chair. Good morning, Mr. Stanislaus. I 

appreciate your presentation. I mostly now represent a suburban 

and rural district with some cities in it. This is really my first exposure to brownfields, not only since being on the committee, but 

since being in Congress. I didn’t have much experience when I was 

secretary of state with brownfields. So bear with me. But it seems 

like the myth is that brownfields are an urban situation. Are there 

situations where brownfields exist in rural areas or suburban 

areas? What might that look like for me? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Absolutely. It is one of the reasons, I am trying 

to remember the statistics, about 56 percent of communities less 

than 100,000, and 24 percent less than 10,000, so in smaller rural 

communities, it could be the former ag processing facility, it could 

be a former petroleum-related facility. In some cases, it could be 

that former, one big manufacturing facility that that community 

was built around. So it kind of runs the gamut of the prior uses. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. Got it. Thank you. Regarding non-owners that 

might be occupying the land that was a brownfield or is a 

brownfield: Is there a Superfund liability of some sort, and does 

that liability extend to tenants or other non-owners? How does that 

work? How do we ensure that the non-owners are secured or protected from liability? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. If you are asking in a scenario of an existing 

contaminated site and a lessee wanted to redevelop the site and 

not have liability? 

11 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. We have actually issued guidelines to make 

clear that the lessee will be protected from liability as long as they 

follow the same steps as an owner would in terms of due diligence. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. Then the flip side of that question: How do you 

protect against exposure risk to tenants? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. From the contaminants themselves? 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, yes, the program is built on, EPA administers the grant program. But the cleanup side is almost exclusively 

administered by State cleanup programs which are very effective. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. Now, if I understand this right, we have 

brownfield assessments. Your data suggests that the assessments 

of brownfields find little or no contamination when the assessment 

is done. Do you agree or disagree with that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. No, I think the universe, a certain segment, as 

was noted earlier, of brownfields are abandoned, underutilized, either because there is real contamination or a perception of contamination, because it could have a former use. So when you go 

into a site, you may discover that actually you don’t have contaminants on the site. You can move forward on redevelopment. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. In other cases, you identify, yes, there is some 

contamination. And then you develop—— 

Mr. ROKITA. What is the percentage breakdown? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I can get that to you. It may be in my testimony. But I will get that to you. I don’t have that available. 

Mr. ROKITA. Let’s assume it is not in your testimony. If it is not, 

can you get it to me in 2 weeks? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. No problem. 

Mr. ROKITA. Is that fair enough? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Two weeks? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. No problem. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. So should we be funding the assessment side 

of things, assuming a good number of these assessments find no 

contaminations? I am looking for certainty and increasing property 

values. If we are finding that a lot of these assessments, and I 

don’t know the percentage but we are going to find out, find no contamination, maybe we need to change the definition of brownfield. 

Is the brownfield definition too strict? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Really, I view the assessment as a key component of a financial transaction. What assessments would do, whether you find contamination or you don’t, really enables the financial 

underwriting of a project. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So having done underwriting before I got here, 

you know, does a site have contamination, then you can immediately go to underwriting. If it has contamination, how do you wall 

off and then estimate that cleanup of contamination. And then you 

can build it into project financing. So it is a real critical component 

of addressing uncertainty to enable projects to move forward. 

Mr. ROKITA. If that is the case, regardless of what percentage of 

assessments we find with no contamination, should we front-load? 

12 

I am not saying new funding or new money, but should we take 

some of your funding and use more of it for assessments? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, you know, over the years, in working with 

stakeholders, we think we have struck a balance between the right 

proportion of assessments and the cleanup grants. It is kind of 

driven by how many applicants we get for the assessment. It is 

kind of driven by need, given our fixed resources and how we break 

it up between assessment and cleanup. 

Mr. ROKITA. Great. I see I am out of time, Chairman. But I just 

want to say for the record that you, indeed, put it in your testimony, and 20 percent of the properties assessed show little or no 

contamination. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is right. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Esty. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s important hearing. Thank you, Ranking Member Napolitano. And thank 

you, Administrator Stanislaus, for joining us again today. It is 

great to see you. This is a really important issue. I represent central and northwest Connecticut, which is full of brownfield sites, a 

few Superfund, but, frankly, a lot of brownfield sites. So this is of 

critical importance to us to both preserve open spaces, which I am 

glad you mentioned, as well as ensuring we get these properties 

back into productive play for our communities. 

It is an important part of revitalizing. So I want to give you two 

examples of how importance this is. We have—Naugatuck Valley 

Community College received a grant for one of the training programs. It had tremendous success, have trained a lot of young, and 

not as young, people to enter into the workforce and are helping 

to clean up sites. And this is a vitally important part of the program, and I am glad you flagged that. 

My city of Meriden just recently won a $200,000 award, again, 

to do assessment. And it is going to be part of an important downtown revitalization. And I want to also salute you for mentioning 

the critical importance of this to the administration’s and, frankly, 

the country’s commitment to manufacturing. Many of our communities in the Northeast, as well as the Midwest, as well as Ohio, 

Indiana, are full of former brownfield sites. And it is vitally important if we are going to reinvigorate the manufacturing sector to 

take seriously our commitment to these communities that helped 

drive the last century’s economic development. 

We need to look, I think, at the nonprofit sector. You mentioned 

that in passing. And I would like to explore that a little bit more 

with you. For example, in my largest city of Waterbury, there is 

a nonprofit called Brass City Harvest. They want to address the 

nutritional needs of the community, help put people to work, and, 

frankly, help teach STEM [science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics] education to young people. It is a wonderful program. 

But as a nonprofit, they are not eligible for some of these programs. Can you talk a little bit about what the Agency is looking 

at in this, how important they think that might be? Thank you. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. We have heard from numerous not-for-profits, 

those that would like to get, particularly this is applicable to assessment grants, they are currently ineligible. So everything from 

13 

housing developers that are the extension of local government to 

construct affordable housing, to various kinds of manufacturing, 

not-for-profits locally, they would like these assessment grants to 

really, again, extend the arm of local government. I think it was 

an inadvertent division between cleanup and assessment. So you 

have not-for-profits eligible for cleanup, but they don’t have the 

ability to get the upfront assessment resources to identify sites, 

whether they are or are not contaminated. 

Ms. ESTY. And I can tell you our nonprofits have a great deal of 

trouble coming up with the funds as it is. So to come up with the 

funds for an assessment to even determine whether this is feasible 

is a real barrier. It may not seem like a lot of money. But to them 

it is. Is this an area where you believe Congress, congressional action would facilitate or, frankly, be necessary in order for the Agency to include nonprofits? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. Again, as we have heard from the stakeholders, because the statute prohibits not-for-profits from being eligible, it would require congressional action. 

Ms. ESTY. Next, I wanted to follow up on your remarks a little 

bit. We know there is a Senate proposal out there that cordons off 

some areas of funding and sets them aside. Could you talk a little 

bit more about whether you think that is a good route, are there 

unintended consequences that could come from an understandable 

and laudable attempt to ensure that certain areas get more attention? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. Again, I think that it should be up to the 

community at the right time to determine end uses. A lot of times, 

viable end uses really come in the middle of that process. Once you 

have done assessment, you can quantify the cost of cleanup, you 

can figure out what is financially viable at that site, among a suite 

of uses. So if we divide the pot upfront, essentially you are putting 

the Federal Government in the position of judging an end use, 

which we don’t believe is the right place for the Federal Government. 

Rather, we would rather have—let’s just look at is the applicant 

competent? Have they demonstrated competency? Have they demonstrated partnership? Additional leveraging resources, will the 

end, ultimate shared end result of making a project happen, whatever those end uses may be that the community selects. 

Ms. ESTY. And if I may, it ties into, you mentioned in your written testimony about multipurpose grants. Could you tell us a little 

bit more about what you discovered on that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. This really emerged from comments that 

we received from communities, the opportunities to possibly look at 

both assessment and cleanup grants together. We think that we 

want to continue to pursue that. We have authority, existing authority to do that. We are still looking at what is the best fit of 

mixing a number of uses in one grant. I think what we are trying 

to do is balance flexibility for the applicant versus if you have 

money that is laid out for extended periods of time, then it may not 

be the best use of money. 

So we are trying to figure out giving flexibility for multipurposes, 

but making sure it is structured in a way that is accountable as 

well. 

14 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you. And I see my time has expired. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Katko. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you very much. I am from Syracuse, New 

York. That is my district. And we have had a tremendous amount 

of experience with brownfields and Superfund sites. As a matter of 

fact, Onondaga Lake, which is adjacent to the city of Syracuse, is, 

perhaps, one of the largest Superfund sites in the country. And it 

is reprehensible what previous industry did to the lake. But now, 

we are enjoying a renaissance of that lake that is truly amazing. 

