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

20–755 PDF 2016

EPA’S BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM: EMPOWERING 

CLEANUP AND ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 21, 2016 

Serial No. 114–140 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

WITNESSES

Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, Environmental Protection Agency .............................................. 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 96 

J. Meade R. Anderson, Chair, Brownfields Focus Group, Association of State 

and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials ........................................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 102 

J. Christian Bollwage, Mayor, City of Elizabeth, New Jersey, on behalf of 

the U.S. Conference of Mayors ............................................................................ 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ................................................................... 107 

Clark Henry, Owner, CIII Associates, LLC ........................................................... 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 108 

Amy E. Romig, Partner, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun, LLP .......................... 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 111 

Veronica Eady, Vice President and Massachusetts Director, Conservation Law 

Foundation ............................................................................................................ 83 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available 

at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20160421/104837/HHRG-114- 

IF18-Wstate-BollwageJ-20160421-U1.pdf. 

(1) 

EPA’S BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM: EMPOWERING CLEANUP AND ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT 

THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper, McKinley, 

Johnson, Bucshon, Tonko, Schrader, Green, Capps, McNerney, and 

Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary; Dave McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Tina Richards, Counsel, Environment and 

the Economy; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and 

the Economy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Dylan Vorbach, 

Deputy Press Secretary; Jacqueline Cohen, Democratic Senior 

Counsel; Timia Crisp, Democratic AAAS Fellow; Jean Fruci, Democratic Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment; Tiffany Guarascio, 

Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Rick 

Kessler, Democratic Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and 

Environment; Alexander Ratner, Democratic Policy Analyst; Timothy Robinson, Democratic Chief Counsel; Andrew Souvall, Democratic Director of Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; and Tuley Wright, Democratic Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to call the hearing to order and recognize 

myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement, although I am not 

going to take it. I am going to ask unanimous consent that all 

opening statements will be submitted for the record. 

Brownfields is an important issue for me. I know it is important 

for the ranking member. I know it is important for my colleague 

from Oregon. I think it is something that we can do. We have just 

got to get these old sites reclaimed, back into use. I think the testimony today will highlight that this is something everybody wants 

to do and move expeditiously. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

2 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

The term brownfields usually refers to abandoned or closed commercial or industrial properties that may be contaminated because of their prior use. These sites, 

however, often have significant redevelopment potential. The economic redevelopment of these sites means very good things for the local community—things like 

jobs, an improved tax base, and being able to rid communities of blighted properties 

and clean up entire neighborhoods. According to EPA, the Agency’s Brownfields Program has grown into a proven, results-oriented program that has changed the way 

contaminated property is perceived, addressed, and managed. This is demonstrated 

by the numbers. As of March 1, 2016, EPA’s Brownfields Program has assessed 

23,932 sites and leveraged 108,924 jobs. The program has also leveraged almost $21 

billion for cleanup and redevelopment. We will hear today from Mr. Stanislaus more 

about these statistics and why EPA believes the program works and maybe find out 

from him whether there are things we could do to improve the program. 

The EPA Brownfields Program is also an important tool used by States, local governments, and private stakeholders to clean up under-used or abandoned industrial 

and commercial properties and to return them to beneficial use. Cleaning up these 

sites and returning them to productive use is great for the economy because 

brownfields grants can be directly leveraged into jobs, into additional redevelopment 

funds, and into increased residential property values. 

I have a number of brownfield sites in my district, ranging from former family 

gas stations and the local corner dry cleaners to a former plating company and a 

former hospital. Throughout my district sites are being redeveloped to create 

greenspace and to return areas to commercial use. My colleague, the ranking member Mr. Pallone, has said many times how important it is that we take a look at 

the Brownfields Program. I agree. We need to see what works—and there is a lot 

to like about the program—but we find that there are always areas we can improve 

upon. 

On that note, we also welcome our second panel who will walk us through how 

public and private stakeholders can work together in pursuit of a common redevelopment goal and give us their perspectives on the Brownfields Program. 

We welcome Mr. Anderson from the State of Virginia who is here on behalf of a 

good friend of the subcommittee, ASTSWMO. Mr. Anderson will fill us in on the 

State role in brownfields redevelopment. 

Also joining us today is Mayor Bollwage, from Elizabeth, New Jersey. Mayor 

Bollwage has been very involved in his city’s redevelopment. Mr. Henry is here with 

us to give his perspective as a consultant who does urban planning and redevelopment and as someone who used to run the Brownfields Program in a major U.S. 

city. 

We’ll hear from an environmental lawyer, Ms. Romig, who understands the legal 

ramifications and hurdles facing clients who may be interested in pursuing redevelopment. And last, but not least, we will hear from Ms. Eady, also a lawyer, who 

works for the Conservation Law Foundation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. With that, I am going to yield back my time and 

yield to the ranking member for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Thank 

you for holding this important hearing on EPA’s Brownfields Program. I know that this is an issue that Ranking Member Pallone 

and I are very passionate about. And I believe that based on previous experiences in State and local government, it is an issue that 

bears much relevance. 

I am proud to represent part of the Erie Canal corridor in New 

York State, which includes my home town of Amsterdam. This was 

a gateway toward western expansion. Mill towns popped up along 

the Mohawk River helping to usher in our Nation’s industrial revolution and create jobs. 

Sadly, many of these manufacturers are gone, but the baggage 

from industrialization, including contaminated land, still remains. 

3 

While that is the story from my home county, I want to stress that 

brownfields are not unique to one region or type of community. 

They can be found in every congressional district, urban or rural. 

The EPA found that approximately 104 million people live within 

3 miles of a brownfield site that received EPA funding, including 

35 percent of all children in the United States under the age of 5. 

Brownfields cleanup is critical for environmental revitalization and 

economic redevelopment efforts. And undeniably, EPA’s program 

has been incredibly successful. EPA grant recipients use funding to 

inventory success and conduct cleanup at sites. The program administers two separate types of grants: direct financial assistance 

for the assessment, and clean up of properties and financial assistance to States to aid them in carrying out their own cleanup programs. 

EPA will discuss some of the astonishing statistics on the success 

of the program. Since Congress passed a Small Business Liability 

Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act in 2002. Over 44,000 

acres of idle land have been made ready for productive use. Over 

106,000 jobs and $23.3 billion have been leveraged, cleaning up 

brownfields properties leads to residential property value increases 

of some 5 to 11.5 percent. And $1 of the EPA’s brownfields funding 

leverages between $17 and $18 in other public and private funding. 

EPA’s research has shown that redeveloping a brownfield instead 

of a greenfield has significant environmental benefits in addition to 

limiting sprawl and cleaning up blighted properties who are dealing with the program that has produced tremendous results. Revitalizing a brownfield can help a distressed community’s economic 

comeback, and people are beginning to recognize that brownfields 

represent opportunities. But despite these successes, the program 

can be improved. This authorization expired in 2006. There are reforms that can give grant recipients more flexibility. We can encourage more support, capacity building and technical assistance 

for both small and disadvantaged communities. We can make it 

easier for nonprofit stakeholders to get involved. We couldn’t put 

more emphasis on regional planning to make this program even 

more effective. 

We will hear about the need for more funding, but both competitive grants and grants to States is required. More and more qualified applications must be rejected each year because of insufficient 

funding. We will hear about the need to increase the cap on individual projects. Many remaining sites are increasingly complex and 

will require more funding to remediate properly. 

Today’s caps of $200,000 for assessment and cleanup grants is 

just not enough in many cases. But despite these potential improvements, I want to stress that this program has been incredibly 

successful and that is according to representatives from all levels 

of Government from urban and rural communities and from nonprofits and private sector developers. There is strong consensus on 

the steps that need to be taken to make this program work even 

better. And there is bipartisan support, I believe, for the program 

in Congress. This is a winning recipe to get a reauthorization done. 

I hope this is something we can continue to work on this year. For 

so many distressed communities and neighborhoods, a brownfield 

stands in the way of economic comeback. We can help provide even 

4 

more opportunities with just a few widely supported adjustments 

to this critical program. I look forward to hearing more about the 

EPA’s Brownfields Program and its role in economic redevelopment, planned and sustainable land reuse and environmental justice. 

With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

looks to the majority side, seeing no one interested in giving an 

opening statement, I will turn to the ranking member of the full 

committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing. 

I would also like to thank the witnesses for being here, particularly 

Mayor Chris Bollwage from my home State of New Jersey, who I 

believe will be testifying on the second panel. 

When we passed the original brownfields bill in the 107th Congress, I was the ranking member of the subcommittee and the lead 

Democrat on the legislation, which was one of the only pieces of environmental legislation that I can remember President George W. 

Bush ever signing into law. 

We worked in a bipartisan manner then with my Republican 

chairman, the late Paul Gillmor of Ohio. And I would like to continue this bipartisan effort as we work to improve on the program, 

and assure the States and local communities have the resources 

they need to revitalize their communities. I hope that my colleagues on the committee will join me in working to improve this 

important program. 

The Brownfields Program has been an incredibly important tool 

for protecting public health and spurring economic growth in New 

Jersey and throughout the country. Brownfields properties are a 

blight on the community. Though these sites do not warrant listing 

on the national priority list like Superfund sites, these contaminated properties can have negative environmental and economic 

impacts. 

The success of this program can’t be understated. Removing public health hazards by cleaning up contaminated sites is incredibly 

important for the surrounding communities. Since the program’s 

inception, thousands of contaminated sites have been remediated, 

allowing communities to create new developments like housing and 

parks. 

EPA has found that cleaning up underutilized or abandoned 

brownfields properties reduces health risks, decreases pollution, 

and reduces stormwater runoff. Aside from the environmental benefits, revitalizing these properties can result in crime reduction, job 

creation and boosts in the local economy. 

However, as successful as the Brownfields Program has been, 

there is still so much important cleanup work to be done. I expect 

we will hear from today’s witnesses about the staggering number 

of brownfields properties in need of remediation and the increased 

complexity of the remaining sites. 

5 

Many stakeholders have indicated a need for increased funding 

and flexibility to allow States and local communities to use their 

resources effectively to address the increased complexity of these 

cleanups. Through multipurpose grants, regional planning and increased caps for individual grants, communities can start to tackle 

this problem. 

Communities also need assistance with capacity building. 

Through job training, technical assistance, and education and outreach, communities can leverage Federal and State assistance, engage with developers in the remediation process, and take ownership of their communities’ revitalization. We should be equipping 

communities with the tools they need to ensure successful cleanups. 

Despite the growing need for resources and broad support on 

both sides of the aisle, this successful program has never been reauthorized. While the program has continued to receive appropriations, unfortunately, funding levels have declined. Furthermore, 

the Federal tax incentive has lapsed. These are incredibly useful 

tools that encouraged developers to remediate sites by allowing 

them to deduct the cost of cleanups. 

