U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

61–041CC WASHINGTON : 2000

PROBLEMS WITH EPA’S BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP

REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 4, 1999

Serial No. 106–86

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

(

2

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

Vice Chairman

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma

RICK LAZIO, New York

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JAMES E. ROGAN, California

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LOIS CAPPS, California

JAMES E. DERDERIAN, Chief of Staff

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman

JOE BARTON, Texas

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

Vice Chairman

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

TOM BLILEY, Virginia,

(Ex Officio)

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

3

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Ahern, Thomas P., Senior Project Manager for Brownfields and Industrial

Development, Boston Redevelopment Authority ........................................ 98

Fields, Hon. Timothy, Jr., Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; accompanied by Linda L. Garczynski, Director, Outreach and Special

Projects Staff ................................................................................................. 6

Foss, Darsi, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ........................... 111

Malloy, Hon. Dannel P., Mayor, City of Stamford ......................................... 104

Material submitted for the record by:

Fields, Hon. Timothy, Jr., Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, undated letter to Hon. Fred Upton, enclosing response for the record ......... 127

(III)

(1)

PROBLEMS WITH EPA’S BROWNFIELDS

CLEANUP REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman)

presiding.

Members present: Representatives Upton, Burr, Blunt, Bryant,

Bliley (ex officio), McCarthy, and DeGette.

Staff present: Mark Washko, majority counsel; Eric Link, majority counsel; Amy Davidge, legislative clerk; and Edith Holleman,

minority counsel.

Mr. UPTON. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for coming.

Today, the subcommittee will examine the EPA’s Brownfields

Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilot Program. EPA created this

program in 1997, selecting 21 local governments and three States

to receive grants totaling more than $8 million for the purpose of

setting up revolving loan funds that would help finance brownfield

cleanups.

Despite the fact that not a single one of these original pilots has

been able to successfully make a loan under this program, EPA expanded the program fourfold in 1999—granting more than $30 million to an additional 45 pilots. To date, only one loan, for $250,000,

has been made to facilitate cleanup under this program, and that

loan was made just last month by a 1999 pilot city, Stamford, Connecticut, whose Mayor will testify today.

In simple terms, this program, which now accounts for more than

a third of all EPA brownfields spending, is not achieving the desired results as quickly as anyone, including EPA, has imagined it

would. While it is too soon to judge the performance of the 1999

pilots, it is certainly not too soon to begin an examination of the

problems that so obviously are plaguing the original 24 pilots, so

that we can make sure that the 45 new pilots have a greater

chance of success. This hearing is all the more important in light

of EPA’s plans to double the number of pilots again next year, with

an additional $35 million in grants.

Today’s hearing hopefully will shed some light on why this program so far has not had any measurable effect on brownfields

cleanup and redevelopment, and how the program can be improved

to speed progress.

2

Clearly, EPA did not do an adequate job of ensuring that its initial pilots had both the capability and commitment to run such a

program, something that EPA now admits. Further, and as now

EPA concedes, the Agency was more interested in getting the original grants out the door than making sure that it had a sound program in place to begin with. The result of the Agency’s failures in

these areas was that, and I quote from EPA’s own testimony, many

communities were uncertain as to the best way to proceed, end

quote. Based on the record so far and what we will hear today, that

could certainly be viewed as an understatement.

This program also clearly suffers from the fact that it is tied procedurally, substantively, and financially, to the Superfund program. I am pleased to note that this committee is moving to address the statutory concerns in its recently passed Superfund reform legislation, which de-links brownfields from the Superfund

trust fund and its many onerous and unnecessary restrictions and

requirements. But the administration opposes the bill; thus, we

cannot count on these changes to improve the program in the short

term.

That is why this is an oversight hearing, to examine how this

program operates under current law and ways that it can be improved within the existing framework. Let’s all remember that EPA

created the program on its own, without statutory authorization or

any mandate from the Congress. EPA always has had the power

to modify its Superfund regulations for brownfields programs such

as this one, if it had chosen to do so. As EPA staff now admit, EPA

must take its own steps to streamline the rules and regulations it

has chosen to impose on these grantees to ensure that cleanups are

not delayed by unnecessary requirements. It is troubling that EPA

did not do so prior to showering grantees with tens of millions of

dollars, virtually all of which remains idle due, in part, to this failure.

Let me just say that I think that all of the members here want

to improve the program so that these moneys result in real

achievements for the American people. I look forward to the testimony today, and I yield to the chairman of the full committee, Mr.

Bliley.

[The prepard statement of Hon. Fred Upton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

Today the subcommittee will examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s

Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilot Program. EPA created this program in 1997 in order to facilitate the cleanup of some of the estimated 450,000

brownfield sites across the country. The Agency selected 21 cities or counties and

three States to receive grants totaling more than $8 million for the purpose of setting up revolving loan funds that would help finance cleanups and lead to the redevelopment of brownfields.

Despite the fact that not a single one of these original pilots has been able to successfully make a loan under this program, EPA expanded the program four-fold in

1999—granting more than $30 million to an additional 45 pilots. To date, only one

loan, for $250,000, has been made to facilitate cleanup under this program, and that

loan was made just last month by a 1999 pilot city, Stamford, whose Mayor will

testify today.

In simple terms, this program—which now accounts for more than a third of all

EPA brownfields spending—is not achieving the desired results as quickly as anyone, including EPA, had imagined it would. While it is too soon to judge the performance of the 1999 pilots, most of whom have just received the EPA grant money,

3

it certainly is not too soon to begin an examination of the problems that so obviously

are plaguing the original 24 pilots, so that we can make sure that the 45 new pilots

have a greater chance of success. This hearing is all the more important in light

of EPA’s plans to double the number of pilots again next year, with an additional

$35 million in grants.

Today’s hearing hopefully will shed some light on why this program so far has

not had any measurable effect on brownfields cleanup and redevelopment, and how

the program can be improved to speed progress in these areas.

Based on the Committee’s review of this matter so far, there appear to be several

key reasons that explain why the 1997 pilots have not made any loans to date. The

first reason is that EPA did not ensure that the pilots it selected had the necessary

legal, technical, and administrative capability to establish and administer a

brownfields cleanup revolving loan program. In other words, EPA did not rigorously

apply its own criteria and standards—something EPA has admitted in meetings

with Committee staff. For example, a common source of trouble among pilots has

been acquiring the necessary legal authority from either State or other municipal

entities to run such a program, while another has been identifying and funding a

manager to oversee the loan fund. But both of these are threshold criteria under

EPA’s own selection guidelines, which means that if they were not satisfied, no

grant should have been awarded in the first place.

Second, and as EPA apparently concedes in its own testimony today, the Agency

was more interested in getting the original grants out the door than making sure

it had a sound program in place to begin with. Thus, EPA admits that the administrative manual for this program—which details the program requirements and other

important specifics about loans and cleanups—was not finalized until eight months

AFTER the initial pilots were awarded. And it was not until October 1998—a full

year after EPA awarded the grants—that EPA provided the pilots with model terms

and conditions regarding further specific requirements of the program. The result

of the Agency’s failures in these areas was that, and I quote from EPA’s own testimony, ‘‘many communities were uncertain as to the best way to proceed.’’ Based on

the record so far and what we’ll hear today, that certainly is an understatement.

Indeed, several 1997 pilots have told us that EPA had to encourage them to apply

because the pilots themselves did not understand the program requirements or

thought that they could not properly run such a program. EPA simply told them

to apply, and that all the specifics would be worked out later. Notably, the EPA Inspector General issued a report in March 1998 that made a similar finding, but in

a letter to Chairman Bliley earlier this year, EPA denied having to encourage any

pilot to apply for the grant.

Other 1997 pilots have told us that the program is simply not a priority for them,

that they have other funding sources available for brownfields cleanup from both

the State and Federal levels and are utilizing those programs. In such cases, I see

little reason for EPA to permit the continued tie-up of the Agency’s scarce

brownfields funds, and the Agency should take action to de-obligate these monies.

It’s been more than two years since these initial pilots were awarded, and while

some have made substantial progress toward making their first loan, many others

still are struggling just to get off the ground. EPA promises further workshops and

conferences to assist these pilots better understand the program requirements and

what needs to be done. But it seems to me that a well-thought-out program, from

the beginning, would have provided these communities with sufficient information

up front, and would have screened out those without the capability or commitment

to run such a program.