So I really believe in environmental revitalization with the help of 

Government when it is appropriate. 

Along the lake, in addition to what is going on with the lake 

itself, the property along the eastern shore of the lake has enjoyed 

some renaissance as well. One site where there was a very large 

metal scrapyard with all kinds of contaminants has now become 

one of the largest malls in the United States, a very successful mall 

that employs 4,000 people. So the program does work when properly applied. But that being said, I want to throw a little fact pattern at you so I can properly understand your portion of the 

brownfield revitalization. 

There is a company that just up and pulled out of Syracuse, Roth 

Steel, that operated on the shores of Onondaga Lake for over 80 

years, I believe. And they went bankrupt. They are gone. And they 

left behind a scrapyard that probably has a stunningly high 

amount of PCB [polychlorinated biphenyl] contaminants in the 

soils. Now, this property is on the shore of Onondaga Lake, the 

shore of a Superfund site. And now local authorities are now trying 

to figure out what the heck to do with this place. 

One of the problems is the unbelievable contamination. A good 

citizen and a good member of our community bought the property 

not knowing how badly it was contaminated and promptly had to 

get rid of it because he realized he couldn’t do anything with it. 

And so another steel manufacturer, a steel company, scrapyard 

bought it. But I am not sure that is going to work. There is some 

contemplation about taking the property by the county. 

So with that fact pattern, that being adjacent to a brownfield 

site, on the shores of it, there is some concern of possible leakage 

into the lake. And after all the hundreds of millions of dollars that 

have been spent by industry, and by the Government to clean up 

that lake and to fix it, we now have this problem. The company is 

gone. So I don’t know what liability there is going to be to that 

company. It is bankrupt. But what can we do with your program 

for this site, assuming that the county takes it over? And maybe 

look at both sides, whether the county takes it over and whether 

it doesn’t, whether somebody else takes it over. What is available 

to make this site, and stop it from leaking into the lake, and poisoning what is becoming a great place. And I will note today, I just 

looked online, a bunch of local leaders, to prove the lake is good, 

all went swimming in it today. We don’t want to have to have them 

go swimming in PCBs. So what can we do? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I would break my answer to a short-term addressing the risk that you identified and a long-term cleanup and 

redevelopment. So separate from the Brownfields Program, and you 

15 

have the Superfund program, and so we have resources, if there is 

imminent risk, we can conduct what is called a removal action to 

deal with imminent risk. So if there is ongoing migration of PCBs, 

give me the information and we will work with our regional office 

on that. 

Mr. KATKO. It is Roth Steel on Hiawatha Boulevard in Syracuse. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK. So assuming that we have dealt with the 

imminent risk issue, then the longer term strategy is to really figure out what is the extent of contamination, how can we quantify 

the cleanup, and what are the redevelopment uses. That is going 

to drive what cleanups and, obviously, the redevelopment. So we 

have site assessment grants that the county or the municipality 

can access. We also have in certain—it is really designed for individual sites, mostly for communities that have struggled to participate in the grant competition, we have a contract base assistance 

for going in and actually conducting assessments on sites. So we 

have a set of tools that are potentially available. 

Mr. KATKO. How quickly, if you believe there is an imminent 

risk, how quickly can we get that moving? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I mean, I will connect with my staff and 

connect with the regional office. And if I can get a point of contact, 

we need to figure out is there an imminent risk and then the action 

necessary. But we could do that in a relatively short time period. 

I am not sure exactly that time period. But we can initiate the examination of that relatively soon. 

Mr. KATKO. Great. I will make sure my office contacts yours. And 

we can get that moving. I appreciate it. These are the types of 

things that communities like Syracuse, New York, that are recovering from the mass exodus of manufacturing over the last 20 

years, revitalizing those neighborhoods and revitalizing those 

areas. I agree with my colleague, Ms. Esty, we absolutely have to 

get manufacturing back in New York State and the Northeast. And 

I believe we can do that. But in the meantime, we have got to take 

care of the sites that some manufacturers and businesses left a 

mess. Whether there is liability to those companies on road I think 

is a separate issue. We have got to get these places cleaned up. 

And we can’t ruin what is becoming a gem for central New York 

and Onondaga Lake. So thank you very much. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Huffman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, thanks 

for your testimony, Mr. Stanislaus. I have seen the value of this 

Brownfields Program in my district in the North Coast of California. Among many examples, I have an Indian tribe in a very 

rural part of the far northern end of my district, the Elk Valley 

Rancheria, they have used Brownfields Program funding to redevelop a couple of abandoned motels that were highly contaminated 

with asbestos. And they are turning those into really important 

economic development projects. So thank you for that. An even better example is in another rural part of my district, Humboldt County, where at the height of the timber industry, there was a pulp 

mill on a spit of land called Samoa, with the pristine Pacific Ocean 

on one side, and the pristine Humboldt Bay on the other side. It 

was abandoned. The Chinese company that came to own it at one 

16 

point basically walked away from it, leaving all sorts of toxic 

chemicals in place and leaking tanks. 

And we discovered that millions of gallons of highly toxic pulping 

liquors were leaking right as we went into the Government shutdown a couple of years ago. And I really want to thank your agency, because that would seem like the worst possible time for a 

Member of Congress to have a crisis like that, right in the tsunami 

zone, could have been one of the worst toxic incidents in the country if something had gone wrong. And EPA leapt into action with 

other local government partners and we got that site cleaned up, 

despite the shutdown that definitely complicated that effort. So you 

are doing terrific work. And I am very grateful to your program 

and your agency. 

I wanted to ask you about a problem, a very vexing problem in 

my district and throughout the West and that is trespass marijuana grows. These are illegal activities that are happening more 

and more on public lands. I have seen these sites in wilderness 

areas. And the level of pollution and environmental destruction is 

quite significant with rodenticides and highly concentrated fertilizers and just about every terrible practice you can imagine in 

very sensitive, pristine areas. 

We can interdict and shut down these sites. But we don’t have 

funding in most cases to actually clean them up. And so I wanted 

to ask you if you had given any thought about that, about how 

folks who are affected by this on public lands throughout the West 

may be able to work with EPA and the Superfund program. Congress did definitely highlight controlled substances as a source of 

pollution for this program. But I wanted to hear your thoughts. 

And also, whether there are steps that communities like the ones 

I represent should be taking to better access those funds? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I have not thought about this marijuana problem. There have been other situations where drug production has 

resulted in contamination. In some cases, we have used the Superfund program to go in and conduct cleanup. In other cases, we provided resources to communities to conduct site assessment or cleanup. And we could follow up. We have also worked with law enforcement where there is some opportunity in the proceeds from an enforcement action that they may take to bring that back into local 

communities. But we can talk more. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I would love to work with you more on that. And 

then my second, and probably last question involves the California 

drought. And you know that we are in the fourth year of a critical 

drought. We have entire communities in southern California that 

have lost wells and lost drinking water supplies because of contamination from perchlorate or, in some cases, nitrates and other 

pollutants. The Superfund program has provided some benefits, the 

Brownfields Program as well. 

But I often hear from stakeholders that cleaning up contaminated aquifers, getting them back into the drinking water supply 

is sometimes an afterthought. And with this critical drought forcing us to value every possible source of potable water that could 

be brought online and be part of the solution to get us through it, 

I wonder if you have any thoughts on how your program might be 

17 

better leveraged to stretch our drinking water supplies in places 

like that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. It is really more the Superfund program rather 

than the Brownfields Program. And we fundamentally believe that 

we should protect and restore drinking water sources. I don’t think 

at all that it is an afterthought. Although cleaning up aquifers are 

very tough and takes a longer period of time, it is just the technical 

nature of cleaning up groundwater aquifers. On the brownfield 

side, there are opportunities to prevent contamination of groundwater. One of the things we have done is try to link up things like 

green infrastructure, things like preventative measures to prevent 

further contamination as part of the footprint of a new project. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Nolan. 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Stanislaus, for being here and all the important good work that you 

do. As some of the other members have indicated, we often see, you 

know, the benefits of a particular program at a specific level, hopefully, within our own districts. And then we try to draw some larger conclusions from that. We have had several projects in Duluth, 

Minnesota, which is in my district, Canal Park Brewing site, and 

the Clyde Iron Works, both of which were funded by the 

Brownfields Program. But they ended up stimulating and 

leveraging State investment, city investment, private, for-profit investment, nonprofit investment, creating businesses and restaurants and retail and recreational facilities, hockey rinks, which 

are a big deal up in our area. 