So we can’t continue to expect the same success from a program 

that is underfunded and lacking the necessary tools to be effective. 

As we work to determine how we can strengthen the program, we 

should ensure that funding is part of the conversation, and we 

should also support cleanup efforts to ensure that these efforts are 

adequately funded. 

So I appreciate today’s opportunity to learn more about how we 

can increase the effectiveness of this program. As many of you 

know, I previously—I mentioned I introduced legislation to reauthorize appropriations and create the needed flexibility for the 

Brownfields Program. My legislation aimed to address some of the 

concerns that have been expressed by stakeholders, including increased capacity building, more flexibility in the use of grants and 

increased caps on individual grants. I would like to reintroduce an 

updated version of that bill soon, and I hope that we can work together to get bipartisan brownfields legislation signed into law this 

year. 

I guess I can’t help but mention, tomorrow is Earth Day, and so 

I think it is particularly great, both Chairman Shimkus and Mr. 

Tonko, that we are having the hearing today. I fully intend to talk 

about brownfields when I go around the district tomorrow and over 

the weekend at our various Earth Day events. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

I want to thank the chairman for calling this hearing on EPA’s Brownfields Program. I would also like to thank the witnesses for being here, particularly Mayor 

Chris Bollwage (‘‘Bowl wage’’) from my home State of New Jersey, who testified before this committee back in 2001 in support of our bipartisan effort to enact legislation to address brownfields sites. 

When we passed the original brownfields bill in the 107th Congress, I was the 

ranking member of the subcommittee and the lead Democrat on the legislation, 

which was one of the only pieces of environmental legislation that I can remember 

President George W. Bush ever signing into law. I worked in a bipartisan manner 

then with my Republican chairman, the late Paul Gillmor of Ohio, and I would like 

to continue this bipartisan effort as we work to improve on the program and ensure 

6 

that States and local communities have the resources they need to revitalize their 

communities. I hope that my colleagues on the committee will join me in working 

to improve this important program. 

The Brownfields Program has been an incredibly important tool for protecting 

public health and spurring economic growth in New Jersey and throughout the 

country. Brownfields properties are a blight on the community. Though these sites 

do not warrant listing on the National Priority List (NPL) like Superfund sites, 

these contaminated properties can have negative environmental and economic impacts. 

The success of this program cannot be understated. Removing public health hazards by cleaning up contaminated sites is incredibly important for the surrounding 

communities. Since the program’s inception, thousands of contaminated sites have 

been remediated, allowing communities to create new developments- like housing 

and parks. EPA has found that cleaning up underutilized or abandoned brownfields 

properties reduces health risks, decreases pollution and reduces storm water runoff. 

Aside from the environmental benefits, revitalizing these properties can result in 

crime reduction, job creation, and boosts in the local economy. 

However, as successful as the Brownfields Program has been, there is still so 

much important cleanup work to be done. I expect we will hear from today’s witnesses about the staggering number of brownfields properties in need of remediation 

and the increased complexity of remaining sites. 

Many stakeholders have indicated a need for increased funding and flexibility to 

allow States and local communities to use their resources effectively to address the 

increased complexity of these cleanups. Through multi-purpose grants, regional 

planning, and increased caps for individual grants, communities can start to tackle 

this problem. 

Communities also need assistance with capacity building. Through job training, 

technical assistance, and education and outreach, communities can leverage Federal 

and State assistance, engage with developers in the remediation process, and take 

ownership of their community’s revitalization. We should be equipping communities 

with the tools they need to ensure successful cleanups. 

Despite the growing need for resources and broad support on both sides of the 

aisle, this successful program has never been reauthorized. And while the program 

has continued to receive appropriations, unfortunately, funding levels have declined. 

Furthermore, the Federal tax incentives have lapsed. These were incredibly useful 

tools that encouraged developers to remediate sites by allowing them to deduct the 

costs of cleanups. We cannot continue to expect the same success from a program 

that is underfunded and lacking the necessary tools to be effective. As we work to 

determine how we can strengthen this program, we should ensure that funding is 

part of the conversation. We should all support cleanup efforts, and should ensure 

that these efforts are adequately funded. 

So, I appreciate today’s opportunity to learn more about how we can increase the 

effectiveness of this program. As many of you know, I have previously introduced 

legislation to reauthorize appropriations and create the needed flexibility for the 

Brownfields Program. My legislation aimed to address some of the concerns that 

have been expressed by stakeholders, including increased capacity building, more 

flexibility in the use of grants, and increased caps on individual grants. 

I would like to reintroduce an updated version of that bill soon and hope that we 

can work together to get bipartisan brownfields legislation signed into law this year. 

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I thank my colleague, and he yields back his 

time. Chair now recognizes Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response from 

the U.S. EPA. He has been here numerous times, we are friends. 

Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MATHY STANISLAUS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

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

Ranking Member Tonko, members of the subcommittee. I am 

Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land 

and Emergency Management. 

7 

Brownfields sites, as has been noted earlier, are the heart of 

America’s urban and rural downtowns and existing and former economic centers. Reclaiming these vacant and underutilized properties and repurposing brownfields are the core of EPA’s community economic revitalization efforts through the Brownfields Program. 

Repurposing land can be the impetus for community revitalization. Our Brownfields Program can help be a catalyst for redevelopment and revitalization and hinges on the success of key local partners working together to implement the vision of local communities. The EPA’s Brownfields Program provides direct funding to 

communities, States, tribes and not-for-profits for brownfields assessment, cleanup, revolving loans, research and technical assistance. 

The unmet need for brownfields funding for local communities to 

address abandoned underutilized and contaminated sites continues 

to rise. The demand for brownfields funding far exceeds 

brownfields funding levels, and is exacerbated by the increased assessment and cleanup costs. 

The EPA currently is only able to fund approximately one-quarter to one-third of the competitive grant applications we have received. 

The program estimates over the past 5 years, an additional 1,767 

requests for viable projects scored highly, but were not selected because of a lack of funding. If EPA had the funding to select, these 

grants would have resulted in about 1,800 proposals being funded, 

which would have resulted in 50,000 jobs, and a leveraging of 

about $12 billion in public and private funding. 

The Brownfields Program is premised on partnerships between 

the public and private sector. With EPA’s critical early resources 

providing the certainty to leverage funding from other Government 

agencies and private sector achieve positive economic and environmental and social outcomes. As has been noted earlier, for every 

$1 EPA invests in communities, it leverages about $18 of privatesector and other public resources. More than 113,000 jobs has been 

leveraged through EPA’s funds, which has leveraged about $22 billion in cleanup and redevelopment projects. 

EPA’s research has shown that redeveloping a brownfield site 

rather than a greenfield site has significant environmental benefits, including reducing vehicle miles traveled, and related emissions from about 32 to 57 percent, and reducing stormwater runoff 

by an estimated 47 to 62 percent. 

Using Census data, EPA found approximately 104 million people 

live within 3 miles of a brownfield site that received EPA funding, 

roughly 33 percent of the U.S. population. This includes 35 percent 

of all children in the U.S. under the age of 5. While there is no single way to characterize communities located near our sites, this 

population is more minority, low-income, linguistically isolated, and 

less likely to have a high school education than the U.S. population 

as a whole. As a result, these communities may have fewer resources with which to address concerns about the health and the 

environment. 

Preliminary analysis of the data of a subset of communities receiving grants shows that there is a significant tax revenue inVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:38 Jul 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X140BROWNFIELDS\114X140BROWNFIELDSWORKING WAYN
8 

crease from the redevelopment of brownfield sites. Our data shows 

that there is an estimated $29 million to $73 million in additional 

tax revenue to local governments in a single year after a cleanup. 

This is two to six times more than the $12 million EPA has invested in these communities. I know over the years, there has been 

support for significantly increasing the amount of cleanup grants. 

Now, provided this increase, we support a modest increase, but 

there is a risk of impacting less communities. Based on how much 

we increase the size of cleanup grants, we can actually reduce the 

number of communities that actually receive grants in the 

leveraging of those monies from the private sector and other public 

resources by to 60 percent. So 60 percent of communities may not 

be getting grants on a yearly basis if all we do is increase the size 

of the grants. 

In addition, we want to preserve the local communities’ knowledge and information to determine the use that best fits their vision, and not have a predetermination and division of the grant resources based on an upfront determination by the Federal Government regarding resources. We want to preserve the competition 

process, which looks at those communities that have the best plans 

in place, that have the best partnerships in place which has been 

the basis of the success of EPA’s Brownfields Program. 

With that, I will close and take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanislaus follows:] 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

Mr. MCKINLEY [presiding]. Thank you, Administrator, it is always good to see you. Thank you, again, for coming. Before we get 

into other questions, I think I was going to reserve this for the 

chairman to make his remarks, but perhaps—I do want to ask 

something before we get started, and I will begin with the ranking 

member. We have got an example, I know, in West Virginia, of real 

benefits. You talked about 18 times, we have got one up in the 

northern panhandle of West Virginia in Hancock area that, for $2.5 

million, they have invested over—private sector had put $70 million in. So it is almost a 30-to-1 odds up there for that. It has really 

had an impact. So I want to thank you for working with them on 

this program. Pat Ford was the contact up there, if that name 

rings a bell with you or not. 

But secondly, back to your testimony, in your written testimony, 

you talked about 24, 25 percent of the grants went to towns of 

20,000 or fewer. I would be curious to take that down a little bit 

further, and to find out, I think, in some areas of rural America, 

especially mine, most of the communities are less than that, significantly less, 1-, 2-, 3,000 people. When the coal mines are shut down 

and all the work that was related to those coal mines, they may 

only have 700 people in the town and they have got—there is no 

money, there is no money in that community. Can you share with 

us a little bit about the flexibility you have to earmark it towards 

rural areas that need help when the railroads—when the mines 

shut down, that means the railroad shuts down. And when the railroad shuts down, we know invariably there are going to be some 

brownfield sites associated with where the rail siting had been. 

They can’t afford to do it. So can you help a little bit about explaining, maybe really rural areas of 2,000 people or fewer, do you have 

any sense of what that might be percentage-wise? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. I would answer in a couple of parts. One, 

I think particularly the smaller communities, rural communities, 

have asked us and we have—that upfront technical assistance really is key. The capacity for these rural communities to be able to 

compete is really critical. So we provide a lot of upfront assistance. 

We have a national network of technical assistance providers. In 

fact in West Virginia, there is a center to provide assistance to the 

local community, I think one of the more successful ones in the 

country. So the upfront technical assistance is really critical to develop the capacity or identify opportunities. We also have a non 

competitive mechanism where a local community wants to do an 

assessment on an individual site. What a lot of local communities, 

or smaller communities have said, is that they don’t really want to 

administer a grant, because there is a lot of administrative burdens 

associated with the grants. They would rather—if they have an individual site, they would rather assess that site. So we have a contract-based mechanism to assess a particular site. So we think that 

is successful as well. 