Finally, the program clearly suffers from the fact that it is tied, procedurally, substantively, and financially, to the Superfund program. Most of the pilots—including

Boston, who is here today—have blamed this fact for the delays in establishing an

approved program, and finding appropriate sites and willing borrowers. While some

of the substantive restrictions imposed on these grants—such as the bar on using

Superfund money for the cleanup of petroleum-contaminated sites, for example—

originate in statute, many of the onerous administrative and procedural requirements imposed on grantees and borrowers under this program are the result of

EPA’s administrative decision to apply its comprehensive National Contingency

Plan regulatory regime virtually lock, stock and barrel to this very different program area.

I am pleased to note that Congress, and this Committee in particular, is moving

to address the statutory restrictions that impede the redevelopment of brownfields.

In particular, the bill recently passed by the full Committee—H.R. 2580—would delink brownfields from Superfund funding, and its accompanying restrictions and requirements, thereby eliminating the requirement that parties comply with the National Contingency Plan to qualify for a grant or loan. But the Administration opVerDate 13-MAR-2000 11:08 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\61041.TXT pfrm02 PsN: 61041
4

poses this legislation, and we thus cannot count on these legislative changes to improve the program in the short-term.

That is why this is an oversight hearing—to examine how this program operates

under current law, and ways it can be improved within the existing statutory and

regulatory framework. We should all remember that EPA created this program, on

its own, without statutory authorization and without any mandate from Congress.

EPA certainly has always had the power to modify its Superfund regulations for

brownfields programs such as this one, if it had chosen to do so. As EPA staff recently acknowledged, the Agency must take its own steps to streamline the rules

and regulations it has chosen to impose on grantees under this program, in order

to ensure that cleanups do not continue to be delayed by inapplicable and unnecessary requirements. It is troubling that EPA did not do so prior to showering grantees with tens of millions of dollars, virtually of which remains idle due in part to

this failure.

Today, the Subcommittee will hear from EPA and representatives of two pilot cities—Boston, which received grants in both 1997 and 1999, and Stamford, which received only a 1999 grant. We also will hear from one State’s brownfields manager,

a woman with experience in both State and Federal brownfields programs. I look

forward to their testimony.

Unfortunately, the Subcommittee will not hear from any other 1997 pilot since

several of them refused our invitations—particularly those that have done virtually

nothing since being selected as a pilot more than two years ago. I must say that,

while I can understand their reluctance to come before this Subcommittee and be

held accountable for their lack of progress, I find it astonishing that recipients of

taxpayer monies would refuse to appear before a Congressional committee conducting oversight of their grants.

Finally, let me just say that I think all of the Members, on both sides of the aisle,

want to improve this program so that these tens of millions of dollars result in real

achievements for the American people.

Chairman BLILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier this year, I released a report from the General Accounting Office on this administration’s overall brownfields effort. This

report found that, while the administration was good at handing

out hundreds of millions of dollars for various programs designed

to spur the cleanup and reuse of brownfields, the government was

not good at tracking whether this money was being put to productive use. Even by the EPA’s own numbers, the rate of progress has

been painfully slow, and the Agency recently was forced to admit

that even those meager numbers were probably inflated.

One of the programs surveyed in the GAO report was the program we are here to discuss today, the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund. This program, which began in 1997, is one of

roughly 10 brownfields-related programs that EPA has created on

its own initiative over the past several years. It is now the largest

single brownfields program run by the Agency, and the largest one

that provides funding for actual cleanup of contaminated

brownfields sites. Unfortunately, it appears that this program is

suffering from the same flaws that continue to impact the administration’s overall brownfields effort.

The goal of this program is simple and worthy of praise. The

Agency provides funds to local governments, which in turn use that

money to make loans to private or public entities interested in

cleaning up brownfields in their communities.

The problem with this program, however, is that virtually none

of the roughly $40 million obligated by EPA so far has made its

way to the people in these communities who are actually working

to clean up and redevelop these sites.

There will always be some startup problems in new programs,

and many of the 1999 pilots just received funding several months

5

ago. But none of that explains why not a single 1997 pilot has been

able to successfully make a loan in more than 21⁄2 years, and I am

concerned that EPA expanded this program so dramatically and so

quickly, before any of its original pilots had successfully made it off

the ground.

I will be interested to hear why the American people should be

more confident that this new, larger round of pilots, and the proposed doubling of pilots for next year, will meet with greater success than their predecessors. I also want to hear how EPA plans

to make sure that this growing pot of money is getting into the

hands of people who will use it and actually get the job done.

The cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields can provide many

economic, social and environmental benefits to communities. However, when the Federal money given to support these efforts sits

idle, tied up for years without any productive use, more brownfields

sites also remain idle, and other opportunities for progress are lost.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing so

that we can explore the reasons for the lack of progress in this important program. Hopefully, we can make the program work better

for the thousands of American communities marred by brownfields

sites.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for their appearance here

today, and I look forward to their testimony.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bryant.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would commend

you for holding this hearing.

I first want to associate myself with the remarks, both your remarks as well as our full committee chairman’s remarks, and ask

unanimous consent that any statement that I might want to submit be allowed, any written statement.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection.

I would note that all members will have the right to submit their

full statement as part of the record.

Mr. BRYANT. Let me just quickly wind up, because I think we are

all very interested in hearing from these witnesses and having

some of these questions that have been raised in the opening statements answered. I, too, am very interested in hearing the answers

to these questions. But I think we have, again from the perspective

of the EPA, the ability to respond to these questions and, also,

those witnesses on the second panel who are out in the field, so to

speak. I really look forward to hearing their testimony.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Bryant.

Mr. Fields, welcome again to the subcommittee, as they say in

Ann Arbor, the Big House. As you know, as you have testified before, we have a long tradition of taking testimony under oath. Do

you have any problem with that?

Mr. FIELDS. No, sir.

Mr. UPTON. Also, under both committee rules and House rules,

you are entitled to counsel if you so desire. Do you wish to have

counsel?

Mr. FIELDS. No, sir.

[Witness sworn.]

6

Mr. UPTON. You are now under oath; and, as you know the rules,

your entire testimony will be made a part of the record, and if you

would so kindly limit your remarks to about 5 minutes with this

little light that is down there and summarize it, that would be terrific.

The time is now yours. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF HON. TIMOTHY FIELDS, JR., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY

RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

ACCOMPANIED BY LINDA L. GARCZYNSKI, DIRECTOR, OUTREACH AND SPECIAL PROJECTS STAFF

Mr. FIELDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to present this testimony today about a

very important part of EPA’s brownfields agenda, the Brownfields

Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilot Program.

Virtually every community in the country, no matter what the

size, is grappling with the problem of how to clean up brownfields.

And, the Clinton administration has stepped forward. The

brownfields assessment pilots have been very successful. More than

307 communities have leveraged $1.6 billion in cleanup and redevelopment dollars, and more than 5,000 jobs. We want to emulate

that success in the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, in a report last year pointed out

that the lack of support for cleanup is the No. 1 impediment to redevelopment. It has been estimated that redeveloping brownfields

could bring as much as $1 billion to nearly $3 billion in tax revenues annually as well as create jobs and preserve green space, forests and farmland. In that vein, just more than 2 years ago, EPA

began the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Program as

yet another way to help cities and communities to meet brownfields

needs across America. The Revolving Loan Fund program builds

upon the success of the assessment pilots by being a second stage

brownfields pilot program.

Mr. Chairman, 45 pilots were awarded in 1999, so now we have

68 of these pilot programs in place. The first round delays in

issuing loans have been for several reasons: changes in personnel,

the newness of the program, the fact that assessments takes 2 or

3 years, and getting personnel in place to implement this program.

All new programs need startup time, and the Revolving Loan Fund

program is not alone in that regard.

We believe, though, that as people have gained experience

through the assessment process, they have learned more about

Superfund, and more about our national contingency plan regulations. The market conditions are now ripe. We believe we are now

at a point where we can begin to look at getting borrowers, developers, committed Mayors like Mayor Malloy and others together to

make deals happen.

EPA believes we have turned a corner with this very important

program. We are optimistic that more communities will be making

loans in the very near future. In fact, as we will hear from Mayor

Malloy this morning, he has been successful in making the first

loan. We hope that this experience will be instructive for many

7

other pilot projects and will serve to demystify the process of making loans under this Revolving Loan Fund.