My grandkids happen to play frequently at the Clyde Iron Works 

Hockey Arena. And they really create a lot of good jobs, a lot of 

good business activities, help to revitalize important neighborhoods. My point in bringing all that up is that clearly, in our case, 

the brownfield investments by the Federal Government have stimulated a tremendous amount of additional investment that has 

been so important for the development of those communities and 

the businesses and the jobs that flow from that. 

My question is twofold. One is, have you attempted to quantify 

the amount of investment that flows from a brownfield investment, 

the investment made by the other entities that I just cited? And 

if so, you know, what is that amount? And then, secondly, how 

many worthy brownfield projects have you had to look at and reject 

for lack of funding? Those would be my two questions. Thank you. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. So of the applicants, over the past 5 

years, a little over 1,700 viable projects that we scored highly but 

were not selected because of limited funding. Again, these are highly qualified projects that if we had funding we think would result 

in a lot of the outcomes that you are talking about. 

In terms of quantifying the additional investment, our 1-for-18 

ratio, for every $1 we invest, $18 is other investment, is information that we have collected from the applicants based on reporting 

to us, based on the various kinds of mix of funding. We also have 

done studies about real estate values adjacent to these properties. 

And it was cited earlier, we see real estate values increasing, I 

think, in the range of about 10 percent or so. We are also conducting a study of local tax revenue from the site and associated 

18 

sites. So there is a stimulative effect as you noted. It is not just 

the project itself, but the stimulative effect of that anchor project 

which then attracts other kinds of investments. We are in the 

midst of quantifying that as well. 

Mr. NOLAN. OK. Thank you. That is important. And it continues 

to have an even ongoing effect. Once you clean up a site and you 

stimulate all that investment around it, why, it remains forever an 

inducement to other business activities to gravitate toward that 

site. So I applaud you for the good job you are doing administering 

that program. And I look forward to working with you and my colleagues here to see what we can do to expand the tremendous benefits that flow from this program, both in terms of cleaning up our 

environment and the messes we have made in the past, and then 

moving us forward with good jobs, good communities, good neighborhoods and community development activities. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. That concludes all our questions. I do have a request. 

It is a simple request really. I know my ranking member is going 

to ask some more questions in writing to you, and any response, 

give back to the full committee, so we will keep it so everybody 

knows what is going on and gets what they requested. 

I appreciate that and I appreciate you coming in today, and you 

are excused, and we will bring up panel number two. 

While panel number two is coming up, I do want to recognize a 

young gentleman who is going to be leaving the committee. Tracy 

Zea, hold your hand up. He’s been here, in his tenure he has 

worked with the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. He’s been a great asset to the subcommittee and the full 

committee. I personally want to wish him well in new endeavors. 

Am I allowed to say who it is? Waterways Council. I am sure we 

will have a lot of interaction in the future and input, but I wish 

him well in his new endeavors and new challenges as he grows in 

his professional career. 

So, Tracy, thank you very much for all you have done here for 

us, thank you. 

Take a moment here for our panelists to get situated. We are 

ready. I want to thank you all for being here and taking time out 

of your busy schedules to come here and talk about something I 

know is near and dear to your heart, and it is important. 

Our first witness is Ms. Cindy Hafner. She is the chief legal 

counsel of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency out of Columbus. 

Welcome, Ms. Hafner, the floor is yours. 

19 

TESTIMONY OF CYNTHIA A. HAFNER, CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL, 

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; HON. J. 

CHRISTIAN BOLLWAGE, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, 

NEW JERSEY, ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF 

MAYORS; KELLEY C. RACE, P.G., L.S.P., BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM MANAGER, TRC COMPANIES, INC.; PAUL GRUBER, P.G., 

ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GROUND WATER ASSOCIATION; AND VERNICE MILLER-TRAVIS, VICE CHAIR, MARYLAND COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES, AND MEMBER, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL TO U.S. EPA 

Ms. HAFNER. Chairman Gibbs and members of the subcommittee, 

I really appreciate you inviting me here today to talk about Ohio’s 

successful Brownfields Program. I am Cindy Hafner, and I am chief 

legal counsel for the Ohio EPA. 

Today I want to talk a little bit about our voluntary cleanup program that was designed to clean up brownfields. I will tell you a 

little bit about how we use the Superfund grants for brownfields 

in Ohio and about the State funding that we use for brownfields 

in Ohio. 

In 1994, the Ohio General Assembly and Governor George 

Voinovich passed a law that created a voluntary cleanup program. 

It was designed to address the universe of contaminated sites that 

weren’t being addressed by the Superfund program or the State’s 

involuntary cleanup program. 

We have a rich industrial history in Ohio, and that resulted in 

thousands and thousands of these brownfield sites that were sitting 

idle, contaminated, and underused. So this program was designed 

to help those sites get cleaned up. 

The voluntary cleanup program authorized anyone to clean up a 

dirty site and receive a legal release in exchange for it. Three key 

components of the program are rules describing clear processes in 

cleanup standards that are protective and based on the plan’s land 

use; reliance on certified consultants and laboratories to oversee 

the cleanup in partnership with Ohio EPA, while Ohio EPA focused 

its oversight on developing the cleanup standards in auditing 

cleanups after they were completed; creation of incentives in the 

form of tax abatements and, at the time, low-interest loans. 

Today volunteers have used this program to clean up and request 

a legal release at 484 properties, covering more than 9,251 acres. 

Those, however, are just the tip of cleanups in Ohio, and there is 

an iceberg of cleanup effects that is underneath it. The program 

was designed intentionally so that users did not have to request a 

legal release if it was not necessary for the redevelopment project. 

Certified consultants tell us that for every one project that they 

work on that seeks a legal release, there are five times as many 

they are working on where no legal release is sought, but the 

cleanup standards for the program are used for the private property transaction. 

While the statute’s policy maximizes privatization and flexibility, 

it can sometimes create a misperception that only those 484 cleanup projects are a result of our cleanup program. In actuality, a 

more accurate number is probably about 2,500 cleanup projects 

have resulted from the program. 

20 

As the program matured, stakeholders asked for additional liability relief. In 2001, Ohio EPA finalized a Superfund memorandum 

of agreement with U.S. EPA, providing additional assurance to 

Ohio’s volunteers that EPA was satisfied with our program and 

that they would not ask for additional cleanup for projects that are 

cleaned up in our program. 

Additionally, the State’s statute was amended several times to 

expand eligibility of the program so more different kinds of sites 

could use the program to limit the liability. 

In late 1990, CERCLA was amended to provide Federal funding, 

and Ohio uses this funding in four ways. First, we provide services 

free of charge to local governments. Since 2002, Ohio EPA has assisted 104 communities in 57 counties by completing 81 phase I assessments; 23 certified asbestos inspections; and 86 phase II sampling events. 

We also provide regional workshops for local economic development officials and provide them information about all the financial 

tools that are available to local governments. We also perform 

training for our certified environmental consultants, where we inform them of changes in the program and seek their input on improvements to the program. 

Finally, we provide free technical assistance to 60 to 80 communities each year conducting brownfield cleanups. This is a very popular tool, especially for our small and medium-sized communities. 

We used CERCLA 104(k) brownfield revitalization for our local 

governments. This has been available since 2002. There have been 

128 awards settling approximately $55.4 million, and this is very 

essential to our local communities to revitalize their urban cores. 

They use it for planning, assessments, and cleanup of brownfields. 

Our State funding programs for brownfields started in the early 2000s. Since then, the State has provided $417 million to assess or 

clean up 409 brownfield projects. This has leveraged nearly $4 billion in private investments. Ohio’s economic development partner 

Jobs-Ohio provides $45 million per year for assessment or cleanup 

where the projects create or retain jobs. Ohio EPA has also invested nearly $500,000 of our own budget to perform phase I for 

local communities. This fills a gap because those are projects that 

aren’t eligible for other Federal funding. 

Ohio has benefited greatly from the funding available for both 

CERCLA and State law. Thank you for the funding that you have 

given to U.S. EPA to pass along to us. As Ohio’s economy continues 

to grow today, new businesses are still interested in locating in 

brownfields. Ohio’s cleanup program, State funding, and Federal 

funding are keystones to the economic growth and revitalization of 

Ohio. 

Thanks, again, for inviting me here to extol the virtues of our 

cleanup programs in Ohio, and I will answer any questions later. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Our next witness is the Honorable Christian Bollwage, he is the 

mayor of the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey. 

The floor is yours. 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for holding this most important hearing. I 

have been the mayor since 1993. I have testified here in Congress 

21 

both before Senate and congressional committees on brownfields in 

1994 to 2001 when President George Bush signed the brownfield 

legislation in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Chairman, brownfields legislation has made it really possible 

for the private sector to work with municipal governments and invest in our cities. We all know the history of brownfield legislation, 

and it is part of my testimony, but I am not going to go through 

that. I would just like to highlight one in Elizabeth and then talk 

about some things where the mayors of this country think we can 

make the legislation a little bit better. 