In terms of the grant process itself, one of the things that we 

have done is we have separated out new and existing grantees, and 

that has resulted in increasing the number of smaller communities 

and rural communities receiving grants. So those are a number of 

things that we have put in place. 

31 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. I am just trying to put it in context. We 

often talk about the Speaker’s home in Janesville, Wisconsin, being 

a small town. It is three times the size of my hometown. I live in 

the largest city in my district. So I think we have to understand, 

there are a lot of small towns. So let me follow up. Would it be advantageous for some of these small towns to collectively put together a regional approach towards it and get funded? Would that 

help? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. We have—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. We have been that told they couldn’t do that. 

You and I haven’t talked about that, but I want to, give a chance 

this morning to talk about that. Would a regional approach be 

helpful for small towns to get together so that they may be collectively come up to 3,000 or 4,000 people? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Oh, absolutely. And we could do maybe better 

averaging regarding that. We have something called a CommunityWide Assessment grant. So one or more communities can say, We 

want to have a single grant to be administered over a broad geography, so we can look at that. 

We also have an Area-Wide Planning Program, which is intended 

to look at not just the sites itself, or not just the contaminants 

itself, look broadly at what will it take to redevelop an area, what 

will enable market studies, enable local visioning, enable infrastructure studies. In fact, in our next round, we are going to do a 

particular focus on communities that have closed coal mines and 

closed power plants. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. And now let me recognize Congressman Tonko from New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Administrator Stanislaus, thank you for your testimony. As I indicated in my opening statement, this is a great program. I would 

like it to have the additional resources and statutory changes necessary to make it even greater. I believe that folding brownfields 

cleanup into broader regional economic development efforts can 

help local, county and regional authorities to make smart and sustainable planning decisions. 

In my district, for example, we are trying to determine which 

parts of a waterfront will be developed, and which will be left green 

in a long stretch of miles along an intercoastal waterways system. 

Brownfields cleanup priorities should be considered in this effort. 

New York State’s Brownfield Opportunity Areas, the BOA program, takes a neighborhood or area-wide approach rather than the 

traditional site-by-site approach to the assessment and redevelopment of brownfields. This allows for more comprehensive planning, 

and, certainly, a stronger sense of cleanup. I believe this is similar 

to EPA’s area wide planning grant. So I would ask you to give us 

a quick history of this type of grant, you know, how has it changed 

since its inception? And what is the thinking at EPA? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I actually brought the Area-Wide Planning approach to the EPA from my work in New York on developing the Brownfield Opportunity Area program. And we think it 

is really critical and has been really successful, particularly with 

communities with economic distress, to look at, more broadly, the 

planning side, the market study side, the infrastructure study side. 

32 

Just to give you a bit of leveraging, the recipients of Area-Wide 

Planning grants, to date, have reported that the $12 million in 

grants have leveraged about $354 million above the public and private resources. One of the things that we really emphasize is, use 

these grants to identify implementing resources, so let’s just not 

have a plan for plan’s sake, let’s figure out, of our plan, what kind 

of Federal, State and local resource are there to implement the vision coming out of a local community. 

Mr. TONKO. If I might ask, do you see economies? Have you witnessed or somehow interpreted economies of scale by doing perhaps 

testing, and some of the drilling they need to do in these areas to 

determine the response? Has that produced any sort of economies 

of scale by doing it in a regional capacity rather than community 

by community, doing their individual thing? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. One thing we have seen from the first set 

of grants in the Federal Government is that it is important to develop a boundary that makes sense. It could be a geographic 

boundary, it could be a multi political jurisdictional boundary, but 

what works is making sure that there is a real-working governance 

structure and a real-working geography. 

We have found early on that if a job is too big, that it actually 

impedes success. We ask folks to identify a few catalyzing sites, 

identify geography that is manageable, show success there before 

you go broader. 

Mr. TONKO. What would be too large? Do you have any—could 

you share what is too large? Is it beyond a certain mile measurement? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am sorry. Say that again? 

Mr. TONKO. Is there a certain mile measurement along from distance from each other, or what is too large? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think, frankly, it is going to depend on 

the part of the country. What we found is, we have large industrial 

corridors, multiple municipalities work together historically. That 

is a natural fit. But if you have communities that are dispersed by 

miles, it is very hard for that to work. So it really depends on a 

little bit of history, and a little bit of working relationship on the 

ground. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. And in terms of nonprofits, they can be partners 

for local governments and developers to get projects completed, especially for our many disadvantaged communities. Are non profits 

currently able to receive grants for a cleanup? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, no. And clearly, what we have heard from 

various not-for-profits, who really serve as an extension of local 

government—— 

Mr. TONKO. What about the ability to receive grants for assessments? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am sorry, they are only eligible to get assessment grants. 

Mr. TONKO. Are there any concerns as to why non profits with 

a good traffic record for cleanup grants should not be qualified? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. It is a statutory issue. 

Mr. TONKO. What is your sense? Do you think that we should 

amend the statute? 

33 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I do, I do. Clearly, focusing on those not-forprofits that play a role in redevelopment and have the local partnerships to enable a project moving forward. 

Mr. TONKO. Are there additional tools that EPA has for capacity 

building for disadvantaged communities? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Additional tools. Well, I think I described a little bit on the technical assistance program is really critical. Funding local entities to provide direct technical assistance to municipalities. So those are the things we have been doing, doing upfront 

outreach. So those are the things we have been doing. 

Mr. TONKO. I would just state—and I see that my time is up— 

but I would state that a comeback scenario for many of our disadvantaged communities that has a brownfield cleanup situation 

needs additional focus, and the assistance that we can provide for 

that would be important. I have many other questions that I will 

enter for into the record so that EPA can respond to those concerns. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Now, for the next round of questions come from 

Dr. Bucshon of Indiana, 5 minutes you are recognized. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this will springboard off Congressman Tonko’s questioning. We know that many of 

the brownfield sites already cleaned up and redeveloped are less 

complicated sites. For sites that are more contaminated and thus 

more complicated than others, what can be done to encourage 

cleanup and redevelopment of these sites? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I am a big believer, and we have done 

studies, independent studies. From a financial-transaction perspective, the site assessment resources are really critical to better manage the risk of a site. In terms of how do you translate this unknown to a known? How do you translate the contaminants to 

what does it take to clean up, so then that could be underwritten 

in terms of the subsequent financing. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Are some of the sites federally owned? Anything 

federally owned, or I don’t know, do the Feds clean these up themselves? For example, I have an old nerve gas plant in the northern 

part of my district, facility—there was a DOD, and it took years 

and years and years to get that repurposed into, now it is an economic development area and it was—is this program involved in 

any of that stuff or that is totally separate? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, that is largely separate. There is a separate tract of figuring out how DOD properties, or DOE properties 

can be transferred by making sure that the Federal Government 

addresses this liability, either before transfer or subsequent to 

transfer. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Once the property is transferred, I guess no one 

in the private sector would take a transferred property in that kind 

of condition, but once that type of property, then would be in the 

Brownfields Program? I am just trying to clarify. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. No. So typically, in a DOD kind of property, it 

is typically transferred to a local government. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Which this was. 

34 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. And then, either some cleanup is done, or 

some parceling of that property to redevelop some parcels and not 

others. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. And then there are ways of limiting liability 

through instruments with the State and through some insurance 

products. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Are there other Federal agencies barriers to getting some of these sites redeveloped? For example, fish and wildlife, I can name other agencies. Are those barriers—I know most 

of these are industrial buildings that are old factories. But, I mean, 

are there other Federal agencies that have to be interacted with 

that are barriers to getting some of these sites cleaned up that you 

are aware of? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. I don’t think necessarily barriers. We do, 

in fact, engage with other agencies on the economic development 

resources side, like DOT and HUD. We want to make sure that 

once the assessment is done, once the cleanup plan is developed, 

that the implementing resources like TIGER grants from DOT, for 

example, that there is some advantage for communities who have 

done the hard work and similarly with HUD, we have been working with HUD as well. 

Mr. BUCSHON. How many applications do you get per year approximately? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Oh, can I get back to you, I—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. I know I am putting you on the spot. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. I have it here, but I will get back to you. 

Mr. BUCSHON. OK. You won’t be able to answer this either. I was 

going to say, approximately, how many grants do you award every 

year? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I will give you a percentage. We are only 

able to fund about 25 percent to 30 percent of the grants we receive 

from applicants. 

Mr. BUCSHON. So—I mean, it is complicated, right? But how do 

you analyze an application to determine whether a project is going 

to be successful? Is there, like, some immediate things that a red 

flag goes up, just might as well not even try to get a grant from 

us? There is probably entry-level type decisionmaking, and then— 

I was a doctor, so triaging of possible sites that might qualify? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So are you asking how we evaluate? 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. We publicly announce grant criteria up front. It 

looks at the local circumstance, the capacity of the recipient—of the 

grant applicants, and we do a national competition and we score 

that, and that is how we do that. 

Mr. BUCSHON. That seems pretty straightforward. I yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. The prerogative. I have one followup with one more question to you, if I could, before I turn it over 

to the ranking member. 

The brownfield law requires that 25 percent of the funds appropriated to EPA for brownfield sites, they are to be used to characterize, assess and remediate petroleum brownfields. Did you think 

this petroleum set-aside is still necessary? 

35 

Mr. STANISLAUS. No. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. 

Now I recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Pallone from New Jersey. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Brownfields Program, as you said, Mr. Stanislaus, has been a success. The committee has been able to leverage Federal and State dollars in cleanup and revitalize contaminated sites. However, brownfields cleanups are becoming more complicated, resulting increased assessment and cleanup costs. So I wanted to ask you: Initially, would 

an increase in the cap on individual grants be helpful to communities trying to cleanup these more complicated sites? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. It’s something that—I think a modest increase makes sense. I am concerned that without an increase in appropriations, that we will actually have the total number of communities being reduced. So, I will leave it at that. 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes. Well, that serves my second question, because 

these grants are in high demand, and because of insufficient funding, many applications go unfunded. So if you increase the cap with 

current funding letters—current funding levels, that is going to 

mean fewer applications being funded, correct? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is right. 

Mr. PALLONE. So, therefore, a simultaneous increase in overall 

funding and an increased cap for individual grants would obviously 

be the most useful to continue success of the program? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, and I should note in the President’s budget, he has called for a bump-up in brownfield resources. 