The Stamford pilot is also instructive because it shows how one pilot alone with one loan is going to leverage more than $50 million

in private sector investment, more than the entire amount of dollars we gave out for revolving loans for fiscal year 1999.

We will be doing more to encourage that type of commitment in

other pilots. We have already heard from several of the original pilots, as well as one of the new pilots, that they are discussing and

thinking about loans. We believe that there will be an increase in

loans given out in this program during fiscal year 2000. To the extent we can, the Agency is making every effort to assist the pilot

cities, and to demonstrate flexibility within the constraints of the

existing program.

The Clinton administration strongly supports the passage of

brownfields legislation. We believe that legislation like H.R. 1750,

for example, which we have said we support, and which would help

to make this program work in a more flexible and a faster way. In

particular, one provision that we have supported in H.R. 1750

would modify the requirements under the National Contingency

Plan regulations under which we conduct our Superfund and

brownfields programs. It would change the requirements of the National Contingency Plan for brownfields to the extent these requirements are relevant and appropriate to the program. We think this

type of provision has considerable merit. This provision would remove yet another barrier to the redevelopment of distressed properties in cities across America.

We at EPA are confident that the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving

Loan Fund will be moving forward to make loans for brownfields

cleanup, like the loan in Stamford, in many other pilot communities in the very near future. We are encouraged by the focus that

Congress has given to this issue and to this program, and we remain committed to working with you to remove impediments, to

make this program more efficient faster. We want to get cleanups

done and, therefore, redevelopment occurring at many more of

these brownfields properties. New brownfields legislation can help,

and we want to work with Congress in that regard.

I thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer any questions on the brownfields program you might have.

Mr. UPTON. That was perfect timing. We appreciate—I am sure

you rehearsed that all night long.

I will say, too, I very much appreciate you sending up the testimony in advance and complying with the committee rules. A number of witnesses over the years have not done so, and it makes it

a lot easier for us to prepare.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Timothy Fields, Jr. follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY FIELDS, JR., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,

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

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased

to have this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative and, in particular, the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilot program.

8

BROWNFIELDS ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE

Today, through the Brownfields Initiative, EPA continues to promote the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of abandoned and contaminated properties across

the country that were once used for industrial and commercial purposes

(‘‘brownfields’’). While the full extent of the brownfields problem is unknown, the

United States General Accounting Office (GAO-RCED-95-172, June 1995) estimates

that approximately 450,000 brownfield sites exist in the United States. Virtually

every community in the country, no matter what the size, is grappling with the

challenge of problems associated with recycling older, mostly industrial and commercial properties. The presence of these properties fuels urban sprawl, luring investment and job development farther from city centers and inner suburbs.

The Administration believes that environmental protection and economic progress

are inextricably linked, and what is good for the environment is also good for the

economy. Cleanup of sites is only half of the equation. It is best pursued in tandem

with redevelopment, to maximize community benefit both publicly and privately.

The Brownfields Initiative exemplifies an effort to bring all parties to the table. The

Initiative provides a framework which encourages stakeholders to seek common

ground on a range of challenges—environmental, public health, economic, legal and

financial, and it is a worthy challenge. The Agency’s multifaceted brownfields initiative represents a significant step forward by the Administration and, according to

Renew America, represents ‘‘a new paradigm in locally-based environmental protection that forges public-private partnerships, promotes innovation, and relies on market incentives and private sector actions.’’

To stimulate redevelopment and attract private-sector interest in the redevelopment and reuse of brownfields, there continues to be a need for government initiatives like the Brownfields program. According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors

(USCM), our cities, towns and urban centers are sitting on hundreds of thousands

of acres of brownfields. The Conference of Mayors surveyed 200 cities and determined that ‘‘the lack of cleanup funds’’ for brownfields is ‘‘the most frequently identified impediment’’ to the cleanup of brownfields. The report, Recycling America’s

Land, (Volume II, April 1999) estimates that developing brownfields could bring in

almost $1 billion to nearly $3 billion in tax revenues annually, create nearly 700,000

new jobs, and take some of the development pressure off of our farms and forest

lands.

EPA’s brownfields assessment pilots are making a difference in shifting the balance of current incentives away from greenfields and to brownfields investment. Increasingly, private investment opportunities are being attracted to sites assessed by

the pilot program. As the Agency has learned, to attract and leverage greater private investment to a broader spectrum of sites so that they, too, can become more

marketable, support from the government beyond providing site assessments to fund

support for cleanup is needed. In a recent study funded by EPA, the Council for

Urban and Economic Development (CUED) reviewed 107 brownfields projects across

the country. The projects examined involved both public and private sectors. The report concluded that for every $1 the federal, state, and local governments put into

revitalizing brownfields, $2.48 in private investment is attracted. Stamford, Connecticut, while not a part of the CUED study, illustrates the report’s point. Stamford recently made its first loan in the amount of $250,000 from the Brownfields

Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund to a private developer. This loan will leverage a $30

million investment.

As part of the Brownfields Initiative, the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan

Fund pilot program is one aspect of a nationwide effort to grapple with the challenges associated with cleaning up abandoned or underutilized, and contaminated

properties. It is an effort taking place in both rural and urban communities.

Let me briefly describe what we have accomplished in the almost five years since

the initial Brownfields Action Agenda was announced on January 25, 1995.

Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots

The Brownfields Assessment Pilots have served as an essential and important tool

in a comprehensive strategy to promote the sustainable reuse of brownfields. Pilot

activities are directed toward environmental response activities preliminary to

cleanup, such as site assessment, identification, characterization, and site response

or cleanup planning and design. To date, EPA has selected 307 pilots in states, communities and tribes, funded at up to $200,000. These two-year pilots are intended

to generate further interest in Brownfields redevelopment across the country. Many

different communities are participating, ranging from small towns to large cities. In

charting their own course toward revitalization, we are seeing many positive results.

The assessment pilot effort, combined with our targeted state and EPA property asVerDate 13-MAR-2000 11:08 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\61041.TXT pfrm02 PsN: 61041
9

sessment efforts, has resulted in the assessment of 1,174 brownfields properties.

Our assessment pilots have reported the related cleanup of 134 properties, and determined that more than 575 properties do not need additional cleanup. This has

led to known redevelopment of 51 properties. The assessment pilots have provided

information that they have leveraged more than $1.6 billion in redevelopment funds

and have been the catalyst for support for more than 5,000 jobs as a result of the

EPA program.

Chosen through a competitive process, these pilots are helping communities articulate a reuse strategy that demonstrates model opportunities to organize public

and private sector support, and leverage financing, while actively demonstrating the

economic and environmental benefits of reclaiming brownfield sites. The Brownfield

pilots enable recipients to take a unified approach to site assessment, environmental

cleanup, and redevelopment, an approach that stimulates economic activity and the

creation of jobs.

Stakeholders tell the Agency that many Brownfields redevelopment activities

could not have occurred in the absence of EPA efforts. For example:

• In Chicopee, Massachusetts, an older manufacturing community, EPA funded an

assessment on a 3.75 acre site which had become a haven for criminal activity.

Combined with funds from the HUD Community Development Block Grant, the

city demolished the old building on the property. A subsidiary of CNBC has

begun construction of a state-of-the-art digital broadcasting station that is expected to leverage 100 new jobs. • In Birmingham, Alabama, efforts are underway to transform a run-down industrial area into a 150-acre industrial park, with 75 acres reserved for heavy industry, a 50-acre distribution center, a business park, and a full-scale retail center. Work on the distribution center is already underway, and by the project’s

completion, more than 2 million square feet of industrial and commercial facilities could be in place. Planners believe that ultimately the area will see the creation of more than 2,000 jobs. • In Somerville, Massachusetts, the construction of a $14 million assisted living and

neighborhood health center by the Visiting Nurses Association is being built as

a result of the brownfields assessment grant and a combination of other federal

funding support.

The Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots have helped to lay a foundation for revitalizing communities. We speak often about involving key stakeholders,

but for many communities, the first step is often from within, calling for interdepartmental coordination and collaboration among such entities as the city’s redevelopment and environmental, public health, legal, business and finance departments and offices. This infrastructure and institutional modeling is critical to a sustainable community-based brownfields solution.

Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilots

As EPA worked to implement a comprehensive brownfields strategy, it became

clear that we needed to build upon our experience with the assessment pilots

through a ‘‘second stage’’ brownfields pilot award. The Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) pilots reflect this staged approach. To EPA, the previous

award of an assessment pilot serves not only as one of EPA’s possible pilot eligibility

factors, but it also is a useful indicator of both the experience and the commitment

a community has made to address its brownfields problems.

Through capitalization grants from EPA, the BCRLF pilots enable communities

and coalitions of communities to fund the safe cleanup and sustainable reuse of

brownfields through revolving loan funds. EPA’s goal for these pilots is to develop

revolving loan fund models in communities that can be used to promote coordinated

public and private partnerships for the cleanup and reuse of brownfields.

Brownfields are not alike; instead they fall on a continuum. At one end are properties for which the market is strong enough to overcome environmental or other

liabilities. Those sites are the proverbial ‘‘low hanging fruit,’’ ripe for picking by developers and among the most easily supported by investors and lenders. Those sites

that will not draw private redevelopment quite so easily are the very properties that

we believe will benefit most from the BCRLF. These marginally viable properties

are often characterized by weaker marketability, unknown or potential environmental contamination, and, often by location in distressed neighborhoods where

property values are low and other social problems persist. For the transactions involving these properties to succeed, some measure of government intervention usually is required.

In fiscal year 1997, EPA used $10 million of its brownfields budget for the award

of BCRLF pilots at up to $350,000 each. Twenty-three pilots are now in various

stages of development. It is true that none of these original BCRLF pilots has made

10

a loan to date. I am confident that will soon change. Although EPA awards the

BCRLF through cooperative agreements, the day-to-day operations and activities relating to loan applications are the responsibility of the BCRLF recipient. Many of

the pilots have been delayed not only because of the newness of the program itself,

but also because of such things as personnel turnover. Prior to making a loan, communities must develop the infrastructure necessary to ensure that loans will be in

compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act (CERCLA); the National Contingency Plan (NCP); and cross-cutting

Federal authorities. The development of such an infrastructure requires a real commitment from pilot communities, as well as considerable sophistication and understanding. The importance of such a commitment cannot be overlooked in this equation. For some pilots, infrastructure development, requiring the establishment of

both site manager and fund manager roles, has proven to be a difficult task. For

others, the more difficult task is finding an eligible borrower.

EPA is working to overcome BCRLF pilot program start-up delays. Indeed, the

establishment of these initial pilots in October 1997 preceded the publication of the

BCRLF Administrative Manual (May 1998) by eight months. The Manual details

the appropriate infrastructure to sustain, account, and report on loans and cleanup.

It is intended to assist not only the pilots but also EPA regions in developing cooperative agreements and overseeing BCRLF pilots, as well as providing program participants with a description of the program requirements. In addition, the Agency

also published in October 1998, model terms and conditions to further aid the understanding of the pilots regarding specific requirements of the BCRLF pilot program. Without the descriptions and explanations these materials could provide to

the pilots, many communities were uncertain as to the best way to proceed. To further assist pilots, the Agency has planned a separate BCRLF Pilot-to-Pilot session

to precede the Brownfields ’99 Conference, December 6-8, in Dallas, Texas. This

pilot session will be held on December 6th and is designed to provide opportunities

for all of the BCRLF pilots to learn from one another, interact and network, and

raise issues for discussion.

Finally, the Agency has been working on providing supplemental support for the

BCRLF program in EPA Regions through the establishment of an Interagency

Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Through this agreement, the

EPA will provide budget support for use of Corps personnel in each EPA regional

office for a twelve-month period.

Developing a new program is not done in an instant. It is an evolutionary process,

as we have discovered. Better understanding of the program has emerged from this

process. We have educated ourselves as to the needs of our pilots, and the pilots

have educated us as well as themselves as to the requirements of the program. We

have stretched our capacity to the fullest to assure communication and education

continue. As each piece of the puzzle has fallen into place, we find progress being

made. A synergy has emerged from this effort that has already been evidenced by

the quality, and quantity of applications received for the award of the 1999 BCRLF

pilots. Representing more than 65 communities as single pilot communities or as

coalitions of states and communities, forty-five (45) new BCRLF pilots were announced just this past May. In ten of the new pilots, states like Massachusetts, Illinois, Arizona, and California will assist cities in carrying out a variety of activities

under the BCRLF. We were extremely pleased to see in the applications an increased level of understanding of program parameters and needs, as well as a sophistication in infrastructure planning. In addition, as a result of the dialogue with

the first round of pilots, the Agency has determined that recipients of the most recent pilots would benefit from an increase in capitalization grants to $500,000 per

community.

The period following the announcement of this latest round of BCRLF pilots has

been a busy one for both EPA regions and the new pilots. Over the last several

months, pilots developed formal cooperative agreement application packages. The information in the BCRLF pilot proposals formed the basis for the cooperative agreement application. However, the cooperative agreement application requires, in most

cases, more detailed information, including standard budget forms and a formal

workplan. The 45 BCRLF pilot cooperative agreement negotiations were just completed on September 30, 1999. Since that time, each pilot is proceeding with the establishment of its BCRLF loan program, and procedures for day-to-day management

of loans. The specific responsibilities of the cooperative agreement recipient include

both environmental and financial management components of operating a loan fund.

Two key roles must be in place prior to loans being made, the BCRLF site manager

and the fund manager. In addition, loan documents and properties must be identified and processed.

11

Since my appearance before the Commerce Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials in August, I am extremely pleased to be able to report that the

first BCRLF loan has been made. The loan was made on the 1st of October in Stamford, Connecticut, and will be used to help clean up the Stamford Harbor waterfront

property. The $250,000 loan was awarded by the City of Stamford to the Southfield

Associates, LLC, through its managing member, Clearview Investment Management, Inc. Clearview Investment, which specializes in the management of waterfront redevelopment, will use these funds to restore the harbor area to a major economic and recreational resource. Restoration of the harbor will also provide a muchneeded economic boost to Stamford’s two lowest-income neighborhoods, Waterside

and South End, which are located within a State Enterprise Zone. Waterside’s population is 71% minority residents, with 25% of families living below the poverty level,

while South End’s residents are 80% minority residents, with a 16% poverty rate.

The 15.1 acre project area, which includes both the 2.88 acre Northeast Utilities

Site and the 12.31 acre Hoffman Fuel Site, will be developed into a residential shore

front community, called Southfield Harbor. The development will include approximately 320 residential units and a marina facility with approximately 68 boat slips.

The development will also include an extensive boardwalk system, which will include seating areas, educational signs, and a public fishing pier. The BCRLF loan to Stamford is expected to leverage $30 million dollars of private

development funds. The loan also is expected to generate between 100 and 200 construction jobs and 12 full-time, permanent administrative jobs.

Mayor Malloy from the City of Stamford is here today to share his perspective

on the BCRLF, but let me tell you why I think Stamford was successful in making

the first BCRLF loan. The Stamford pilot represents a very personal commitment

by the Mayor to revitalize his city. He visited me in Washington several months ago

and said at that time that it was his intention to make that first loan. I have no

doubt that Stamford benefitted from the program development, education, outreach,

and communication EPA has undertaken. The guidance manuals and materials are

instructive and the efforts in EPA’s regional offices are commendable, but the Mayor’s energy and commitment to the program must not be overlooked or underestimated.

Building on the Stamford pilot experience, several of the new pilots have tentatively identified loan recipients, and we therefore anticipate that loans will be

forthcoming from these pilots in the near future.

Within the next few weeks, the Agency will be publishing in the Federal Register

a notice that applications are being accepted for a third round of BCRLF pilots. Applications will be due in February and grant recipients will be announced next

Spring. EPA will again be awarding pilots to both individual entities and to coalitions. Because coalitions of varying numbers and funding needs are anticipated, it

is somewhat difficult to predict the number of pilots that will be awarded. Awards

will again be up to $500,000 per eligible entity.

Other Brownfields Initiative Activities

Job Training Pilots—EPA initiated a third brownfields demonstration pilot program in 1998 to help local citizens take advantage of new jobs created by assessment and cleanup of brownfields. The Job Training and Development Demonstration Pilot program provides two-year grants of up to $200,000 to applicants located

within or near one of the existing assessment pilot communities. Colleges, universities, non-profit training centers, and community job training organizations, as well

as states, Tribes and communities, were eligible to apply. Today, 21 job training pilots are in place. The first 11 were awarded last year, and the most recent 10 pilot

awards were announced in May.