The Jersey Gardens Mall in our city was built on a former 166- 

acre landfill. This partnership between the county, and the State, 

and the Federal level of the Government all started with a 

brownfield assessment grant in the 1990s. The conversion of this 

former eyesore into a shopping center had numerous positive effects, up to 5,000 jobs, not only the people who work there but construction jobs; took a health hazard away from our city; continues 

to flourish with business up 10 percent; visits are up 37 percent. 

The Jersey Gardens is adjacent to Newark airport. It has now been 

renamed The Mills and recently announced a 411,000-square-foot 

expansion on top of the existing 2 million square feet that is there. 

We work with Union County College. We have a retail skill center, 

a workforce investment center, provides job placement, soft skill 

training. We work with We Are One New Jersey, an initiative 

spearheaded by the county of Union. It also has a 4.8-megawatt 

sun-powered rooftop solar system, which is among the largest rooftop systems in North America. That broke ground in 2011, and it 

started producing power in February of 2012. 

Some ways that the mayors and the U.S. Conference of Mayors 

think we can improve this program because it has such a proven 

track record. The GAO has mentioned that there are 400,000 to 

600,000 brownfield sites throughout the U.S. The one Member 

asked a question about the rural areas. The U.S. Conference of 

Mayors did a study years ago that shows there is at least 10 

brownfield sites in every congressional district throughout this entire Nation. We would suggest that there is full funding of the 

Brownfields Program, that the EPA only funds, as the Assistant 

Administrator said, about 30 percent of the applications. We would 

ask that the previously authorized levels of $250 million is fully 

funded, but we also ask that this committee address higher funding 

levels. We recognize budgets are tight. 

Creation of the multipurpose grant, the Assistant Administrator 

also spoke of that. Many cities could use the ability to assess a 

number of properties and provide cleanup grants and loans depending on which sites are chosen for redevelopment. It hinders the opportunity if a city has to apply for a grant, wait 6 months to see 

if they will get funding. The developer, the partner, could walk 

away in that period of time. The Conference of Mayors would like 

to see the establishment of this type of grant, and especially municipalities who have a proven track record of fully utilizing their 

brownfield money. 

Increase the cleanup grant amounts: Many of the easy brownfield 

sites have been developed, especially in our city. We developed 

some gas stations that may have been easy to develop. The 

22 

brownfields economic development that occurred at the mall, just 

south of Newark airport, was something in retrospect that the joint 

effort, financially, but there was a market for it. So now we have 

the tougher ones. We would like to see an increase in the funding 

ceiling of the cleanup grants to be $1 million and, in some circumstances, to be $2 million. This could give additional resources 

to conduct cleanup at more contaminated sites and bring those 

properties back to productive use. 

Allow some reasonable administrative costs: Should be allowed to 

use a small portion of the grant to cover reasonable administrative 

costs. 

Clarify the eligibility of publicly owned sites acquired before 

2002: We believe that as long as local governments do not cause 

or contribute to the contamination of the property but just happened to own the property before the law was enacted, they should 

be allowed to apply for EPA funding for that property. 

It took Congress 9 years to pass the original law, Mr. Chairman. 

I know; I testified here for 9 years, so I know how long it took. It 

has been an extremely productive piece of legislation. We can work 

together to remove barriers to the local and State governments by 

addressing some of the mothball sites to the CERCLA liability that 

the earlier speaker just highlighted how it worked in her State. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the subcommittee for having me testify. I have submitted written testimony and will be available to answer questions. 

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you for your input and all your time before the 

committee. This program is making it work. 

Our next witness is Ms. Kelley Race. She is the Brownfields Program manager for TRC Companies. Welcome. 

Ms. RACE. Good morning, Congressman Gibbs and honorable 

members of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify about this very important program. 

As you mentioned, I am a Brownfields Program manager. I have 

25-plus years of experience, and I have a bachelor’s and master’s 

in geology, and I have worked on contaminated sites for most of my 

entire career. 

Many of the EPA-funded Brownfields Programs that we work on 

are located in the Northeast as well as the Midwest and California. 

We are passionate about the redevelopment of brownfields and the 

impact brownfields have had on communities. We have seen firsthand how a single site—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Race, could you pull the mic a little bit closer? 

We are having trouble back here, pull the box, just yank it. 

Ms. RACE. How is that? 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, thank you. 

Ms. RACE. We have seen firsthand how a single site using a few 

thousand EPA assessment dollars can be transformed into a community icon and how a portfolio of sites can actually result in the 

rebirth of a downtown, infusing millions of leveraged dollars into 

a community. 

23 

My testimony today will highlight EPA brownfields successes, 

highlight some challenges, and offer some considerations that we 

think would help make the program more versatile. 

We all know EPA brownfields funding has led to many successful 

cleanups and redevelopment and has leveraged millions of dollars 

in private investment. Obviously, an $8 million to $10 million decrease in funding for assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan funds 

has resulted in fewer grantees being awarded. But, actually, let me 

back up and ask, what are brownfields to communities? 

Brownfields are opportunities. They are the funding that is often 

the seed money to different organizations to assess, clean up, and 

sustainably reuse a property. Many of these eligible entities have 

limited resources to address and facilitate redevelopment of 

brownfields as communities are tasked with doing more with less. 

A couple examples that I would like to actually highlight on some 

creative successes that we have seen over the hundreds of sites 

that we have worked on across the country include one from Massachusetts, which is a transit-oriented development. This site was 

initiated with a $3,000 Phase I Site Assessment and a Phase II 

Site Investigation. This project actually facilitated over $100 million in private developer interest in the area. The project created 

construction of a pedestrian-friendly parking garage, linking it with 

a former shoe manufacturing mill, and renovated new housing, creating over 340 housing units, 75 of which are set aside for low-income families and individuals. 

The second example is the reuse of a former textile mill in Sanford, Maine. The former mill once produced armed service uniforms. From a $4,000 EPA brownfields assessment grant, over $60 

million of investment was secured, resulting in 274 construction 

jobs, 36 affordable housing units and retail and commercial businesses. 

The third example, a 100-acre former steel facility in Jefferson County, Ohio. From this—Jefferson County received a $1 million 

Assessment Coalition Grant. Based on that coalition grant, they 

were able to leverage an additional $6.5 million in State and private brownfields funding, returning 9 vacant properties to beneficial reuse and creating over 150 new jobs. 

As someone who assists communities in preparing applications, 

the application process can be challenging but also rewarding when 

a community must think outside the box on how they will utilize 

the funds and turn a story of despair into sustainable reuse and 

opportunity. There are so many worthy projects and communities 

out there, but the EPA application process is extremely competitive. 

Now for some of the challenges. The FY 2015 Brownfields Guidance for Assessment: EPA allocated approximately 50 percent of 

the total amount of funding available under the announcement was 

to be used for grants for new applicants. While dedicating 50 percent of funding to new applicants creates a base of eligible new entities, it also limits the funding available for existing grantees, who 

may have a long established program, spent a considerable amount 

of time creating an inventory and conducting phase I and phase II’s 

to ready those properties for redevelopment. Existing grantees who 

may have submitted multiple applications only to lose again may 

24 

result in a disincentive to compete, leaving a program with a large 

inventory of potential sites stagnant. 

With regard to petroleum assessment funding, EPA must expend 

25 percent of the amount appropriated for brownfields grants on 

sites contaminated with petroleum. The brownfields law outlines 

specific criteria by which petroleum sites may be eligible for 

brownfields grants if EPA funding or the State makes a petroleum 

eligibility. Because of the eligibility determinations, petroleum 

brownfield funding is harder for grantees to utilize and is more 

complicated, as it is a case-by-case State agency determination. 

Therefore, the brownfields petroleum funding may actually be sitting on the sidelines stranded. 

In summary, the EPA Brownfields Program works, but we believe there may be considerations in the brownfields funding that 

provide versatility and flexibility to the program. 

I would like to thank the subcommittee for my being able to provide testimony, and I am available to answer questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

The next witness is Mr. Paul Gruber, on behalf of the National 

Ground Water Association. 

Welcome. 

Mr. GRUBER. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, and members of the subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Paul Gruber, I am testifying on behalf of the National Ground Water Association, the trade association and professional society of 11,000 members in every State represented here. 

My testimony will address the importance of used science-based decisionmaking for the investigation, remediation, and redevelopment 

of brownfields sites, as well as highlight the importance of preserving and improving the availability of our Nation’s groundwater 

resources. 