Mr. PALLONE. Now, stakeholders have also mentioned that greater flexibility in the use of grants would be beneficial. One such example is EPA’s multipurpose pilot grants, which allow recipients to 

use the funds for a range of brownfield activities. And one of the 

potential benefits to this grant structure is expediting the timeframe between assessment and cleanup. So let me just ask you 

about that. To date, how many multipurpose grants have been 

awarded by the EPA? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Let me get back to you with a number, but my 

overall experience has been, which we were surprised by, is actually, where a grant recipient identified a single site for assessment 

and cleanup has actually been a bit slower than we anticipated. So 

we are looking at providing a grant, a multipurpose grant for multiple sites. Some sites may need assessment, some sites may need 

cleanup. So we want to continue to explore various vehicles of multipurpose grants. But we are not sure necessarily that one grant 

for one side for a site assessment and cleanup necessarily saves 

time. We are still looking at that. 

Mr. PALLONE. That was my next question, if you had any preliminary data that shows that this type of grant is beneficial to developers and communities. Can you comment on that, or are you 

still looking into it? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I think, in principle, it would, but we just—so 

there are two competing issues: Would providing a grant for assessment of a cleanup on an individual site save time from two competitions? And we are finding that our data shows that that is not 

necessarily the case. We also have this issue of having money that 

36 

is out there—we are fairly obligated if money is out there for too 

long to take it back. So there is tension that we have to resolve. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Before my time is up, I wanted to turn to administrative costs because currently, brownfields grants funds cannot be used for administrative costs. However, allowing recipients 

to use a portion of EPA funds to offset some of the administrative 

burden could help communities, particularly rural and financially 

disadvantaged communities. Did you want to comment on that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I think we have heard repeatedly from 

grant recipients, particularly smaller communities that it is a burden. I think that is a sensible approach to figure out a way of not 

burdening them with the administrative costs. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Well, I am encouraged to hear about the success of the program, and EPA’s commitment to cleaning up the contaminated sites. As I said, look forward to working with the EPA 

to help strengthen the program and ensure that States and local 

communities receive adequate resources to administer and support 

these cleanup efforts. I mean, obviously in my State, both Superfund and brownfields have been tremendously helpful. I can point 

to so many cases in my district where they have not only cleaned 

up sites, but revitalized the economy and, you know, created jobs 

and the list goes on and on. So, again, Mr. Chairman, I hope that 

we can work on a bill together that would reauthorize this and I 

yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. I now recognize the vice chairman of 

the subcommittee, Mr. Harper from Mississippi, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. Mr. Stanislaus, it is good to have you 

back. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Great to be back. 

Mr. HARPER. You are a regular here, so thank you very much for 

your insight. At a hearing on the Brownfields Program held at the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, you explained that 

the Brownfields Program is a good model of leveraging. Can you 

explain to us what that means and explain why that is the case 

and how EPA maximizes leveraging Federal dollars? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. One from a transactional perspective, 

being able to reduce risk early through site assessment allows the 

unknown of total cost to be a known, so that that can be quantified 

for underwriting and bringing private resources to the table, that 

is one thing that we do. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. The second is, we have been pushing the idea 

of preference and priority, which is, that if the community has done 

the hard work and the planning, they should get some benefit, for 

example, DOT TIGER grants recognizes upfront planning. So that 

is some of the things we have been doing. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. Will expanding the eligibility for what 

entities can receive brownfields funds decrease the number of 

grants awarded? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Expanding the eligibility? Can you expand? 

Mr. HARPER. Basically, if we expand the eligibility for what entities can receive these, how—what impact, if any, do you think that 

would have on the overall leveraging of Federal dollars? 

37 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, if I understand your question, so, you 

know, we go to the national competition, and we pick the most 

qualified, not just the success of the program—if your question is 

about increasing the size of the grant—is that your question? 

Mr. HARPER. Or, for instance, expanding it to include nonprofits, 

what waterfront grants, those type things. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. I think not-for-profits, there are benefits, 

particularly for smaller communities, which really rely on not-forprofits on economic development and housing development work. 

So the natural extension provided the capacity gap that some 

smaller communities may not have, so we do view that as a positive. 

In terms of an upfront determination of waterfront grants, we actually think there are unintended consequences of dividing grants 

too early in the process, as opposed to having the grant applicants 

demonstrate who are the best qualified. 

Mr. HARPER. Do you think that grants and nonprofits organizations require more project management resources? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. More project management resources? Clearly, 

be it a local government or a potential not-for-profit, they need to 

demonstrate capability and capacity. 

Mr. HARPER. Sure. There is a bill pending in the Senate right 

new on brownfields, Senate bill No. 1479. Some of the changes in 

that bill require EPA to consider certain types of grants, for example, those waterfront grants and clean energy grants. Rather than 

directing EPA to consider certain sites for brownfields funding. 

Shouldn’t local communities decide the best in use for redevelopment project? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Absolutely. I have gone on record and said that 

before. 

Mr. HARPER. Does EPA already have authority to issue grants to 

these types of projects? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Absolutely. 

Mr. HARPER. Does EPA support the concept of multipurpose 

grants? Are there problems associated with awarding grants funding for both assessment and cleanup activities simultaneously 

under the same grant? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, we have a grant cycle right now. I think 

we were looking at how do we provide even more flexibility. We 

don’t believe we need statutory authority for that, though. 

Mr. HARPER. Does EPA support the broadening of grant eligibility so that governmental entities that took titles of the property 

before the date of the brownfields law in 2002, but which did not 

causes or contribute to the contamination, are they eligible to receive brownfields grants funding? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I think that makes sense, municipalities 

have raised that as an impediment to redeveloping their downtowns. 

Mr. HARPER. How would EPA ensure that these governmental 

entities did not cause or contribute to the contamination? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think in the same way that we do now, 

we actually do a record search, and we require a demonstration of 

their linkage to the property. 

38 

Mr. HARPER. And would these governmental entities have to 

demonstrate that they conducted the appropriate due diligence or 

appropriate inquiry? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is right. 

Mr. HARPER. With that, I will yield back. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. And now we recognize for 5 minutes 

the Congresswoman from California, Ms. Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman McKinley and Ranking 

Member Tonko, for holding this hearing, and thank you, Assistant 

Administrator Stanislaus, for your testimony today. 

The Brownfields Program has been an important one for cleaning 

up contaminated properties, reducing exposure to harmful contaminants, and revitalizing our communities. My district’s experience 

with the Brownfields Program goes way back to the awarding of 

initial pilot redevelopment projects in the beginning. As you know, 

I represent a district in California that is comprised of many coastal communities. As you can imagine, keeping these waterfront 

properties free of contamination is not only a concern for public 

health and the environment, it is also an economic concern. 

My first question to you, Mr. Stanislaus, do coastal communities 

have unique challenges when cleaning up waterfront—brownfields 

property? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Unique challenges? I think waterfront property, 

I think, vary depending on the kind of contaminates. I have to 

think there are some unique opportunities given their waterfront 

and the transportation access, also. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So are there tools or resources that are available to 

communities who have these particular, and maybe unique challenges in their brownfields? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I would say the Area-Wide Planning program is one of the grant programs, because waterfronts tend to be 

pretty large in terms of the opportunity, so area-wide planning allows infrastructure studies and market studies. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. What kind of public outreach does the EPA engage in to make sure that residents, my constituents are more informed about brownfields and the availability of remediation process? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am sorry. Can you say that again? 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, are there public outreach programs that you 

are engaged in that would ensure that the residents, my constituents and various people, become more informed about what 

brownfields are and that there is remediation, a process available? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. So we provide a grant to entities around 

the country, it is to do that direct outreach in technical assistance 

to communities in addition to what we do ourselves. In terms of the 

cleanup itself, the cleanup is administered by State cleanup programs, and we separately fund States and tribes for that. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. I am pleased to hear that you are engaged in 

this, because I think that some people don’t even know that they 

are sitting on top of a brownfield, or they are associated with it 

that might be eligible for some special benefits. 

Another issue I would like to talk about is the sustainable reuse 

of brownfield sites. I think it is very important communities are 

able to revitalize these underused, or abandoned sites, in a sustainVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:38 Jul 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X140BROWNFIELDS\114X140BROWNFIELDSWORKING WAYN
39 

able way. So are there ways, and what are they, that you have promoted sustainable reuse of brownfields, such as green building 

stormwater management, and how have these sustainable uses 

benefited communities? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I would begin with, I think, brownfields by 

itself is very sustainable because they are in kind of population 

centers and lower air emissions and lower water kind of impact. In 

terms of promoting some of the items you suggested, we actually 

highlight some of the best practices used at all the sites, like green 

infrastructure, for example. And there have been a few sites, like 

in Monroe, Michigan, where there is actually an assembly plant for 

wind energy. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. The reuse. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I appreciate your testimony here today in answering 

questions, especially as we deal with the effects of climate change. 

It is so important that we think about sustainability of development projects. I am happy to hear that EPA has been working to 

promote sustainability in the Brownfields Program while, at the 

same time, protecting public health of course and revitalizing our 

communities. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to yield back, or yield 

to someone else. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. Not seeing any more on this side, the 

enlightened side of the argument. We will move to the other side, 

the hopeful side. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Idealistic. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Five minutes to Mr. McNerney from California. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I appreciate the hearing. 

Mr. Stanislaus, would it be fair to say that every single congressional district in this country has real estate that would qualify for 

the Brownfields Program? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I can’t imagine that is not the case. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. That is right. So, Mr. Chairman, I think we 

have a good case that we could make to our colleagues to get this 

program funded. 

Moving on, I am really interested in your leverage state. You 

said you can leverage sometimes 1 to 18. That is phenomenal. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. How do you do that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think it is the sweet spot of Government. 

So, I think that it provides the upfront money to deal with the uncertainties. And when you deal with the uncertainties, more private capital and even public economic development research can be 

brought to the table. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, you also mentioned you want to preserve 

the competitive process, but there is probably a lot of potential 

projects that don’t have the resources to put together a quality proposal. Are there means within the program to help some of these 

communities? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. So we fund—because we cannot directly assist communities to write a grant application that we are going to 

have to judge, so we fund entities around the country to provide 

assistance to actually help in preparing those applications. 

40 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Very good. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. And identifying how they should best put together a competitive application. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is that a successful operation? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Oh, it is very successful. I can give you a list 

of what each of these recipients have been doing. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Very good. City of Stockton, California, has been 

my district, and it has benefited from the Brownfields Program significantly, seed money, eventually lead the revitalization, the seed 

money you talked about, properties along the Stockton Deepwater 

channel. 

I understand, also, that the EPA has relatively new repowering 

America’s land initiative which focuses on renewable energy, and 

it looks like there is about 150 programs that have gone through 

that. What is the advantage for a renewable energy business to use 

that program? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, it makes all the sense in the world where 

you have contaminant problems—particularly a contaminated property where other kinds of redevelopment are more challenging. 

What we have done is we partnered with the Department of Energy Renewable Energy Laboratory and we mapped contaminated 

sites around the country for wind energy opportunity and portable 

tech energy opportunity. And also, these happened to be in proximity to transmission line corridors as well. So we see it is a great 

fit between renewable energy and a use of a property that may not 

otherwise be used for other kinds of uses. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Very good. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield 

back. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you very much. Now we are staying on 

that side of the aisle. We will go down for the next 5 minutes of 

questioning, Mr. Green from Texas. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and our witness, for being 

here today. I represent an area in Houston, Harris County, Texas. 