Brownfields Partnerships Build Future Solutions—The Brownfields Initiative is

clearly about partnerships—with other Federal, State, and local agencies, and a diverse array of stakeholders. The EPA has undertaken partnership efforts with individual States as well as through broad organizational structures like the National

Association of Development Organizations (NADO), the National Governors Association (NGA), the National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals (NALGEP), the Conference on Urban Economic Development (CUED) and

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

EPA continues to work closely with States and Indian Tribes as key partners in

the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated properties. The Administration supports the continued growth of the State and Tribal regulated and voluntary programs which have greatly expanded the number of sites cleaned up to protect

human health and the environment. To date, 44 States have established voluntary

cleanup programs. Recognizing the important role that State environmental agencies have in encouraging economic redevelopment of brownfields, EPA has provided

12

$28.6 million in funding to States and Tribes to support the development of these

programs since FY 1997. EPA will provide $10 million, in FY 2000, to encourage

the development or enhancement of State programs that encourage private parties

to voluntarily undertake early protective cleanups of less seriously contaminated

sites, thus accelerating their cleanup and redevelopment. EPA is also pleased with

the progress it has made in signing MOAs with States. Twelve States have now

signed MOAs with EPA regarding sites to be cleaned up under voluntary cleanup

programs. The most recent state to sign an MOA with EPA is Oklahoma in Region

6. One additional MOA is now close to signature.

Brownfields National Partnership—Early in the development of EPA’s

Brownfields Initiative, the Agency realized that it needed to find ways to further

identify, strengthen, and improve commitments to brownfields, while continuing efforts toward a comprehensive, community-based approach to clean up and redevelop

contaminated property. We recognized the important contribution of many of our

Federal partners to brownfields through their participation in the Brownfields National Partnership. Through the partnership, Federal departments and agencies can

offer special technical, financial, and other assistance that can be of great benefit

to brownfields communities. More than 20 national partners are committing resources and assistance to brownfields. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board, for example, is exploring ways to bring more private investment to redeveloping

brownfields properties and, along with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, has selected

50 cities to participate in a project to research opportunities, impediments, and successes by both cities and lenders to address brownfields.

Showcase Communities—The Brownfields Showcase Communities project is an

outgrowth of those early partnership efforts and now forms an important component

of the Brownfields Initiative. It represents a multi-faceted partnership among federal agencies to demonstrate the benefits of coordinated and collaborative activity

on brownfields in 16 Brownfields Showcase Communities. For example, through the

Showcase Community in Glen Cove, New York, a revitalization plan to convert

brownfields and Superfund sites into tourist destinations has been completed. State,

Federal, and local agencies have played a crucial role in securing $18 million in

grants from various agencies. In addition, a prospective purchaser agreement was

signed between EPA and the Glen Cove Industrial Development Corporation for the

Li Tungsten and Captain’s Cove Superfund sites. Proceeds from selling the property

will go toward repaying response costs.

Redevelopment Barriers—Addressing Liability Concerns—The Agency also committed to addressing the fear of liability and other barriers impeding the cleanup

and redevelopment of brownfields. Over the past several years, EPA has announced

a variety of guidance and initiatives that have had a positive impact among

Brownfields stakeholders in terms of removing uncertainties often associated with

brownfields properties. The Agency also is pleased to see the inclusion of innocent

and contiguous landowner defenses and protection for prospective purchasers as

common elements of most brownfields legislative proposals. We believe these liability relief provisions—innocent landowner, contiguous landowner and prospective

purchaser—will provide a great deal of certainty to homeowners, buyers, and developers involved in the purchase and sale, and cleanup and redevelopment of

brownfields properties.

Lessons Learned

The Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative has achieved much initial

success. The continuing value of the Brownfields Initiative is its evolution and

promise for the future. To build upon these successful first steps and launch others,

we must not lose sight of our overall goal to revitalize communities. With the

breadth and variety of activities and stakeholders converging on the brownfields

issue, we have tried to establish a framework that articulates a complete and comprehensive brownfields program. Brownfields cleanup under the BCRLF pilot grant

program, in particular, is a tool to help leverage opportunity for the revitalization

of communities.

EPA recognizes that more must be done to provide flexibility to the brownfields

cleanup and redevelopment process. As we hear from many of our pilots, and as I

am sure Mayor Malloy would echo, compliance with the National Contingency Plan

regulations when using Superfund Trust Fund monies while substantially less complex than those provisions applying to the Superfund remedial program, are nonetheless daunting to many.

Brownfield reforms made under CERCLA should be codified, and should reaffirm

use of the Superfund Trust Fund to address the full range of brownfield issues including: technical assistance funding for brownfields identification, assessment and

reuse planning, cooperative agreement funding to capitalize revolving loan funds for

13

brownfields cleanup, support for State development of voluntary cleanup programs,

liability protection for bona fide prospective purchasers, innocent landowners of contaminated property and contiguous property owners, support for mechanisms for

partnering with Federal, State, local and tribal governments and other non-governmental entities to address brownfields, and support and long-term planning for fostering training and workforce development.

LEGISLATION

The Clinton Administration strongly supports the passage of brownfields legislation and views it as an important step toward restoring hope, opportunities, and

jobs to local communities and neighborhoods that are being held back by the presence of abandoned industrial sites. Through three rounds of administrative reforms,

the Superfund program has made significant progress in cleaning up hazardous

waste sites, protecting public health and the environment, as well as in the assessment and cleanup of brownfields sites.

In the past, the Administration supported brownfields legislation within the

framework for comprehensive legislative reforms to the Superfund program. In light

of the progress being made, the ever increasing need to meet and assist communities in their revitalization, as well as the apparent bi-partisan, and broad-based

public support for brownfields reform, the Administration now supports a targeted

legislative approach which addresses brownfields cleanup and redevelopment, and

specific liability provisions necessary to support brownfields. In addition, EPA

strongly supports legislation that would reinstate the expired Superfund taxes.

These funds are needed for the ongoing Superfund cleanup effort and the

brownfields program.

Among the legislative approaches introduced in this session, H.R. 1750, the ‘‘Community Revitalization and Brownfields Cleanup Act of 1999,’’ was introduced by

Representative Towns and is co-sponsored by 170 Members of Congress. As Administrator Browner stated in her letter of May 10, 1999, ‘‘this brownfield redevelopment legislation is an important step toward restoring hope, opportunities and jobs

to local communities and neighborhoods that are being held back by the presence

of abandoned industrial sites.’’ Accordingly, Administrator Browner expressed the

Clinton Administration’s strong support for the approach taken in HR 1750, which

would promote brownfields cleanup and redevelopment by providing grants and

loans, and providing appropriate liability protection to prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners and innocent landowners; and preserves critical safeguards

for communities by ensuring EPA has authority to protect human health and the

environment.

A June 4, 1999, letter from President Clinton to the Honorable Deedee Corradini

and the Nation’s Mayors echoes the sentiments expressed in Administrator

Browner’s letter. Administrator Browner’s letter notes the broad consensus of Congressional and public support enjoyed by brownfields reform proposals, and requests

the opportunity to continue to work with Representative Towns on appropriate resource levels and other refinements to the bill. President Clinton’s letter likewise

remarks that HR 1750 offers the best prospect for broad public support, because it

focuses on those proposals that reflect substantial consensus in Congress and among

communities; and confirms his commitment to continue to work with Representatives Boehlert and Borski, as well as Senator Baucus, to achieve truly bipartisan

brownfields legislation.

EPA has identified several provisions of H.R. 1750 that are of particular merit.

The bill provides $500,000 for brownfields assessment grants and $500,000—up to

$1 million—for grants for the capitalization of revolving loan funds. Unique to the

legislation, however, are provisions which (1) ensure grant funding support for local

governments, consortiums, and regional councils; (2) provide opportunities to support projects and programs with particular significant environmental and economic

benefits; (3) make awards to states as determined necessary to facilitate receipt of

funds by one or more local governments and (4) simplify the grant application and

review procedures conducted by the Agency.

H.R. 1750 also limits the procedural requirements of the NCP in brownfields ‘‘to

the extent that those requirements are relevant and appropriate to the program . . .’’