The Brownfields Revitalization Act is an excellent example of the 

right law for the right reasons. Brownfields Programs are not only 

critical for environmental improvement and protection of public 

health, but they are vehicles to provide economic development, providing employment opportunity for thousands of Americans in both 

urban and rural areas. 

On a typical brownfields project, our members support all stages 

of the investigation and cleanup process. NGWA professionals 

evaluate various remediation alternatives, employing a variety of 

sophisticated tools. These tools, such as groundwater models, can 

cost-effectively assess the public health impacts of proposed remediation technologies and optimize cleanup selections, ultimately 

turning the site into a springboard for community revitalization. 

Often brownfields redevelopment success stories in urban areas 

receive the most publicity. I want to be sure to emphasize the need 

to promote the success of rural brownfields development. Potential 

brownfield sites in rural areas include a variety of legacy industrial 

operations that previously led to economic development in the area. 

Examples include manufactured gas plants, fertilizer plants, 

tanneries, and small businesses, like gas stations and dry cleaners, 

among others. 

25 

These rural brownfields sites affect soil, surface, and groundwater quality and availability. As most rural residents rely on individual wells or community water systems for potable water supply, 

these resource impacts can be more critical than those in urban 

areas. In rural areas, groundwater quality impacts can be more 

widespread, and hence, cleanup costs can be cost-prohibitive while 

having a broader local community impact. 

In rural areas, the presence of ample green space often minimizes the perceived need to clean up and restore a brownfields site. 

Rather than an either/or scenario, brownfields and green spaces 

should be viewed in tandem. By restoring rural brownfields sites, 

communities can preserve natural existing systems. The preservation of these systems improves and protects surface and groundwater quality and quantity; maintains important groundwater recharge systems; and improves stormwater management opportunities. 

As many communities currently experienced unprecedented 

drought conditions, by improving and preserving these natural systems in greenfield areas, local communities are now more resilient 

and sustainable. 

The EPA Brownfields Program is a well-crafted and effective program. As the subcommittee considers reauthorization of the program, NGWA would like to offer the following observations and recommendations. Congress should consider brownfield grant incentives that not only limit liability but also encourages cleanup and 

redevelopment of brownfield sites rather than greenfield sites; why 

incur the potential liability with brownfields sites where, in rural 

areas, ample green space is available for development, unless the 

right incentives are in place. 

The committee should consider increasing incentives for rural applicants by directing EPA to prioritize funds for rural communities 

where local groundwater supplies are impacted. Public-private 

partnerships are effective vehicles to leverage investments and create economic benefits for all stakeholders where single-entity investment may not be feasible, encouraging beneficial reuse of 

brownfield sites and providing liability limits while managing longterm cleanup. 

Lastly, Congress should urge EPA to continue its research focus 

on development of new technologies and methods of site remediation that integrates combined remedies, integrating risk assessment of future land uses when establishing cleanup goals. Since its 

inception in 1995, EPA’s Brownfields Program has changed the 

way we approach development and reutilization of contaminated 

sites. It has provided a vehicle to investigate and clean up abandoned sites without encouraging development in greenfield locations. Brownfield grants and cleanups focused in rural areas can be 

instrumental in reinvigorating economic activity while increasing 

the value of ecosystem services of undisturbed natural systems. 

With over 400,000 brownfields sites across the country, it is likely we probably all live or work near one. The work needed to clean 

up these sites is far from complete, which is why reauthorizing this 

program is critical. I would like to thank the subcommittee for its 

attention, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

26 

Our next witness is Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis. She is the vice 

chair of the Maryland Commission on Environmental Justice and 

Sustainable Communities. She is a member of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council to the EPA. 

Welcome, Ms. Miller-Travis. 

Ms. MILLER-TRAVIS. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking 

Member Napolitano and all the members of the committee for this 

hearing today. I have invested the last 22 years of my life in bringing this process forward and brownfields and helping to draft some 

of the language in the implementing law. I served on the All Appropriate Inquiry Federal Advisory Committee that wrote the implementing language for the Small Business Liability Relief and 

Brownfields Redevelopment Act. I was there at ground zero, as 

they say, when EPA began this process. And immediately I saw the 

opportunity to bring real, long-term reinvestment to some of the 

most distressed parts of our country, which were also the places 

that had some of the biggest and largest and longest impacted 

brownfields sites across the country. So when EPA announced this 

process, I jumped at the chance to be a partner with them to really 

bring this process to life. 

One of the things that EPA did early on through its National Environmental Justice Advisory Council and the Subcommittee on 

Waste and Facility Siting, which I served as the cochair of from 

1997 to 2001, was to host a series of public dialogues on urban revitalization and brownfields, envisioning healthy and sustainable 

communities, in 1995. The public dialogues were held in five cities: 

Boston; Philadelphia; Detroit; Oakland, California; and Atlanta, 

Georgia. The public dialogues were intended to provide an opportunity for environmental justice advocates and residents of environmentally impacted communities where brownfield sites proliferated 

to offer their input and perspective regarding the development of 

EPA’s brownfields economic redevelopment initiative. In my written testimony, I included a link to the report; here is my dog-eared 

copy that I still lecture from and talk about 19 years later because 

it is still very relevant. 

Those dialogues led to the publication of this report, and many 

concerns were raised by communities during that process, including 

whether or not the brownfields issue was a smokescreen for gutting 

cleanup standards, environmental regulations, and liability concerns because, heretofore, when people talked about brownfields 

and recapturing industrial and commercial vacant spaces, they 

were talking about the real estate transactions but not talking 

about the economic revitalization that could come to low-income 

and distressed communities who live near and bore the burden of 

the environmental contamination and the perceived disinvestment 

in their communities, which was driven largely by the loss of industrial and commercial activities in those communities. So this 

was a very personal issue for a lot of communities around the country who pin their hopes on revitalization and new economic activity 

on the success of this program. 

So they have a tremendous amount invested in the Brownfields 

Program. 

Much of the national conversation today regarding environmental protection and improving public health, job creation to adVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:20 May 11, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\7-22-1~1\95581.TXT JEAN
27 

dress high levels of unemployment and underemployment, reducing 

growing inequality and poverty rates, and how to spur community 

revitalization and create public-private partnerships to undertake 

these decades-old problems were tackled in this report. 

The success of the program today has been just extraordinary; 

we have heard lots today from Administrator Stanislaus and others, but by any objective measure, after 20 years of brownfields redevelopment, there is much to report in terms of success. For example, the Brownfields Job Training Program has trained over 

14,100 individuals to become certified in a range of site remediation skills. The Brownfield Jobs Training Program graduates include many unemployed and underemployed veterans, at-risk 

young adults, and 50 percent of the graduates are ex-offenders. 

Seventy percent of the Brownfields Job Training graduates have 

been placed in living wage jobs. The program’s placement rate is 

to be highly commended, especially when one considers the target 

population of trainees. 

Other successes of the program to date include hundreds of examples of transformative brownfields redevelopment projects, including the epic struggle to clean up brownfields sites and restore 

the Los Angeles River. Atlantic Station, where a former steel mill 

has been transferred into a brandnew, thriving, high-end community in Atlanta. It is really breathtaking if you haven’t seen it. The 

Spicket River Revitalization Project, which is a partnership with 

Groundwork USA, where a once dying mill town has been revived 

in Lawrence, Massachusetts. And the Florida Brownfields Association Partnership with environmental justice and other medically 

underserved communities like the Eastside community of Jacksonville, Florida, by developing brownfields sites into healthcare facilities. 

But there is a downside to successful brownfields redevelopment. 

Of all the promise I envisioned for distressed serving communities 

via successful brownfields redevelopment, I did not envision a 

large-scale gentrification and displacement of longstanding communities of color that brownfields redevelopment projects have 

spawned in some places. For example, Bayview-Hunters Point in 

San Francisco, The Dudley Street community in Roxbury, Massachusetts; here in the District of Columbia, the Southwest Waterfront; and my own beloved hometown of West Harlem in New York 

City where Columbia University, my alma mater, is building a new 

campus that will occupy more square footage than the former 

World Trade Center. 

A lot of people in public housing, and low-income and affordable 

housing are being displaced by a lot of these successful projects. 

That was not what EPA envisioned, but nevertheless, it is an unintended consequence, so we need to balance the economic revitalization that is happening and driven by brownfields redevelopment 

with the needs to make sure that that revitalization is broad-based. 