We have a number of former industrial sites. A very urban area 

that grants through Brownfields Programs have been instrumental 

in transforming some of those underutilized and abandoned sites in 

the productive properties in the community. However, many small 

and disadvantaged communities don’t have the capacity to undertake these revitalization projects like a city like Houston can do. 

Mr. Stanislaus, in your testimony, you mentioned EPA data 

shows that funding and technical assistance are reaching small and 

disadvantaged communities. How much of this assistance is reaching the disadvantaged community? Do you have any examples of locations where EPA has worked with those smaller, disadvantaged 

communities? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I could follow up with specific examples 

after this hearing. But I think we have done a pretty good job of 

trying to make sure that all communities participate in the grant 

program. But in addition to the grant program, what many mayors 

or town managers of smaller communities say is, in some case providing the ability to move that one property. And so, we have contract assistants to assess that one property that has been pretty 

successful. You also have a technical assistance program that I 

think these communities have found really valuable. 

41 

Mr. GREEN. What type of assistance—could you describe some of 

the assistance supported provided by EPA under the Brownfields 

Program? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So some of the technical assistance, it includes, 

in some cases, actually doing a site assessment, understanding the 

potential contaminants at a site. In other cases, through the TAB 

program, we fund recipients to help communities understand the 

requirements of our grant program, kind of Brownfields 101, understand transactions and how to actually go from a vacant, underutilized property and walk them through each step of the transaction and redevelopment. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, I have a great example in my community. 

Again, it is a very urban area, we had a location for our city bus 

barn for the last 50 years up until about 20 years ago. And the lead 

contamination in that soil was so bad, but it was remediated. In 

fact, it was left open, a very urban area with a great deal of green 

space that nobody could go on. But after a period of time now, it 

is actually a community college, covered up the soil, and it is very 

viable in a very urban area, so I appreciate that. 

The Area Wide Grant program, the AWP, I understand AWP 

grants have been successful in providing funds to support communities with the developing plans identifying implementation strategies for area wide revitalization. How has this program been successful in revitalizing economically distressed communities? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, what it does, particularly for economically 

distressed communities, it allows communities to what I call go beyond the fence line. Look at the state of infrastructure, look at the 

infrastructure investment needs, look at the current market and 

future market conditions, look at implementing resources that are 

available at the Federal, State and local government. And again, 

to recite the stat I gave out earlier, allot $12 million to EPA recipients, Area-Wide Planning recipients, there is leveraged $354 million in other resources for redevelopment. 

Mr. GREEN. And how do partnerships with nonprofits and other 

organizations help ensure successful remediation? In my case, it is 

mostly with local governments. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I think it is critical, particularly in smaller communities that need that capacity assistance. Not-for-profits could 

be a local economic development entity, could be a local housing development entity, a local industrial development entity, which are 

not-for-profits to enable the whole process to move forward. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. There are concerns that some sites are cleaned 

up and new developments may no longer take into account the 

needs of long-time residents of the area, particularly affordable 

housing with an economically distressed community. I think it is 

an important consideration for revitalization should how these 

project serve communities. In what ways is EPA working to encourage community engagement to ensure that the needs of the residents are met? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. At its heart, the Area Wide Planning program is designed to enable community vision, inclusion of local 

residents who have been fighting, for many times years, around 

that particular site. We have also invested a lot in the tools for equitable development. How do we make sure that, for example, afVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:38 Jul 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X140BROWNFIELDS\114X140BROWNFIELDSWORKING WAYN
42 

fordable housing, and generally the needs of job creation or housing 

is part of the visioning of a brownfield redevelopment scenario. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I thank you. 

Now they called the votes. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Stanislaus. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Are you telling me to leave? Is that what you 

are saying? 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But you will be back. You are a fixture around 

here. Wasn’t it nice no one had to yell at you today? 

So the second panel, and then we are going to break for votes 

and come back after that. So if I could have the five panelists for 

the second panel, if they could take their seats, please. 

In respect for the time, because the clock is ticking over there on 

the call, we get 10 minutes left to go. We have Meade Anderson, 

Brownfields Program Manager with the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, which he is testifying on behalf of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. We have Christian Bollwage, who is the mayor of the city of 

Elizabeth, New Jersey; Clark Henry is the owner of the CIII Associates, LLC; Amy Romig, partner at Plews, Shadley, Racher & 

Braun. And Veronica Eady, Vice President and Director of the Conservation Law Foundation. 

If it’s all right with you if we just get it started and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, just go vote. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Then we will come back. Hold tight. Thank you 

very much. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am going to call the hearing to order. 

Again, thank you for your patience. Fly-out day. This subcommittee, we have to get the rooms—— 

Come on in, Mayor. 

We want to get the rooms when we get them because of these 

important issues. So patience. We will have members coming and 

going. But it was also the last vote on the floor, so a lot of them 

are getting back to their districts. So your testimony is still important, and we appreciate you being here. So I will just introduce 

folks—— 

Unless, Mr. Schrader, do you want to say anything, since you 

weren’t here for opening statements? Do you want to—— 

Mr. SCHRADER. No, Mr. Chair. And I apologize for not being here 

earlier. And I had a chance to converse with, you know, some of 

our participants. I really appreciate what they are doing. It is a 

timely issue and a big issue of my State where we have a Superfund site that we are trying to get to resolution on. So this is a 

great hearing, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I look forward to visiting that site sometime 

soon. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Yep. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So with that, I will just do the introductions. 

Each person individually, you will do your 5-minute opening 

statement. Your full statement is submitted for the record. And 

then we will go to questions afterwards based upon the testimony. 

43 

So I would like to first start with Mr. Meade Anderson, 

Brownfields Program Manager, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, on behalf of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. 

Sir, welcome. And you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF J. MEADE R. ANDERSON, CHAIR, 

BROWNFIELDS FOCUS GROUP, ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND 

TERRITORIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS; J. 

CHRISTIAN BOLLWAGE, MAYOR, CITY OF ELIZABETH, NEW 

JERSEY, ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; 

CLARK HENRY, OWNER, CIII ASSOCIATES, LLC; AMY E. 

ROMIG, PARTNER, PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN, LLP; 

VERONICA EADY, VICE PRESIDENT AND MASSACHUSETTS 

DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION 

STATEMENT OF J. MEADE R. ANDERSON 

Mr. ANDERSON. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking 

Member Tonko, members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Meade Anderson. I am chair of the Brownfields 

Focus Group with the Association of State and Territorial Solid 

Waste Management Officials, ASTSWMO. I am here today to testify on behalf of ASTSWMO. 

ASTSWMO is an association representing waste management 

and remediation programs of 50 States, five Territories, and the 

District of Columbia. Our membership includes State program experts with individual responsibility for the regulation or management of waste, hazardous substances, including remediation tanks, 

materials management, and environmental sustainability programs. 

I would like to preface my remarks with commenting that our organization does enjoy a positive working relationship with the U.S. 

EPA. Our collaborative efforts and problem-solving approaches to 

brownfields issues with the EPA Office of Brownfields and Land 

Revitalization should not be underestimated. I think what you are 

going to hear from me today is almost an echo of everything that 

we have heard earlier, and maybe a little bit more. 

ASTSWMO is a strong supporter of the Brownfields Program. 

For the past 14 years, this program has contributed greatly to the 

economic development and revitalization of the country. State and 

territorial programs provide significant support to the localities, 

such as small and rural communities that apply for grants. These 

programs also help ensure that funding is leveraged to the maximum extent possible to assist in the revitalization of these sites. 

The vast majority of these cleanups are managed under the State 

voluntary cleanup programs, which are typically supplemented by 

the 128(a) brownfields funds that we are going to be talking about 

today. 

Some of the benefits include providing funds for complete environmental assessments of properties, supporting local community 

officials in the preparation of grant applications that you have 

heard earlier, providing workshops for the organizations that are 

in these districts, and meeting with community officials. Just like 

a couple of weeks ago, I was meeting with a town that has five emVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:38 Jul 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X140BROWNFIELDS\114X140BROWNFIELDSWORKING WAYN
44 

ployees. They don’t have the ability to have a brownfields expert 

on staff and supporting the voluntary cleanup programs that I 

have mentioned that provide the foundation for setting the remediation goals and the institutional controls to make sure the properties are safe for reuse. 

Since the brownfields law’s beginning, 128(a) fundings have been 

provided to the States and—States, territories, and tribes with the 

national funding level at just under $50 million for the last 14 

years, whereas the number of applicants has continued to more 

than double. In 2003, 80 States, territories, and tribes received the 

funding of $49.4 million. By 2016, 164 entities requested funding, 

including 50 States, four territories, the District of Columbia, 109 

tribes, eight of which were new applicants. The awards in 2003 

averaged $618,000. However, by fiscal year 2016, the average 

award had dropped to approximately $293,000, less than half what 

had been awarded when the program started. 

As you have heard today, we are now facing more challenging 

sites than ever. Over the last 10 years, we were able to clean up 

many of the more easily to clean up sites and revitalize them, 

bringing benefits to the States and the communities. However, 

what remains is more challenging. And the redevelopment has 

been hampered by the complex issues of the contamination and the 

challenges of the community as a whole. 

These properties are financially upside down due to suspected 

environmental contamination. Yet many of these sites are situated 

in key locations in our small communities, cities, and towns. The 

more challenging sites require a unique collaborative approach of 

the stakeholders working in partnership with the community, local, 

State, Federal governmental organizations, business partners, 

NGOs, and individuals from the community itself. The State’s 

Brownfields Program plays a significant role in ensuring these 

sites are cleaned up to standards that are safe for their reuse. 

Earlier we talked about the leveraging that goes on, and the University of Delaware has published two well-respected studies. The 

Economic Impact of Delaware’s Economy: The Brownfields Program 

is one of them, that you get this $17.50 return on a dollar’s investment that goes into these brownfield sites. These two documents 

are referenced in my written testimony. 

To summarize, ASTSWMO believes in a robust Brownfields Program at all levels of Government working in concert with the private sector, is essential for the Nation’s environmental, economic, 

and social health. And without adequate funding for the State, territorial, and tribal brownfield and voluntary cleanup programs, 

brownfield goals cannot be achieved. Where the current level of 

funding is inadequate, we want to ensure that it is at least protected to a minimum. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Anderson follows:] 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank you very much. I want to turn to the ranking member of the full committee. 

Do you want to introduce the next person to testify or are 

you—— 

Mr. PALLONE. Oh, sure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I recognize the ranking member. 