To that end, the Agency would seek to continue to apply those provisions of the NCP

that address the need for fully protective cleanups in compliance with State and

Federal regulations. Refinements to the brownfields program, such as the provision

in H.R. 1750, reflect and express the insights and experience we have gained from

our brownfields pilots. H.R. 1750 removes yet another barrier to the redevelopment

of properties in distressed urban areas and small towns. Other pending legislation

does not address the procedural issues of Superfund and the NCP as they relate to

14

brownfields. We look forward to working with the Congress to address specific provisions and resources issues in this bill.

CONCLUSION

The federal attention directed at brownfields assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment over the past five years reflects a growing realization that yesterday’s eyesore

is today’s opportunity. For EPA and the federal government, it is an opportunity to

demonstrate that environmental protection can also promote economic development.

For communities and cities, it is the opportunity to return a wasted asset to productivity, job creation and revenue generation. For local contractors and developers,

brownfields redevelopment is an opportunity to expand their work, to clean up sites

and to build new facilities. For local lenders, it is the opportunity to meet their community reinvestment needs, often at much less of a credit risk than they might otherwise anticipate. But the biggest opportunity is for the people who live with

brownfields sites every day. Eyesores are cleaned up. Frequently, potential threats

to health are substantially reduced, if not altogether eliminated The value of property increases. And often brownfields redevelopment provides the neighborhood’s

residents with a new sense of hope.

We are confident that the BCRLF program has caught hold and will be moving

forward to make more loans for brownfields cleanups in the future.

Finally, EPA is encouraged by the focus that Congress has given to the problems

engendered by brownfields. We remain committed to working with you to generate

a broad consensus among a variety of local, state and private sector stakeholders

on brownfields legislation that can be enacted and signed into law.

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions on the brownfields program

you may have.

Mr. UPTON. What we will do at this point is, as you know, is

have 5 minutes of questions for each of us here on the subcommittee. I guess my time comes first.

As I look at the number of pilots that were initiated, I think

what, 24 pilots the first year, this was, in essence, a 3-year program—24 the first year, 45 the second, and you are planning to almost double that again in the third year.

What has been most troubling to many of us is the fact that, despite this program getting out and starting up, that now, as we are

just started into this third year, only one has been funded, the

Stamford, Connecticut, project. And we are delighted to have the

Mayor testify on the second panel. We are also delighted, too, that

you are able to stay for the second panel to answer questions.

But I noted that, in listening to your testimony, you, quote,

‘‘would make every effort to reduce the impediments.’’ you want to

make this more flexible and to make sure that it really works. It

is probably not a terrific track record that only one project has actually been funded as we now are beginning the third year.

As I looked at the testimony from the gentleman from Boston,

who will be testifying on the second panel, and I quote from his

testimony on page 4, ‘‘In fact, we have discussed the program with

developers of two specific sites recently. The reality is such that if

there are other opportunities, even if it is private lending at twice

the rate for financing the cleanup without incurring CERCLA regulations, the developers, more times than not, will take the more expensive route. It just isn’t worth the hassle.’’

That seems to be the problem with actually getting these funded.

Would you not agree?

Mr. FIELDS. It is one of the issues. Complying with the Superfund and National Contingency Plan regulations is one of the impediments, that is correct.

Mr. UPTON. But it is my reading of your authority that, in fact,

that these can be de-linked, that you have the right and authority

15

to write the regulations, not us, not Congress, and, therefore, you

have the power and ability to change the regulations that were in

place when this program was unveiled. Here we are now in the

third year, and only 1 percent of the money has been obligated. The

cities—we are going to hear from two cities later on this morning,

but as we talked to a number of cities around the country that

were unwilling to come and testify today, it seems to be the problem that they all raise, as they indicate, it is just not worth the

hassle.

What concrete steps are you thinking about taking to try and reduce some of these regulations that otherwise mar what I think

would be a pretty good idea, solving something on brownfields that

we see support on both sides of the aisle for?

Mr. FIELDS. We agree with you 100 percent. You have to keep

in mind, Mr. Chairman, that this program is only 2 years old. The

first 23 were awarded in September 1997, 2 years ago. For the first

2 or 3 years of this program committee were focused on assessment. It took 2 or 3 years on the average to get the assessment job

done. Now pilots are looking at cleanup. And, we think there will

be a greater focus in many more cities like Stamford, Connecticut,

on the cleanup process now that many of these brownfields properties have been assessed.

There was also a chilling effect and a legal cloud established during 1998, the second year of this program, because Congress had

appropriation language that said that they didn’t believe EPA had

the legal authority to issue Revolving Loan Fund grants. Some of

the 23 cities were concerned about whether or not Congress was

going to continue to support this program.

In spite of that, we have agreed to provide 20 new Corps of Engineers personnel to our regions to assist these cities and

brownfields. We have expanded eligibility coalitions with the States

so that to help the States can help manage the revolving loan

funds and service as the site manager for the local communities

and cities in many of these pilot communities. We are providing

training for all of our regions on how revolving loan funds can work

better. We have heard from five or six cities, for example, among

the 23 original that they intend very shortly to begin to issue loans

under their Revolving Loan Fund. It took time. When the Clean

Water Act Revolving Loan Fund was initiated in 1988, the first

year of that program, only three loans were issued.

It takes some time to get these programs going, and for that momentum to begin. We believe that is going to occur. If the loan program does not work, we will fix it. But, right now, we believe that

people are just beginning to focus on the cleanup part of this. The

first several years of the brownfields initiative, which began almost

5 years ago, was primarily focused on assessment. We believe pilots

will be much more focused on the cleanup now that the assessment

process has been completed.

Mr. UPTON. Weren’t these assessments, though, conducted before

the cities applied and were given the brownfields status? Wasn’t

most of that work done before they were selected?

Mr. FIELDS. No. The pilots who have the brownfields cleanup revolving loan funds are typically cities or communities who have an

existing brownfields assessment grant. The first several years of

16

that effort were devoted to conducting the assessments of contaminated properties or brownfields in those cities. That job typically

takes 2 or 3 years. Now that that assessment job is completed,

many of these communities, including particularly, the first 23,

now are beginning to focus on cleanup. We are looking at ways we

can work together with the States to focus on cleanup and issuance

of loans to private entities who would be involved in cleanup in

that community.

The Revolving Loan Fund part of this program has only been

around for about 2 years, and only funded in fiscal year 1997, and

again in fiscal year 1999. It was not funded, as you know, in fiscal

year 1998.

Mr. UPTON. I will come back to you. My red light is on.

Ms. McCarthy.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and Mr.

Fields, thank you for coming before us today on this very important

issue.

My district of Kansas City has designated a number of sites, and

we have applied once for help and not received a positive response,

in part due to the biState nature of the Kansas City area and that

difficulty, and we will try again. But I appreciate your willingness

and your remarks today to consider changes to the law.

I wonder if you would reflect with me a little bit on the versions

that are before this committee, not today but, hopefully, soon,

House Resolution 2580 and House Resolution 1750, and give us

some thoughts of how you would craft the ideal bill as we proceed

as a subcommittee to do this in the future.

H.R. 1750, by the way, I am a cosponsor of, and it has a grant

program that is freestanding. It is not an amendment to Superfund, unlike other bills on this subject, and I would like your

thoughts on that as well as H.R. 1750 does contain language which

de-links the NCP with the grant program. And, to my knowledge,

this is unique in all of the bills that we would be considering, the

only bill to do this. We share, of course, some of the same program

changes like money from general revenues rather than the Superfund with other vehicles.

But would you, for this subcommittee’s sake, give us some

thoughts on provisions that you would absolutely like to see, and

also clarify, as the chairman was pursuing with you, what you can

do on your own so that we don’t get in the way of that or in some

ways undermine those activities which we know need to happen?

Mr. FIELDS. On the first part of your question, yes, we definitely

support the types of provisions in H.R. 1750. The administration

has endorsed that bill, as you know, and it does provide the type

of flexibility and support for brownfields we would want. It de-links

the National Contingency Plan from brownfields in terms of cleanup. It takes the dollars out of general revenues, as you point out.

H.R. 1750 has a provision which allows the Agency to determine

which requirements in the National Contingency Plan are not relevant or not appropriate for the brownfields program, we don’t

have to comply with them.

Those types of elements in H.R. 1750 would really help us create

a more flexible and better approach to deal with cleanup under the

Revolving Loan Fund program. And, that type of language is not

17

in H.R. 2580 or H.R. 1300, or any of the other bills that are being

discussed in the House right now.