We must refocus our efforts if the hope of successful brownfields 

redevelopment is to bring broad-based economic opportunity and 

community revitalization to all. The last thing I would say is the 

program needs to be fully funded. EPA’s brownfields redevelopment 

initiative has been catalytic in transforming economic opportunity 

in large cities, small cities, tribal communities, you name it, the 

28 

Brownfields Program has been there, and we want to see that revitalization happen everywhere, and your appropriation is what 

makes that program happen. I strongly recommend that you fully 

fund it. And please, under no circumstances, diminish the funding 

that goes to the Brownfields Program. Thank you so very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you and that might be more talk to the appropriators. Ms. Hafner, I see in your testimony, you cite an example 

of a program in Louisville, Ohio, at Chesapeake Energy. I want you 

to know that is in my district, I have been there. Great work. I 

want to recognize that you put that in there. That is actually my 

district. 

I do want to ask you, Ms. Hafner, in your testimony, you talked 

about how the State of Ohio handles liability aspects in its 

Brownfields Program. Can you explain how the Ohio example could 

be replicated in the Federal Brownfields law? 

Ms. HAFNER. In terms of the liability? 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. I am really concerned about liability aspects. 

What have you done in Ohio that maybe could be helpful in the 

Federal legislation? 

Ms. HAFNER. Well, notwithstanding one of the most important 

things of the Brownfields Program, in my view, is that the State 

programs are uniquely designed for each and every State. So adopting some of the things that we did in Ohio and putting them on 

a Federal level may not maintain that flexibility. However, individual liability tweaks along the way may provide some additional 

assistance to the volunteers and folks who are cleaning up the 

sites. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Race, do you have a comment on the liability aspects of your examples, should we be looking at it as concerns? 

Ms. RACE. Well, I would just add that I do agree that it is a 

State-by-State designation. There are several States, Pennsylvania 

is actually an example where Act III has actually reduced some of 

the liabilities and they have actually used wording to get their 

hands around that liability. I think with the liability protection, 

that is where the brownfields, the phase I’s, and due diligence is 

really important, because that actually gives you the AAI, All Appropriate Inquiry, it gives you the baseline of some of the liability 

protection initially. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Gruber, I am a little intrigued. You talked about 

the groundwater cleanup, aquifers and stuff. Where it is feasible to 

do cleanup, what tools and technologies are available to ensure 

that the contamination doesn’t spread, can you just elaborate on 

what’s happening on that? 

Mr. GRUBER. So there is a variety of different tools and technologies, most effective and probably used most commonly are 

groundwater pump and treat systems; there are barriers that can 

be placed inground that can prevent the spread of groundwater 

contamination, all associated with different levels of cost. So one of 

the roles that professionals like myself and Ms. Race get involved 

with is trying to optimize the groundwater treatment technology to 

stem the spread of contamination, and to effectively treat the 

groundwater systems and prevent it from spreading. 

Mr. GIBBS. I really appreciate your comments regarding the rural 

areas and green spaces. You are absolutely right, there are lots of 

29 

sites in rural areas, like abandoned fertilizer facilities, whatever, 

and I think that is—I am glad you mentioned that because I think 

there is an important need there, and, of course, it really ties the 

importance to the groundwater because in the rural areas, that is 

where we get our water, in most cases, so it is important. 

Mr. GRUBER. That is correct. I think there is a real impact in 

rural areas associated with brownfields sites and propensity for developers to look for new greenfield locations. Particularly in areas, 

in rural areas where community water systems don’t have a lot of 

funds available to treat groundwater, they are pumping it directly 

out of the ground with minimal treatment. The effort to encourage 

redevelopment of brownfield sites as opposed to new greenfields is 

critically important to preserving community resources. 

Mr. GIBBS. What is your experience with public-private partnership investments in brownfields sites? 

Mr. GRUBER. Well, I think everybody has addressed the issues 

associated with liability limits. From a public investment perspective, obviously, liability limits are different than when private parties get involved. I would ask, perhaps, the mayor to address some 

of those issues, but the opportunity to increase private-sector investment in public projects by limiting liability associated with the 

long-term development of these sites, would go a long way towards 

accelerating the pace of brownfields redevelopment. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mayor, the question, what recommendations do you 

have to improve the Small Business Liability Relief and 

Brownfields Revitalization Act on the liability issue? What is your 

take on that, and what recommendations might you have to make 

that better to help incentivize people? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. I believe it is in the testimony about removing 

the barriers on the mothball sites and the CERCLA liability and 

the Government and the brownfields defined by section 101–39, if 

it did not cause or contribute to the contamination of the property, 

and exercises due care with regard to any known contamination to 

site. We also, in our testimony, have attached recommendations on 

exact language that we submitted in our written testimony, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Oh, definitely, sir. Thank you. In fact, I could 

do the whole 1 hour on this. Ms. Miller-Travis, your statement 

about investment in underserved communities, how would we 

incentivize the investors to be able to go to those areas? The market forces are great because they will go to where they think they 

are going to make the best investment, how would you incentivize 

them to go into lower income communities? 

Ms. MILLER-TRAVIS. So there has been a lot of conversation about 

approaching the Department of the Treasury to explore opportunities to encourage greater use of new market tax credits, and the 

low-income housing tax credits to enable those who are doing 

brownfields redevelopment to tap into those tax credit programs, so 

that they can spur investment in terms of new markets as well as 

low-income housing. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is that anywhere in writing? I am sorry, I 

don’t want to run out of time. 

Ms. MILLER-TRAVIS. Sure. 

30 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. In reference to HUD, EPA, Department of—— 

Ms. MILLER-TRAVIS. Energy. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO [continuing]. Energy, DOT, Office of Economic 

Adjustments, Department of Defense, Community Health Initiative 

under CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], all those 

areas, add Treasury to it. Why are we not getting them all together 

and saying we need to address this as a whole rather than everybody doing their own thing and spreading those funds out in different areas? 

Ms. MILLER-TRAVIS. It would be great if the new legislation, or 

reauthorized legislation, could direct EPA and the Federal family 

to do exactly that, because local governments, local community development organizations, State agencies are having to shop all of 

those entities. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It would take also those entities, the counties 

and the cities to be able to work with, including the Governors organizations. 

Ms. MILLER-TRAVIS. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Now how do we then look at prioritization of 

those areas, as Mr. Gruber was saying, groundwater contamination, because we are having continuous drought cycles. That is not 

going to go away. Are we not looking at how do we protect our 

water? How do we clean it up? How do we help the communities 

be able to revitalize that source of critical water? Water is money, 

there is no investment if water isn’t there for business. 

Ms. MILLER-TRAVIS. Absolutely. So there is also a recommendation to encourage EPA to access its Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund, which allows States to then push money down, Federal 

money down to local governments and tribal governments to really 

do new investment in infrastructure for clean water. We would like 

to see those—that program, that revolving loan fund be accessed 

and merged, in a sense, with access to the brownfields revolving 

loan. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would love to see your recommendations to 

the subcommittee. 

Ms. MILLER-TRAVIS. It is in my testimony, ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right, I know. But that is a recommendation, 

because I will be looking a little further on this one. All of you, 

when was the last time that EPA utilized—how would I say, cost 

of living. The year 2001 was when the maximum amounts were set. 

What do you think that affects the ability to be able it use those 

dollars in today’s dollars? Anybody? 

Ms. MILLER-TRAVIS. So if I could start, I actually disagree a little 

bit with Administrator Stanislaus, I think the grant amounts do 

need to go up to $300,000, but that can only happen if the appropriation for the program is increased somewhat. But I do think it 

is time to increase the amount of money in those assessment—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yeah, it was just $200,000 was set for 2001. 

We are in 2014, 13 years later, and we are still at that amount. 

Ms. MILLER-TRAVIS. Well, actually $200,000 was set in 1995 

when they first launched the program. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You understand where I am going, is we need 

to increase the funding based on today’s dollars. 

31 

And let’s see, to Mr. Gruber, I very much am interested in how 

you look at the rural applicant, because you have fertilizer and all 

kinds of other insecticides that go into the ground and eventually 

into the water table. How do we help be able to identify that, especially when there is no funding in those rural areas by small communities? 

Mr. GRUBER. So I think EPA does have an outreach program, a 

technical assistance program to provide support to communities to 

develop brownfield grants. I think we need to do as much as we 

can to encourage EPA to step up on those activities, because often 

in rural communities, they may not have the technical resources or 

the financial resources to address the development of the grants, 

hire engineers like myself, or Ms. Race. So I think anything you 

can do to increase opportunities for EPA to broaden their outreach 

to rural communities, where many of these brownfield sites are located, would be very instrumental in making the program more 

successful. 