Mr. PALLONE. Mayor Bollwage is the mayor of Elizabeth, which 

is one of the largest cities in New Jersey. And I have known him 

for a long time. And he has been mayor for many years. And he 

has been definitely a progressive mayor who has really done a lot 

to revitalize Elizabeth. 

If you go to Elizabeth today, compared to 20 years ago, you just 

see all the changes that have occurred that are all positive. The 

major downtown area, a lot of people shopping in town. So many 

improvements. So—but and a lot of that—some of that has related 

to the Brownfields Program as well. So that is why he is here 

today. 

Thank you, Mayor. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mayor. Welcome. You are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF J. CHRISTIAN BOLLWAGE 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

And, Ranking Member Tonko, thank you. 

And, Congressman Pallone, thank you for those very kind words, 

and always look forward to working with you on the issues that 

benefit New Jersey. 

As you—my name is Chris Bollwage. I am the mayor in the city 

of Elizabeth. I have also been the chair of the Conference of Mayors 

Brownfields Task Force for some 20-plus years. And since the 

1990s, the U.S. Conference has made the redevelopment of 

brownfield properties a top priority. And all of you can understand 

why that has happened. 

There are an estimated 1⁄2 million brownfields. And businesses 

were unwilling to touch these properties out of fear of liability. The 

congressman asked a question of the first panelist, is there a 

brownfield in every congressional district? And the U.S. Conference 

of Mayors did a study years ago that shows that every congressional district in this country has at least one brownfield incorporated. 

I testified before Congress numerous times during the 1990s on 

the importance of this legislation. Urban sprawl has left almost 

every community with an abandoned site in the Nation. The 

brownfields law has had a very positive impact on our economy. 

EPA estimates over 24,000 brownfield assessments, 1,200 cleanups 

have been completed, 113,000 jobs created, $22 billion leveraged. 

In our last survey, 150 cities developed nearly 2,100 sites, comprising 18,000 acres. And 106 cities reported 187,000 jobs were created; 71,000 predevelopment and 116,000 permanent jobs. 

And briefly, in our city, Congressman Pallone referred to it, we 

have Jersey Gardens Mall. It was built on a former landfill, 166 

acres. Now has 2 million square feet of shopping, over 200 stores, 

six hotels, movie theater, with 1,700 construction jobs, 4,000 perVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:38 Jul 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X140BROWNFIELDS\114X140BROWNFIELDSWORKING WAYN
54 

manent jobs, $2.5 million in tax revenue in the first 8 months. 

Would not have been done without a brownfield assessment grant. 

Jersey Gardens Mall, now called a Simon mall, recently announced it is going to add 411,000 square feet with an expansion 

completed in 2017. We have a workforce innovation center providing job placement, soft skills training, and ESL education to 

residents. It also features a 4.8 megawatt super—SunPower rooftop 

solar system which began producing power in February of 2012, 

and it can now produce power for 564 homes equivalent. 

The brownfields law and program has a proven track record of 

leveraging private sector investment and creating jobs. Unfortunately, the EPA has had to turn away a lot of highly qualified applicants, as evident by the questioning and the testimony of the 

first panel. The challenge that our communities face now is that 

many of the easy brownfield sites have been developed and what 

now remains are the more difficult brownfield sites, the ones that 

we like to call medium to dark brown brownfield sites. 

The Conference of Mayors believe that some minor changes, 

some of the recommendations that we include for the new 

brownfields law: Fully funding the Brownfields Program, allowing 

reasonable administrative costs, clarifying eligibility of publicly 

owned sites acquired before 2002, removing barriers from 

mothballed sites, and encouraging brownfield cleanups by good Samaritans. 

Other recommendations include creating a multipurpose task 

force grant—a multipurpose grant to make the program more flexible and market friendly. The way the program works now is if a 

city applies for various grants, identifies the properties where the 

money will be spent. The problem naturally with that scenario is 

the flexibility enough for real marketplace situations. A city may 

have multiple developers and businesses who are interested in several brownfield properties. 

What cities could use is a multipurpose grant to allow them to 

assess multiple properties and do cleanup on the properties chosen 

for redevelopment. If a city has to apply for a grant, wait 6 months 

to a year to see if they get funding, it naturally hinders our opportunities. 

Increasing cleanup grant amounts would also be beneficial. I 

know we differ from the EPA on this, but in the Conference’s opinion, many of the easy brownfields are already being done. What is 

tougher are the brownfields that are more complicated due to a variety of factors, including the level of cleanup needed. And for some 

of the cleanup grants, we would like an increase in the amount to 

be $1 million. In special circumstances, $2 million. 

I would like to thank you, Chairman, and the members of the 

subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. Brownfields development is a win/win for everyone involved. And the reauthorization 

of this law could be a top priority of this Congress. 

I thank you for the opportunity. And I am available for questions, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Bollwage follows:] 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mayor. And it is great to have you. 

I would now like to turn to Mr. Clark Henry, owner of CIII Associates. Again, your full testimony is already in the record. You have 

5 minutes. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CLARK HENRY 

Mr. HENRY. Great. Thank you very much, Chair Shimkus and 

Ranking Member Tonko, for having me here. It is an honor to 

speak to you as well with both the people to my left and right. It 

is an honor to share this table. 

I have been working on brownfield redevelopment for the past 

15-plus years, both as a public service—public servant working for 

the city of Portland, Oregon managing the Brownfields Program, as 

well as a consultant working with municipalities very small from 

the Village of Sutherland, Nebraska to the City of Boston, Massachusetts, as well as community-based organizations, developers, 

and property owners all over the country. 

I am intimately aware of working with the Brownfields Program 

and the power that it has. My overwhelming support for this program and the reauthorization is demonstrated in the success that 

we have had in Portland and across the country. I have administered over $2 million of EPA assessment in brownfield cleanup 

grants, worked very closely with the job training grantees, as well 

as revolving loan fund recipients; all of which have leveraged multifamily housing, additional commercial developments, light industrial developments, and job creation. 

I lightheartedly refer to the brownfield effect. With the EPA 

Brownfields Program involved, is we have brownfield jujitsu. We 

turn what are liabilities into assets. We kind of reverse the negative effect that they have on our communities environmentally and 

economically at the same time. The theme here too is how these 

grants help local municipalities and the Federal Government serve 

as really strong partners for private sector redevelopment. 

The Brownfields Program has been, in my observations, nationally the best model of how this has been working. I do, as well as 

previous testimony, have some recommendations how we could further refine some of this. The area-wide planning program that Administrator Stanislaus brought to the EPA from New York and is 

administering in the EPA now, I believe, should be made a permanent part of the Brownfields Pprogram. It is really a response to 

how we put properties and entire districts and corridors in the 

pipeline for development. 

It never shocks me when you start planning for a brownfield 

property that no onehas been interested in for decades, you start 

planning for it, and everybody wants it. So perception here on both 

sides is really important. 

The nonprofit eligibility too, for me, I think is a very important 

addition. They are not only more than capable of administering 

these grants; they are really essential private sector partners, particularly in the creation of workforce housing. 

I do believe that allowing some small portion of administrative 

costs is a very positive change under the grant. Though I do believe 

that local municipalities should bear the burden of operating programs, but when we allow them—when we allow some administraVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:38 Jul 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X140BROWNFIELDS\114X140BROWNFIELDSWORKING WAYN
65 

tive costs, we go from administering a grant to running a program. 

And in my experience with the city of Portland and having the 

time to broker relationships between developers and property owners and advocate for and help projects get through regulatory process at the State level, the outcomes are very compelling, and you 

speed things up and you make things happen that otherwise 

wouldn’t. 

I am a strong proponent for renewable energy on these facilities. 

Not necessarily allocating specific resources for that, but I really do 

believe that they provide substantial benefit. 

I think we do need to clarify the liability for public municipalities, not just making them available—or eligible for ownership 

after 2002, but under circle of liability, involuntary acquisition, 

such as through tax foreclosure, they are protected under statute, 

but for voluntary they are not. And I believe that widening that 

would really help municipalities take on projects that they are 

hesitant to now. 

The multipurpose grants allowing us to move from assessment to 

cleanup, from my perspective, I was dying for these things at the 

city of Portland and it would have sped some things up. Though 

it might not be universally applicable, I really do think it should 

be an option. And I would love to see the Federal tax incentive 

brought back that expired in 2011. 

And then the last little change isn’t necessarily a change to the 

administration or the grant program itself, but it is considering 

what happens after community planning processes are assessed 

and some cleanups are done. And exploring partnerships with 

these new—with new organizations and community-based organizations is really essential here. And then there are some new tools 

because the JOBS Act and the SEC rules allowing crowdsourcing 

and crowdfunding on an equity base is—has some really strong potential to actually leverage financing for a project otherwise is inaccessible. 

And I conclude by really encouraging the reauthorization. And I 

really want to say that this is working for the environment, society, 

and economy together to make our—bring our municipalities 

stronger as well as a stronger United States. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Henry follows:] 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much for your testimony. And 

thanks for the recommendations. That is kind of what we are looking for too in all this process. 

So now I would like to turn to Amy Romig, a partner at Plews, 

Shadley, Racher, and Braun. 

Ms. ROMIG. Perfect. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF AMY E. ROMIG 

Ms. ROMIG. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me here today so that I can share my views 

on the EPA’s Brownfields Program. 

So based upon the committee questions for the first panelist, Mr. 

Stanislaus, I am very pleased to see that all of the committee members obviously support the Brownfields Program, because this program is essential and vital to the redevelopment of our economies 

in our small towns and cities. 

As Chairman Shimkus said, I am an attorney with the law firm 

of Plews, Shadley, Racher, and Braun in Indianapolis, Indiana. 

And I represent private businesses, not-for-profit entities, and 

other private shareholders who develop these types of brownfield 

properties. We have also represented various cities and towns within Indiana who have taken advantage of the Brownfields Program. 

And we also represent economic development associations that 

would love to be able to take advantage of the Brownfields Program. 

The Brownfields Program is important to private shareholders 

because it allows knowledge to be found about these sites that prohibits their development at this current point in time. I will be 

quite frank. When it comes to investors, they want to make money. 

And they are looking at buying properties that they can develop 

that will be profitable. And, quite frankly, they shy away from 

those properties that have unknown risks. They have to be able to 

make the calculation: Can I make money on this? And if you have 

unknown environmental liability, they simply won’t make that investment. 

So by giving this money to the cities and towns, you are increasing the knowledge base that helps overcome the burden of developing these properties. It makes it much more likely that investors 

will take these risks and invest their money. 

We heard a lot from Mr. Stanislaus about the leveraging that 

happens. And this is precisely what happens when you put this 

money in the investment of knowledge, is that you make private 

people willing to invest even more of their money in these projects. 

I would like to give an example of one of the projects that my 

firm worked on. There was a blighted piece of property on several 

acres along an interstate in Indianapolis, and the neighboring 

properties were getting run down. No one wanted to be around this 

property. And the State of Indiana and the city of Indianapolis invested a couple of hundred thousand dollars in helping clean it up 

so that an out-of-state business would come in and invest in a 

truck stop. 