H.R. 1750 is definitely the type of legislation that would help us

achieve what we all want to achieve for the Revolving Loan Fund

program.

In terms of things that we are doing to make this program work

better, we are trying to make sure that it operates under the existing flexibility under the National Contingency Plan. We are trying

to make sure that we prepare a very short engineering evaluation/

cost analysis, and an action memo. We are trying to minimize those

types of requirements under existing Superfund regulations so that

they are palatable and flexible for cities like Stamford and Boston

and towns in Wisconsin that you will hear about later on the next

panel.

We are trying to make sure that we provide support, resource

support through the Corps of Engineers and through State coalitions who are operating the Revolving Loan Fund on behalf of communities within their States. We are trying to provide training on

flexible ways in which people can comply with the Revolving Loan

Fund provisions. Those are all steps EPA has taken to make this

process work better.

We believe that, just like any program that is new, there are

startup problems, and I am committed that we are going to make

that Revolving Loan Fund program just as successful as the

brownfields assessment program has been. But the brownfields assessment program has been around for 5 years. This program has

only been around for 2 years.

Ms. MCCARTHY. May I pursue, Mr. Chairman, since the time has

not expired?

Mr. UPTON. Yes.

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am aware—and I am glad you told us that the

President has endorsed H.R. 1750, and it is my understanding that

that is the only bill that the administration has endorsed.

Mr. FIELDS. That is correct. H.R. 1750 is the only bill that the

administration has endorsed among those that are currently being

discussed by the Congress.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Bryant.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fields, welcome. Tell me again for the record, what is your

official relationship with this program, the Revolving Loan Fund

program?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir. I am the Assistant Administrator for Solid

Waste and Emergency Response, and I am responsible for all the

waste management and programs for EPA. The brownfields cleanup program is one of my responsibilities, it is one of seven offices

that I have responsibility for at EPA, including Superfund, RCRA,

hazardous waste management, underground storage tanks, et

cetera.

Mr. BRYANT. How long have you been operating in this capacity

with regard to the revolving loan program?

Mr. FIELDS. Since its inception, yes, sir.

18

Mr. BRYANT. One of the concerns I have, and I think it perhaps

mirrors my chairman’s concerns, I understand that there are always startup problems, but I don’t understand why this program

was started and apparently some of this money was put out without any guidance. In particular, this Revolving Loan Fund Administrative Manual, which describes the management standards, the

recordkeeping and reporting requirements, was not put out until

May 1998, which was about 8 months after the pilots were awarded; and the second document, the Model Terms and Conditions,

was not issued until October 1998, more than a year after the first

pilots were awarded.

What guidance did you expect the people to follow during this

time? And it would to me and wouldn’t it to you have made sense

not to do the funding until you had guidance out there? It just

seems like there was a rush out there to get this money out. It

seemed like you made the situation even more complicated and difficult.

Mr. FIELDS. In hindsight, Congressman, you are right. I would

have preferred to have the administrative manual out before we

began to issue or award the initial 23 Revolving Loan Fund grants.

We did not have all of our guidance in place for the brownfields assessment program when we initially began either. It evolved over

time.

We must keep in mind that other Federal agencies do have programs like this. The Economic Development Administration within

the Department of Commerce has operated a similar type of program that gives grants, and then they issue loans under those

grants. So a lot of cities have experience with the Economic Development Administration model of implementing revolving loan funds

for redevelopment activities.

Mr. BRYANT. And that is the guidance you assumed they used

during this period?

Mr. FIELDS. No. We worked with those cities, helping them prepare their applications, helping them get revolving loan funds established. That was our role. We provided a major technical assistance role with communities prior to the administrative manual

coming out 8 months after the initial awards.

Mr. BRYANT. Wasn’t the EPA concerned at that time that you

were tying up $10 million on a program you weren’t sure what

would happen with?

Mr. FIELDS. We were not concerned. We felt the money would be

well spent. It is money that is still available, and it is money that

has been obligated in grants, but the money is still there to issue

loans.

We believe, Mr. Congressman, that the $10 million that was

given out in September 1997, will be money well spent, and there

will be multiple millions of dollars in private investment that will

result from loans issued under those programs.

I know of at least 5 or 6 of those 23 now who are thinking about

issuing loans, and I believe that those loans will leverage many

millions of dollars in private sector investment. So I think that

money will be proven to be well spent.

Mr. BRYANT. Let me ask you about a statement that was contained in some correspondence to Representative Oxley back in OcVerDate 13-MAR-2000 11:08 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\61041.TXT pfrm02 PsN: 61041
19

tober, really just a couple of weeks ago. You listed 11 pilots that

were not close to making loans. I have the list. Since they are not

close to making a loan, what does the EPA plan to do with those?

Is there a provision, a policy to extend the 3-year period for these

1997 pilots, or do you plan to deobligate the funds for nonperformance? What do you have in store for those?

Mr. FIELDS. The grants that were awarded in 1997 were actually

5-year grants. The money is only being drawn down to the extent

loans are made.

We will look, Mr. Congressman, at those cities if they do not aggressively move out this year and begin to take action as necessary

to facilitate issuing loans. We will look at whether we deobligate

money under some of those pilot projects where no activity has occurred as we have communicated to Congressman Oxley.

But, that is something that I am encouraged about. I am having

a meeting with all 68 of the brownfields Revolving Loan Fund pilot

cities on December 6 in Dallas where we will be talking about how

they can get their programs jump-started, how they can benefit

from the lessons learned from Mayor Malloy in Stamford, Connecticut. And, I am hopeful that some of these cities like Detroit,

like Baltimore, will start moving forward and working with developers, issuing loans and getting the job done. If they don’t do so,

we will look at taking the money back and reusing it for another

purpose. But, I am optimistic that, just like the water program and

which built on 16 years experience it started with three loans, it

soon got up to 78 loans, and then later got up to 236 loans a year.

I believe that the brownfields revolving loan program, although

starting slow, will begin to pick up momentum now that we have

gotten the effort started in Stamford, Connecticut; and I am hopeful that these 23 this year will begin to issue loans just like Stamford, Connecticut.

Mr. BRYANT. If I might just close with a statement.

Again, I appreciate very much the fact that you will have this

meeting, and I am accepting your assurance that at that meeting

you will build the appropriate fire under these people and to let

them know that they need to begin moving quickly or else they are

at risk for losing these obligations in one way or the other. I thank

you for that commitment.

Mr. FIELDS. I thank you, Mr. Congressman, and I assure you

that is my commitment.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Burr.

Mr. BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize, Mr. Fields, for coming late. I have had an opportunity to read your testimony. If I cover ground that has already

been gone over, let me apologize for that.

Is this a successful program?

Mr. FIELDS. The brownfields Revolving Loan Fund program?

Mr. BURR. Yes, sir.

Mr. FIELDS. I would not characterize that portion of the program

as being successful. I would say that the brownfields assessment

grant program has been successful with $1.6 billion in private investment, and the creation of more than 5,000 jobs.

20

Mr. BURR. Aren’t we here talking about the Revolving Loan

Fund?

Mr. FIELDS. Right. I am talking about how I measure success. I

measure success by what has been achieved under the assessment

program. I do believe though, Mr. Congressman, as I said before,

that the revolving loan program will soon demonstrate the same

type of success as has been demonstrated under the assessment

program.

Mr. BURR. Let me assure you, Mr. Fields, my wife and I measure

success in different ways; and I go home euphoric some weeks

when I think we have done something good, only to face the realities of somebody who judges success in a different way, a way that

really more of America judges success than we have a tendency to

in this town.

How many sites have you cleaned up under the Revolving Loan

Fund?

Mr. FIELDS. We have only issued one loan, which Mayor Malloy

will soon talk about. No cleanups have been done under the Revolving Loan Fund program.

Mr. BURR. No cleanups.

Mr. FIELDS. No cleanups to date under the Revolving Loan Fund

program.

Mr. BURR. Why do you think that is? Critique the program for

me.

Mr. FIELDS. Right. I think that there are several reasons this

program got off to a slow start. There was turnover in city personnel. There is the newness of the program, it’s only 2 years old.

There are natural startup problems for any new program.

Mr. BURR. Did people come to you and beg you to participate in

this program or did you go to people and beg them to participate

in this program?