Ms. RACE. I was going to add to that, I think one of the things 

that is being looked at now are technical assistance grants. For a 

small amount of dollars, maybe in the $7,000 to $10,000 range, 

those type of funds would be very instrumental to these small communities and these small entities that really can’t afford to hire a 

big giant consultant, or even actually facilitate something like that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Understood, but don’t forget, right now with 

economic stress that many of the communities face, they may not 

even be able to match any funding. Why are we not looking at the 

Treasury incentivizing those areas to be able to put those properties back on the tax roll? 

Ms. RACE. I think it would be a great idea. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you to the witnesses. Although I came in late, I was reading your testimony 

while questions were being asked at another hearing that I was a 

part of. I do appreciate what you are doing here today. 

Mr. Gruber, I do want to put a specific emphasis on offering you 

my appreciation, because the emphasis that you make in your testimony about the importance of brownfields development in the 

projects in rural America that I know my colleague just alluded to, 

I want to commend you on that. 

As you note, the impact of soil surface and groundwater contamination in rural areas can have serious implications for potable 

water supplies and addressing these contaminations, I am sure has 

been discussed before I got here, it can be very cost prohibitive to 

some of the smaller communities that I serve in Illinois right in 

rural—the middle of rural America. 

Earlier this year, I joined two of my colleagues from Illinois, 

John Shimkus and Mike Bost, in sending a letter of support to the 

EPA for a brownfield assessment grant application submitted by 

Madison County, Illinois. I was subsequently pleased to learn that 

Madison County was actually awarded two brownfield grants; one 

to assess a hazardous substance site, and one to assess a site contaminated by petroleum. I look forward to working with Madison 

32 

County and the other stakeholders as these projects move forward, 

and want to say thank you to those who made those decisions. 

Mr. Gruber, I know it was alluded to in the last question about 

how do we help ensure that rural America is not left behind when 

it comes to brownfield development projects. Is there any other— 

is there any advice that you would give us to be able to help make 

sure that that does not happen? 

Mr. GRUBER. I think I addressed a little bit of it when I talked 

about EPA’s ability to provide outreach and support to rural communities for the development of brownfield grants. I think Ms. Miller-Travis also addressed some critical funding issues. State grants 

under the Clean Water Act have been significantly diminished over 

the last 20 years. Anything Congress can do to increase appropriations and broaden the funding support under the Clean Water Act 

to support local communities, particularly in rural areas, which are 

often excluded from Clean Water Act funding grants, would be a 

very important mechanism to improve environmental quality and 

availability of surface and groundwater quality in rural areas. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Gruber. I appreciate your comments. 

I, too, want to reprioritize how we spend money here in Washington. That is something that I hope all of my colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle want to continue to do. That is the only way that 

Congress and our legislative branch can actually regain the power 

of the purse that many of the witnesses that sit at your tables we 

see on a regular basis come in and talk about increased appropriations, the need for more money to actually put forth to solve some 

of the problems that we are even talking about here today. And I, 

too, agree. 

But both sides of the aisle have to make tough decisions how we 

actually spend the taxpayer dollars, and that is a debate that I look 

forward to having with all of my colleagues here. I guess I will 

open my last question quickly to the first one who wants to volunteer to answer it. Is it your experience the working relationship 

that State, local and private leaders have with administrators of 

the Brownfields Program at EPA has been positive? Is there any 

specific issue that you think could improve that communication or 

relationship? Who is first? 

Ms. RACE. I will go first. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Race. 

Ms. RACE. I actually think the State programs and the region 

programs are very strong as far as community outreach. I do a lot 

of work in region 1 and region 3, I think there is a great partnership between those agencies, they do a great job in trying to get 

the word out there about what needs to be done. As far as more 

improvement, I think sometimes the States need to talk more with 

the regions themselves as far as making sure that everybody is on 

the same page with what they want to have as the outcome. 

Mr. DAVIS. Anybody else? I have 30 seconds. 

Ms. MILLER-TRAVIS. I would just say that I think EPA has gone 

to great lengths to try to decentralize the Brownfields Program to 

put brownfields coordinators in each of the regional offices to provide technical assistance, to provide counseling to States, to make 

it possible to do the letters of no further action so the States can 

give people a sense of comfort that they can go in and redevelop 

33 

those sites and purchase them without getting tangled up into the 

CERCLA liability scheme. 

I think EPA has spent 20 years trying to figure out how to push 

this money out and down and give as much technical assistance as 

they can. If you are in Chicago, since you are from Illinois, if you 

can be there the first week of September for the brownfields conference, you will see thousands of people from all over the country 

who have been able to do extraordinary work because of the support of EPA. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, let me see if that might be a possibility. I am 

31⁄2 hours south, hence the rural references. But I do very much 

appreciate the largest city in my State of Illinois. I would love to 

be able to be a part of that. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 

thank you and the ranking member for holding this hearing and 

let me thank all the witnesses. I have enjoyed hearing all of you 

and I think it is because I agree with everything you have said. It 

is gratifying to see that EPA has a program that gets so much positiveness. EPA is probably one of the most beat-up agencies around 

here when they are trying to protect the health of individuals. But 

I have strongly supported the brownfields legislation over the 

years, and feel that because it is such a public-private partnership, 

it has been very, very successful. And I would hope that all of you 

would advocate, because I think that there are more and more municipalities, and small municipalities as well, that would need to 

put brownfields into greenfields to create more of a tax base. When 

you create that tax base, we all profit from it because some of those 

taxes flow back in here where we need some money. So I would applaud you for working with the program. I don’t have any particular questions other than what I would ask you might be illegal 

for you to answer, that is, how much do you advocate reauthorizing 

this program with more dollars? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I won’t insist that they answer that. 

Mr. GIBBS. I have just a couple of questions for the panel I would 

like to ask. Are there any categories of parties, like tenants or 

other non-owner parties that might occupy a user site who still fear 

exposure to the Superfund liability, even though they did not contribute to the contamination of brownfield sites? Does anybody 

want to respond? Is there still a fear out there? 

Mr. GRUBER. I will take a crack at that. One of the issues I think 

that we have been advocating as an organization and an association is associated with vapor monitoring, and vapor intrusion in occupied buildings particularly, sites that are on or near petroleum 

locations because the volatile organic chemicals from petroleum 

spills can easily seep into buildings. People may not know that they 

could be exposed to harmful vapors from toxic gases. So I think the 

funding and the effort associated with vapor monitoring and vapor 

intrusion could be improved as part of the program to protect residents in buildings. 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Mr. Chairman, what we did with the Jersey Gardens Mall, which was built on a landfill, is we vented the methane 

and then created power from the methane for the mall. So the 200- 

and-some-odd stores that are in the Jersey Gardens plus all the 

34 

people that go there, we don’t really deal with the issue because 

of the proper ventilation. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Race. 

Ms. RACE. I would just add there are sites that I think some of 

the Federal programs have to talk to each other about. Some of the 

RCRA [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act] obligations are 

not the same as some of the brownfields. What I mean by that is 

there are entities out there that are interested in using brownfields 

money to redevelop a property, but because it has a RCRA designation, there are certain liability protections that they just can’t get 

over because of the RCRA Superfund tie-ins with that. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Race, you mentioned in your testimony about the 

25-percent set-aside, and I mentioned petroleum. I mentioned that 

to the Administrator, and you heard his response. What is your 

take on how we should we modify that? 

Ms. RACE. I am thrilled. I think there should—actually, either do 

away with it or have a much less percentage that has to go to petroleum. I can speak as one that knows a lot of grantees that have 

a lot of money sitting on the sidelines that they just cannot use. 

Mr. GIBBS. What would your take be on the applications? I think 

everybody is in agreement, we are making progress with these petroleum-abandoned tanks. You know, what percent would you 

guess might be in the application process now that actually would 

qualify for that set-aside? 

Ms. RACE. I would rather see closer to 10 percent, not any more 

than 10 percent, because the State designation and a case-by-case 

where the State actually makes that determination, a lot of States 

are requiring tax returns for a property owner before they can actually even assume that there is any viability—— 

Mr. GIBBS. I know, you mention flexibility. 

Ms. RACE. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. I am big for that, too. I think that obviously that was 

put in—it probably made a lot of sense because we—like I said, 

there was a gas station in three of the four corners, most typically 

in urban areas. 

Mr. GRUBER. If I might add to that. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Mr. GRUBER. Many States have leaking underground storage 

tank program funding mechanisms individually, so the opportunity 

to investigate and clean up underground storage tanks can come 

from other sources and not the Brownfields Program, so it is a way 

of leveraging other dollars and improving and increasing opportunities if you remove the 25-percent requirement for funding for underground storage tanks under the Brownfields Program. 