Over the last several years, more than $8 million has been reinvested in property taxes, now that they are being paid on this propVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:38 Jul 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X140BROWNFIELDS\114X140BROWNFIELDSWORKING WAYN
74 

erty, and sales tax because people are coming to this property. And, 

quite frankly, the value of the surrounding properties has increased and more development is occurring in this area simply because the State and the city invested a little bit of money. That is 

a 20-fold increase in the profitability of the seed money that the 

Brownfields Program put into this site. And more sites like this 

can happen if you increase the flexibility and the money available 

to these communities. 

We have heard a lot about how can you improve the Brownfields 

Program. And, quite frankly, we do a really great job in Indianapolis. But the smaller towns don’t do as well because they do not 

have the sophistication or the knowledge. While Indianapolis can 

afford to have a brownfields coordinator, the smaller towns can’t. 

The person who is handling these things is often an engineer who 

is worried about how do I get the trash picked up and how do I 

keep the roads going? 

So by allowing some administrative costs to your opening up the 

program to these smaller communities who need the most help, 

this will allow these communities to have more information about 

their sites because knowledge is power, as I talked about before. 

And it will help them make the contacts and meet the developers 

that will bring money to their communities. 

One of the other issues that is really problematic and hindering 

brownfield development is transactional costs in time of both 

money and in time, because time is money. If I am a developer and 

I can go develop a greenfield site and get a return on my investment in 6 months, that is much more attractive to me than working through the Brownfields Program trying to get the State and 

the various agencies to approve my permits and not getting a return on my investment for several years. And the reason this is 

happening is, quite frankly, that the agencies don’t have the resources. 

Our Indiana Department of Environmental Management does a 

great job and they have a lot of skill and sophistication, but they 

have limited resources. So by allowing the Brownfields Program to 

use some of the money for administrative costs, you are going to 

provide and overcome the problems with time. Because, quite 

frankly, more people will be allowed to have this knowledge and it 

will speed the process up and it will make it more attractive to developers. 

With that, I would like to thank you again for inviting me. And 

when we are finished with testimony, I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you have. 

[The statement of Ms. Romig follows:] 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you for coming. I just—I represent 

Danville, Illinois and Marshall, Illinois, which is closer to Indianapolis than my own house. So I do appreciate, and, unfortunately— 

well, fortunately, have to fly into Indianapolis sometimes to get to 

the eastern part of my district. So I know the community better 

than I used to. 

So now let me turn to Veronica Eady, a vice president and director of Conservation Law Foundation. We are glad to have you here. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF VERONICA EADY 

Ms. EADY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation. I am really pleased to be here and speaking to the committee. 

Conservation Law Foundation, founded in 1966, is a membersupported environmental advocacy organization. We are 

headquartered in Boston with five offices throughout New England 

and we protect New England’s environment for the benefit of all 

people. We use law, science, and the market to create solutions 

that preserve our natural resources, build healthy communities, 

and sustain a vibrant economy. And while I am a lawyer, we are 

fully multidisciplinary. We employ economists, scientists, planners, 

and investment fund managers. 

We support—and I will refer to my organization, Conservation 

Law Foundation interchangeably as CLF. CLF supports, without 

reservation, EPA and its Brownfields Programs. Nonprofit organizations have long played a critical role in facilitating the cleanup 

of brownfield sites. My own organization has convened community 

planning charrettes helping residents to articulate their vision for 

longstanding contaminated sites. We have also provided technical 

assistance to city and towns, helping them understand their legal 

options under State and Federal brownfields law. 

And as a founding member of the Massachusetts Smart Growth 

Alliance, CLF is working in broad coalition with other stakeholders 

to secure funding that would replenish Massachusetts’ Brownfields 

Redevelopment Fund, which is kind of the corollary to the EPA 

program. 

Massachusetts has many brownfield sites that have contamination that predates the industrial revolution. And I want to take a 

moment to talk a minute about the city of New Bedford, which is 

one of my favorite cities in Massachusetts, iconic and, of course, the 

site of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. 

Last year, CLF undertook a comprehensive investigation into the 

nature and extent of contamination in New Bedford and what potential exposure there might be for residents. We focused on an environmental justice analysis, which involved studying census and 

other demographic data, to determine whether low-income communities and communities of color bore a disproportionate environmental burden. 

We spoke with nearly 2 dozen residents, city officials, environmental regulators and others. And although New Bedford has received State and Federal brownfields funding in the past, one city 

official commented that the biggest environmental justice issue still 

facing the city continues to be the lack of funding available to identify more unaddressed contaminated sites. 

84 

New Bedford’s pollution dates back to the mid-1700s when the 

economy shifted from agriculture to whaling and whaling-related 

industry, such as oil processing, soap making, and ship building. 

These early industries likely admitted into the environment oils, 

arsenic, mercury, cyanide, biological waste, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other caustic substances that were disposed directly into the soils and waterways. After that we had the textile 

industry a century later. That was displaced by the electronics industry. So we have layer and layer upon pollution in New Bedford. 

New Bedford’s population is about 9,500. New Bedford’s median 

income is less than 50 percent of the State average. Some of the 

poorest residents literally live across the street from sites that have 

been mothballed because the industrial operations have long decades gone, nowhere to be found, and the city is left holding the bag. 

In some cases pollution has migrated into the homes of people. 

In some cases—in one case in particular, 84 homes had to be relocated. And these homes were on a site where currently, even today, 

there are two public schools on the site. The Department of Public 

Health had to come in and do an assessment to find out if there 

was any special—you know, any spikes in cancer rates and things 

like that resulting from the contamination. And, of course, New 

Bedford is only one of many similarly situated cities and towns in 

the country. 

Brownfield redevelopment is for many cities and towns the only 

form of developable property, particularly in New England, because 

of limited inventories of undeveloped land. And in order to develop 

these brownfields, they need access to funding. Access to further 

brownfield funding and technical assistance would be a major step 

for these communities. 

New Bedford does have some good news. There have been some 

brownfield sites, many, actually, that have been redeveloped. And 

there are a couple that are noteworthy. I will just name—one was 

a supermarket development that went into a former mill site and 

created 600 jobs. There is a marine commerce terminal project that 

will facilitate renewable energy and that is going to create 200 permanent jobs. 

So in conclusion, I want to once again say how fully CLF supports EPA and these programs. I appreciate you being here—or 

your invitation to me, and I look forward to questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Eady follows:] 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Now I will start with a round of questions. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. And the first question will go to Ms. Romig. 

In your written testimony, it takes on what is probably a fairly 

common notion that the Brownfields Program creates a windfall to 

private developers and investors. Would you please explain why 

that you believe that is not true? 

Ms. ROMIG. These developers and investors still have to put their 

own time and money into these projects. They have significant skin 

in the game. And when they are tackling these sites, these sites 

are more expensive to deal with than if they were dealing with a 

greenfield. 

So the Brownfields Program provides a little bit of seed money, 

but it is certainly not making anyone rich. They are not making 

a tremendous amount of money on it. And in fact, a lot of these 

projects, they don’t make as much as they might possibly make if 

they were developing a greenfield. So they are still investing a significant amount of time and money of their own. So it is not a 

windfall. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. And I appreciate that time is money, how 

quickly can you develop a site. Also, everyone has talked about 

risk. Right? There is some risk. And I think we in Congress are 

starting to understand that a little bit more as far as risk and reward and time and all the other stuff. And this is a perfect example. 

Let me go to Mr. Anderson. As you know, the brownfields law requires, and this was asked earlier to Mr. Stanislaus, that 25 percent of the funds appropriated to the EPA for activities authorized 

under CERCLA or Superfund 104(k), be used to characterize, assess, and remediate petroleum brownfields. Do you still—do you 

think that this petroleum set-aside is still necessary? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. And it is difficult to—you know, when 

you get an assessment grant, as a city does, and you are trying to 

go through the property, if you are trying to designate exactly 25 

percent, it really hampers you. If you have got the flexibility of the 

full amount and—you are going to run into petroleum on almost all 

these brownfield sites regardless. So I don’t think it is necessary 

any longer, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I think that concurs with what Mr. Stanislaus 

also testified. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mayor, in your testimony states that the, quote/ 

unquote, easy brownfield sites have already been developed and 

what now remains are more difficult, and you used the terminology 

‘‘darker brown,’’ which I am going to start using. I think it is a 

good terminology. Your testimony notes that minor changes to the 

brownfields law would help spur on additional redevelopment 

projects and economic growth. Can you walk us through some— 

your opinion regarding what type of changes would be helpful? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. The most important one would be clarifying some 

eligibility, as well as flexibility on the grant funding. If the moneyis 

targeted for assessments or targeted for cleanup, oftentimes the developer comes in and the money could be used in a better way in 

90 

some other category. And I think giving us flexibility would help 

us tremendously. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So explain flexibility. Tell us where are you constrained and what more flexibility—— 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. The assessment grant that we have had in the 

city of Elizabeth was used excellent to develop an identification of 

50-some-odd brownfield sites. Now that we have identified the 

brownfield sites and there is still assessment grants out there, it 

is important to know that we could still apply for assessment 

grants, but we understand what is in all of those properties. 

So if we can use assessment money for cleanup costs, or if we can 

use assessment money for some type of infrastructure that is necessary to get to the brownfield site—when we built the Jersey Gardens Mall, it was on a 166-acre site. The developer came to me and 

said: You know, I will remediate this mall, but you need to build 

the road to get there. And the road to get there cost $10 million. 

So I built a road in 1996 to get to a dump. And I could see the 

campaign literature against me that I built a road to a dump and 

then nothing happened. So the flexibility would be important, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. We did have a bridge to nowhere debate 

here—— 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. That is another State, though. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. In Washington, too. So Mr. Pallone remembers that. 

And my last question will go to Mr. Henry. In your written testimony, you discussed the need for area-wide planning. Can you 

walk us through what that means when you say area-wide? Why 

you belive it is important to make it a permanent feature of the 

Brownfields Program. 

Mr. HENRY. Absolutely. You know, in the early days of administering these grants and working through doing assessments and 

cleanup planning, you know, when you are doing an assessment 

and trying to plan for a cleanup, the most important thing that 

you—that the brownfield community realizes, you have to know 

what you are planning for. You have to understand what kind of 

redevelopment you are looking at. 

And then you also recognize that just by doing one property, you 

are probably operating in a corridor or a district with multiple 

properties. And by knocking down this one domino, you are probably catalyzing some additional investment. But you really also 

have to take into account—and some of these—and it ties also into 

the other complications, that the easy sites are gone. The other— 

some of these other complications are related to adequate infrastructure, other partnerships that could be out there and what is 

the community-supported vision? 

So in an area-wide planning process, we recognize that developers and organizations and the stakeholder group, in general, was 

looking for a vision that really indicated the city is a solid partner 

and willing to make the investments, like building roads and putting in additional infrastructure. Area-wide planning queues up 

multiple sites and entire districts for that investment and involves 

the community in helping decide what that vision is. 

91 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that, should we also maybe link them up in 

the development program? 

Mr. HENRY. Yes. And so—yes, it is—whether the assessment 

comes first or area-wide planning—it has happened in different 

ways—but they are very complementary. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. Excellent. Thank you. 

My time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the ranking 

member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And, again, welcome to all of our witnesses. 

Mr. Henry, what has your experience with area-wide planning 

been? 

Mr. HENRY. My first experience, I supported EPA’s brownfield office in supporting the first round of area-wide planning grantees, 

helping them transition their plans into more implementationbased documents and strategies. And then I recently concluded a 

brownfield area-wide planning project in Redmond, Oregon, and 

one in Hickory, North Carolina. 

Mr. TONKO. And when you get into an area-wide planning, I can 

imagine there might be some burdens and there are certainly benefits. Can you identify each of those, maybe from experience what 

some have been? 

Mr. HENRY. Of the burdens and benefits? 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. 

Mr. HENRY. So with brownfields, there is a really large perception issue. And when you go into public and you say: We are going 

to identify brownfields and we are looking at your—and you show 

a map and they have people’s properties up there, red flags go up 

in their heads. So one of the burdens you have to do is say, we are 

really not—we are not here to pin you and say that you have contamination. 

First, the definition of a brownfield doesn’t say you are contaminated and it doesn’t say you are liable for it. And so you really 

have to—there is a lot of communication that has to—you have to 

undertake to make sure they understand you are creating a vision 

and you are helping them realize their goals as well. 

And the benefit is, once you have effectively communicated that 

strategy to them, they are very solid partners to the municipalities 

and their neighbors. And there are people who will get in a room 

and hash out a strategy that previously you didn’t want to talk together. 

And the plan is that these are also implementation strategies at 

their core. This is about getting investments. So you are creating 

partnerships and staging projects on particular properties as catalysts in supporting that show a whole spread of things that can 

happen on these brownfield properties. 

Mr. TONKO. In terms of value added, what does area-wide planning has the greatest value added provide? 

Mr. HENRY. I think it magnifies the effect of the Brownfields Program in general. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. 

Mr. HENRY. And we stop talking about individual properties and 

we start talking about entire communities and neighborhoods. 

92 

Mr. TONKO. And in terms of coming together as an area, is it a 

common contaminant—if there is a contaminant, is it common use? 

Mr. HENRY. Sometimes you look at—some of these area-wide 

planning projects are occurring in industrial areas that are trying 

to modernize and address—and so the environmental issues and infrastructure issues won’t be a burden for new industry moving in. 

Other times these are automobile—these are like commercial corridors with a lot of automobile-related brownfield sites, like small 

infield gas stations and automotive. But, no, you are almost always 

talking about multiple types of contamination. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. And, Ms. Eady, I am grateful, certainly, for your 

cause to recognize the role that these cleanups play in promoting 

environmental justice. Many brownfields are in distressed communities that need additional technical assistance and capacity building to get the projects done. Can you explain the role that nonprofits currently play in remediating our brownfields? 

Ms. EADY. Well, a lot of nonprofits are—play the role, kind of as 

Mr. Henry described, leading these planning efforts and things of 

that sort. But we have directly provided technical assistance to cities and towns, whether it is in describing the liability protections 

or what the appropriate end uses are for the level of contamination 

in the property. 

We are working in coalition with a bunch of groups in a mill 

town in Massachusetts where there are some community development corporations that are involved in other kind of quasi-nonprofit/quasi-public organizations to do broad planning efforts like 

the type that would be done in area-wide planning. 

Mr. TONKO. Do you think that there is a larger role for nonprofits to play in working on the assessment and cleanup efforts? 

Ms. EADY. I think that there is absolutely an expanded role that 

can be played. And I think that were nonprofits to have access to 

EPA public brownfield funding, I think that the role would probably expand and evolve. 

My organization has a lot of close ties, particularly at the community level. And I do believe that if funding were available, we 

would be able to strike partnerships with some of these communities and play the more scientific role and advisory role. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And if I could just have you across the 

board state what you think the caps ought to look like. And I would 

offer the caveat that we wouldn’t reduce the amount of award winners but appropriately increase the overall pot. But what do you 

think we should do with the caps? If you could do that across the 

board, please. And start with Mr. Anderson. 

Mr. ANDERSON. What did we use earlier? A million, I believe, 

was one of the proposed caps. A million would probably be a good 

cap. That is a lot of money to spend, and you do have to have quite 

a bit of prior planning. But when you get these coal gasification 

sites, like you mentioned in your roundtable, they are very challenging to deal with and they can cost much, much more. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. It is good to see you again, by the way. 

Mayor? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Yes. Mr. Tonko, in my testimony I said a million dollars. And then also for special circumstances to go to $2 million. 

Mr. TONKO. And, Mr. Henry? 

93 

Mr. HENRY. Yes. I believe with the caveat that the number of recipients wouldn’t be decreased, I think a million dollars is a reasonable number. 

Mr. TONKO. Ms. Romig? 

Ms. ROMIG. I find a million is reasonable as well. 

Ms. EADY. Yes. I agree, and also as Mr. Henry provided. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Just pull that mike over again. 

Ms. EADY. I agree, and also with Mr. Henry’s proviso that it 

doesn’t shrink the number of grants. 

Mr. TONKO. I hear you. We don’t want to do that. 

Ms. EADY. In a perfect world, yes. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Well, you sound like you are getting along. So 

that is great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of our full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to first ask 

Mr. Anderson a question and then go to Mayor Bollwage. 

Mr. Anderson, you note in your testimony—I know you touched 

upon this, but I wanted to ask it directly. You note in your testimony that the average grant award has declined. Do you think an 

increase in the cap on individual grants would assist communities, 

particularly as they try to revitalize sites with more complicated 

cleanups? I know you answered it, but I would like to ask you that 

directly. 

Mr. ANDERSON. The caps for the individual communities or—— 

Mr. PALLONE. On individual grants, yes. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I think it will help the communities—you know, 

it is hard to say. Most of the communities are going to go for the 

maximum amount because of the difficulty in getting to that point. 

So why would you go for less than whatever the maximum is for 

a specific grant, such as $200,000? Some of the grants that I did 

mention are the 128(a), which is a subset. And those have decreased as more entities have come to the table, the States, the 

tribes, and the territories. But I hate to say it: More money does 

help. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Now let me go to Mayor Bollwage. You mentioned your town, Elizabeth, received a grant under the regional 

pilot program in the 1990s. Correct? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. We heard from Mr. Stanislaus earlier that the 

EPA has started another pilot program, the multipurpose grant 

program to give communities more flexibility. Do you think that 

having that greater flexibility, like that afforded to communities 

with the multipurpose grants, would assist them better in cleaning 

up the contaminated sites? 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Yes, I do, Congressman. Also, you know, the city 

of Elizabeth is currently using two 2011 EPA community-wide assessment grants for hazardous substances and petroleum in our 

midtown redevelopment area. So in answer to your question, I believe yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. I mean, I think that the flexibility is valuable. 

Then the most important issue, which was mentioned repeatedly 

today, is the need for adequate funding. I just like you to comment 

94 

on, you know, higher funding levels for the program, and, you 

know, what it would mean to Elizabeth in redeveloping brownfield 

properties. 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Congressman, higher funding levels could allow 

for some reasonable administrative costs, which was testimony not 

only here, but also by Mr. Stanislaus. Also, one of the testimonies 

on this panel was addressing mothballed sites, which are clearly 

forgotten. I don’t know New Bedford as well, but we have them in 

Elizabeth as well where they are just totally forgotten and they sit 

there. Additional funding would help us address mothballed sites. 

And also, the clarifying of the eligibility of the publicly owned sites 

before 2002, financing would help address that issue as well, Congressman. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thanks a lot. 

Ms. Eady, would you agree or comment on what the mayor said? 

Ms. EADY. I agree with the mayor. And I was just thinking about 

what other contexts additional funding, particularly to the nonprofit sector, would be helpful. And in thinking about New Bedford, 

one of our partner organizations in New Bedford called the Buzzards Bay Coalition was given a technical assistance grant to work 

on one of New Bedford’s Superfund sites. This was the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site. And with the technical assistance 

grants that they were able to get, they were able to directly support the local community so the community understood the process, 

which, of course, is very complex, and, you know, that they understood the science. 

And I think that that is a—really a critical role. And it is really 

important to bring the community along, and particularly in New 

Bedford where, because there is so much contamination, there is 

this really amazing level of distrust. And I imagine that this is not 

unique to other parts of the country. 

And so I think that with nonprofits able to access funding, we 

could play an important role so that communities wouldn’t be— 

would be less likely to oppose redevelopment projects. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thanks a lot. You know, I was—I really 

enjoy hearing how the Brownfields Program has helped so many 

communities. I don’t know if I mentioned to my colleagues, I don’t 

actually represent Elizabeth where Mayor Bollwage is, but just 

south is Carteret, which is a much smaller town. 

But if you think about it, Mayor, I mean, same phenomenon. I 

mean, you know, how many sites in Carteret have been cleaned 

up? And there again, it is a much smaller community that 

doesn’t—you know, probably even has less resources because of its 

size. And when we talk about adequate funding, it is so important 

not only for Elizabeth, for a lot of the smaller towns. 

Because New Jersey, Mr. Chairman, has—you know, we have a 

lot of towns. And people think of Newark and, you know, larger cities. But, I mean, most of the towns I represent have less than 

40,000 people, but yet they have the same situation as Elizabeth. 

So—— 

Mr. BOLLWAGE. Carteret has done a remarkable job on the waterfront with the brownfields from the petroleum industry years 

ago, and they have created into warehouses. And Mayor Reiman is 

extremely proud of his efforts in Carteret. 

95 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes. I know, it is true. And we have more 

brownfield sites than any other State. I guess that is no surprise. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thought you would have had that all cleaned up 

by now. All these years you have been here, I thought you would 

have had that fixed. 

Mr. PALLONE. We keep trying. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

We want to thank you for coming. And even though there is just 

a few of us left, you do have the chairman of the subcommittee, the 

ranking member of the subcommittee, and the ranking member of 

the full committee. I think that shows our interest and the importance of this issue. We look forward to working together as we 

move forward. 

And with that I will adjourn the hearing. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

[Mr. Bollwage’s answers to submitted questions for the record 

have been retained in committee files and also are available at 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20160421/104837/ 

HHRG-114-IF18-Wstate-BollwageJ-20160421-U1.pdf.] 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

Æ