Mr. GIBBS. Excellent point. Do you have any more questions? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No questions, but I certainly would want to 

ask all the panelists to forward any recommendations you might 

have that will help this committee, subcommittee, be able to understand some of the things that you are facing that we may not have 

in writing, especially issues like coordination between the agencies 

to be able to leverage. And then how do we reach out to the Conference of Mayors, the League of Cities, the Governors associations, 

to have them identify where the major issues are in economic development to be able to help us understand a little better how EPA 

35 

can then look at maybe it’s rural, to me, it is water runoff for contamination because of the drought issue, things that you see that 

might help us be able to better deal with this issue as the subcommittee, joint subcommittee on a bipartisan basis, because water 

and economic development is everybody’s issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. I do have one more question since we do have a State 

administrator of a very successful program. Ms. Hafner, if you 

could name the most important aspect of your Brownfields Program’s success, what would it be? 

Ms. HAFNER. I think, at least in Ohio, and other folks have 

talked about it, so it is probably true in other States as well, but 

it’s our collaboration with the stakeholders who are actually implementing the program, so the local governments, the consultants, 

the developers—we are truly partners with them in not only developing the statute and writing the rules, but also in implementing 

the program. 

It is a culture of working together, collaboratively. And so even 

the staff view this as part of their job to ask those folks first what 

do you need to make this program better. And so I think it is a 

little unique at Ohio EPA, and that, to me, is one of the most important factors to its success. 

Mr. GIBBS. Just a thought too, I am just curious, are there times 

when you have to work with, besides U.S. EPA, but another Federal agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Transportation, can you elaborate if that is the case or not? 

Ms. HAFNER. Right. Most of our partners are U.S. EPA and the 

local governments, but the Navy was interested in using the voluntary program to clean up the site in Ohio, and so far we have 

not gotten the Army Corps of Engineers to use some of the old defense sites in the voluntary program, but that would be of interest 

to us. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Thank you, thank you for all witnesses coming 

today, it has been very helpful to us and the written testimony, as 

we look towards working reauthorization of the Brownfields Revitalization Program. So thank you and that adjourns us here. 

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

36 


Insert offset folio 5 here 95581.005
37 


Insert offset folio 6 here 95581.006
38 


Insert offset folio 7 here 95581.007
39 


Insert offset folio 8 here 95581.008
40 


Insert offset folio 9 here 95581.009
41 


Insert offset folio 10 here 95581.010
42 


Insert offset folio 11 here 95581.011
43 


Insert offset folio 12 here 95581.012
44 


Insert offset folio 13 here 95581.013
45 


Insert offset folio 14 here 95581.014
46 


Insert offset folio 15 here 95581.015
47 


Insert offset folio 16 here 95581.016
48 


Insert offset folio 17 here 95581.017
49 


Insert offset folio 18 here 95581.018
50 


Insert offset folio 19 here 95581.019
51 


Insert offset folio 20 here 95581.020
52 


Insert offset folio 21 here 95581.021
53 


Insert offset folio 22 here 95581.022
54 


Insert offset folio 23 here 95581.023
55 


Insert offset folio 24 here 95581.024
56 


Insert offset folio 25 here 95581.025
57 


Insert offset folio 26 here 95581.026
58 


Insert offset folio 27 here 95581.027
59 


Insert offset folio 28 here 95581.028
60 


Insert offset folio 29 here 95581.029
61 


Insert offset folio 30 here 95581.030
62 


Insert offset folio 31 here 95581.031
63 


Insert offset folio 32 here 95581.032
64 


Insert offset folio 33 here 95581.033
65 


Insert offset folio 34 here 95581.034
66 


Insert offset folio 35 here 95581.035
67 


Insert offset folio 36 here 95581.036
68 


Insert offset folio 37 here 95581.037
69 


Insert offset folio 38 here 95581.038
70 


Insert offset folio 39 here 95581.039
71 


Insert offset folio 40 here 95581.040
72 


Insert offset folio 41 here 95581.041
73 


Insert offset folio 42 here 95581.042
74 


Insert offset folio 43 here 95581.043
75 


Insert offset folio 44 here 95581.044
76 


Insert offset folio 45 here 95581.045
77 


Insert offset folio 46 here 95581.046
78 


Insert offset folio 47 here 95581.047
79 


Insert offset folio 48 here 95581.048
80 


Insert offset folio 49 here 95581.049
81 


Insert offset folio 50 here 95581.050
82 


Insert offset folio 51 here 95581.051
83 


Insert offset folio 52 here 95581.052
84 


Insert offset folio 53 here 95581.053
85 


Insert offset folio 54 here 95581.054
86 


Insert offset folio 55 here 95581.055
87 


Insert offset folio 56 here 95581.056
88 


Insert offset folio 57 here 95581.057
89 


Insert offset folio 58 here 95581.058
90 


Insert offset folio 59 here 95581.059
91 


Insert offset folio 60 here 95581.060
92 


Insert offset folio 61 here 95581.061
93 


Insert offset folio 62 here 95581.062
94 


Insert offset folio 63 here 95581.063
95 


Insert offset folio 64 here 95581.064
96 


Insert offset folio 65 here 95581.065
97 


Insert offset folio 66 here 95581.066
98 


Insert offset folio 67 here 95581.067
99 


Insert offset folio 68 here 95581.068
100 


Insert offset folio 69 here 95581.069
101 


Insert offset folio 70 here 95581.070
102 


Insert offset folio 71 here 95581.071
103 


Insert offset folio 72 here 95581.072
104 


Insert offset folio 73 here 95581.073
105 


Insert offset folio 74 here 95581.074
106 


Insert offset folio 75 here 95581.075
107 


Insert offset folio 76 here 95581.076
108 


Insert offset folio 77 here 95581.077
109 


Insert offset folio 78 here 95581.078
110 


Insert offset folio 79 here 95581.079
111 


Insert offset folio 80 here 95581.080
112 


Insert offset folio 81 here 95581.081
113 


Insert offset folio 82 here 95581.082
114 


Insert offset folio 83 here 95581.083
115 


Insert offset folio 84 here 95581.084
116 


Insert offset folio 85 here 95581.085
117 


Insert offset folio 86 here 95581.086
118 


Insert offset folio 87 here 95581.087
119 


Insert offset folio 88 here 95581.088
120 


Insert offset folio 89 here 95581.089
121 


Insert offset folio 90 here 95581.090
122 


Insert offset folio 91 here 95581.091
123 


Insert offset folio 92 here 95581.092
124 


Insert offset folio 93 here 95581.093
125 


Insert offset folio 94 here 95581.094
126 


Insert offset folio 95 here 95581.095
127 


Insert offset folio 96 here 95581.096
128 


Insert offset folio 97 here 95581.097
129 


Insert offset folio 98 here 95581.098
130 


Insert offset folio 99 here 95581.099
131 


Insert offset folio 100 here 95581.100
132 


Insert offset folio 101 here 95581.101
133 


Insert offset folio 102 here 95581.102
134 


Insert offset folio 103 here 95581.103
135 


Insert offset folio 104 here 95581.104
136 


Insert offset folio 105 here 95581.105
137 


Insert offset folio 106 here 95581.106
138 


Insert offset folio 107 here 95581.107
139 


Insert offset folio 108 here 95581.108
140 


Insert offset folio 109 here 95581.109
141 


Insert offset folio 110 here 95581.110
142 


Insert offset folio 111 here 95581.111
143 


Insert offset folio 112 here 95581.112
144 


Insert offset folio 113 here 95581.113
145 


Insert offset folio 114 here 95581.114
146 


Insert offset folio 115 here 95581.115
147 


Insert offset folio 116 here 95581.116
148 


Insert offset folio 117 here 95581.117
149 


Insert offset folio 118 here 95581.118
150 


Insert offset folio 119 here 95581.119
151 


Insert offset folio 120 here 95581.120
152 


Insert offset folio 121 here 95581.121
153 


Insert offset folio 122 here 95581.122
154 


Insert offset folio 123 here 95581.123
155 


Insert offset folio 124 here 95581.124
156 


Insert offset folio 125 here 95581.125
157 


Insert offset folio 126 here 95581.126
158 


Insert offset folio 127 here 95581.127
159 


Insert offset folio 128 here 95581.128
160 


Insert offset folio 129 here 95581.129
161 


Insert offset folio 130 here 95581.130
162 


Insert offset folio 131 here 95581.131
163 


Insert offset folio 132 here 95581.132
164 


Insert offset folio 133 here 95581.133
165 


Insert offset folio 134 here 95581.134
166 


Insert offset folio 135 here 95581.135
167 


Insert offset folio 136 here 95581.136
168 


Insert offset folio 137 here 95581.137
169 


Insert offset folio 138 here 95581.138
170 


Insert offset folio 139 here 95581.139
171 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 140 here 95581.140