Mr. FIELDS. Once we awarded those assessment pilots beginning

in 1995, the Mayors came to us and said the No. 1 priority need

they had, was for brownfields, cleanup dollars to help facilitate

cleanup of these properties that are being assessed. So the Mayors

came to us.

We then tried to provide a vehicle, which turned out to be the

Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund, and that is the program we got started. I will be quite honest with you. There was

a legal cloud established by the appropriations language that we

got from the Hill. Congress passed appropriation language in 1998

which said they didn’t believe we had the legal authority to issue

those grants—those 23 grants to establish revolving loan funds.

Many of those 23 cities came back to us and said, we are concerned

about the legal authority. Fortunately, Congress, in 1999, in the

appropriation language, endorsed these brownfields revolving loan

funds and encouraged EPA to award more of those grants, which

we did do.

Mr. BURR. And now we are to the point where we are assessing

success, aren’t we? Or is it too early?

Mr. FIELDS. I think for the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan

Fund, it is too early to assess success.

Mr. BURR. When do we do that?

21

Mr. FIELDS. I would say a year or 2 from now. We did not

achieve early success with the assessment program either. We

didn’t have more than 5,000 jobs. We didn’t have $1.6 billion in private investment. That is something that just began to occur in the

last year.

Mr. BURR. Shouldn’t we wait to see the success of those before

we expand?

Mr. FIELDS. No.

Mr. BURR. The Mayors understandably want brownfields cleaned

up.

Mr. FIELDS. Yes.

Mr. BURR. I think I would get a nod if I knew which ones they

were in the room. They want to clean brownfields up and pursue

development.

Mr. FIELDS. Yes.

Mr. BURR. Do they want to do it under Superfund regulations,

or would they rather do it some other way? Because the way that

you fund the Revolving Loan Fund, they have to fulfill all the requirements of Superfund, don’t they?

Mr. FIELDS. They obviously have to comply with the Superfund

law.

Mr. BURR. But they are not required to unless they use the Revolving Loan Fund, am I correct?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, when they use our Revolving Loan Fund functions under the removal authorities of the Superfund statute. We

have tried to make those procedures very flexible in terms of how

we implement them. We don’t require what we do for a regular

Superfund site.

Mr. BURR. Have you ever heard a witness come in here and tell

us we were flexible under Superfund regulations? I don’t think you

have, and I don’t think I have, so we can quit fooling ourselves on

that.

Mr. Chairman, just 1 additional minute, if I could.

What timeframe do you need to come to this committee and say,

here is the proof, this works? Is it 6 months? Is it 12 months? Is

it 2 years? What is it?

Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Congressman, I believe it is going to be about

2 years. To be very honest and frank with this committee, it will

be about 2 years.

I expect that we will see several more cities like Stamford, Connecticut, issue loans this year. And we know Las Vegas, Trenton,

and Sacramento, are cities out there now who will be issuing loans.

But I don’t think we will see the big payoff until 2 years from now,

just like we did with the brownfields assessment program. Two

years from now, we will be able to see the jobs, the cleanups, the

redevelopment that will be really occurring from this Revolving

Loan Fund program.

Mr. BURR. Is that how you would define success, cleaned-up

sites, development, jobs? Anything short of that?

Mr. FIELDS. Those are tangible measures of success.

Mr. BURR. Do we have to have something tangible for——

Mr. FIELDS. No, I don’t think that is the only measure. I think

there is great success when people, like this committee, are focused

on the topic of brownfields, and are taking every step possible to

22

try to find ways to assess, clean up and develop these properties.

I think the focus of Mayors, the focus of the Federal Government,

the focus of State government on this issue, is going to pay dividends.

The measures I gave you just now were some of the quantitative

measures of success. I think there is great success when people are

working together to try to resolve these issues, looking at how we

can work together to issue a loan and how we can resolve the impediments in these program. Those are all measures of success. But

what I was giving to you were quantifiable dollars and jobs as

measures.

Mr. BURR. Coming out of the business world, I would assure you

that those do spell success for me. And I think that from the standpoint of the oversight responsibility that we have, one of the jobs

is to make sure that, in fact, by design of your program, those who

underperform or lack to perform, that rather than sit and say, we

have done our job, we have supplied somebody a revolving loan, if

they don’t use it, so be it.

Now, it is also important for us to look further into it and see

how long did it take you to approve their plan. There are a number

of steps that require participation from you after the commitment

to be a partner. Unfortunately, one-half of the partnership can’t

move without your okay.

It is my understanding you are going to stay around and allow

us to ask some additional questions after the next panel.

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURR. With that, I will await anxiously.

Mr. UPTON. Your time has long, long expired.

We are going to have a second round. I know that a number of

us have additional questions, and we will start that second round

now.

I have to say, from my own district and the knowledge that I

have, I am a very strong supporter of Superfund reform,

brownfields. I have talked with a number of Mayors even yesterday

and with some conversation about this as well. I have talked to

sponsors of all of the different bills that we have had in the House

as well—Mr. Boehlert, obviously Mr. Bliley, Mr. Oxley.

It is my understanding that the bill that we passed in committee

2 weeks ago here, in this committee, the Commerce Committee,

that we de-link completely the brownfields grant program from the

Superfund trust fund. And as I look at the testimony and anticipate questions and thoughts by my colleagues and the folks that

are testifying on Panel II, that is their big concern. That is why

they think that this program is not working to the full utilization

that it could, because of the regulatory burden that EPA is imposing with this program. When you talk about flexibility, we will see

with questions to them how flexible they think EPA has been.

But our legislation that we passed here and is now waiting for

the full debate on the House floor does take that firewall out completely, it de-links the two, which would empower the EPA to deregulate this entire program so that we can see more success. Is

that not your understanding?

Mr. FIELDS. That is not our understanding, Mr. Congressman.

We have not read H.R. 1300 that way. The only bill we see that

23

de-links Superfund requirements for brownfields is H.R. 1750. You

are talking about H.R. 1300, I am sure, right? H.R. 2580, that bill

does not—we don’t read H.R. 2580 to de-link the Superfund response requirements from brownfields. We would be happy to look

at that again, but that is not the way we read it. The only bill that

has the provision in it that we are referring to that creates that

de-linkage is H.R. 1750.

Mr. UPTON. Well, we will provide you our analysis of H.R. 2580

showing that, in our view, it does de-link it, and we will look forward to your response on that.

Mr. FIELDS. I will be happy to respond.

Mr. UPTON. In your response last month to Congressman Oxley,

and we have a copy of this letter here and we will put it into the

record as well, you listed 11 pilots that were not close to making

loans.

[The information referred to follows:]

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Mr. UPTON. The cleanup Revolving Loan Fund administrative

manual at page VIII-3 clearly states, and I quote. It says, ‘‘Each

cooperative agreement has 3 years from the cooperative agreement

start date,’’ so that is September, 1997, for most of the 1997 pilots,

‘‘to obligate all funds awarded. The schedule of obligation should be

no less than 50 percent of the amount awarded with 18 months,

80 percent within 2 years, and 100 percent within 3 years.’’

Will any of the 11 pilots that you listed make a loan before the

3-years lapse? In other words, where are we with those 1997 pilots?

I guess the terms of the agreement were that they were supposed

to do this.

Mr. FIELDS. Right. By September of 2000.

Mr. UPTON. Two thousand.

Mr. FIELDS. That is why we are going to have this meeting on

December 6 that I talked about. I am not aware of any on that list

that are issuing loans right now. There are others among the 23,

as I mentioned earlier, like Sacramento, Trenton, Birmingham,

Louisville, and Boston, that are thinking about loans. But, regarding the ones you list there and the ones that I provided my written

response on, I am not aware of their consideration of loans.

We will try to as I mentioned to Congressman Bryant earlier, we

will try to light a fire under those that are not currently negotiating or discussing loans and try to see what we can do to get others to issue loans. If they don’t do so, we will have to consider

deobligating funds, as I said earlier.

Mr. UPTON. Okay.

Ms. DeGette, I will yield to you.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To follow up on one issue that was just being discussed, I

thought I heard the chairman saying that H.R. 2580 was de-linked,

but I guess I would like you to comment on how that could happen

if, in fact, it is an amendment to the Superfund statute.

Mr. FIELDS. Well, as I shared with the chairman, we don’t read

H.R. 2580 as de-linking the requirements from Superfund for

brownfields cleanup.

Ms. DEGETTE. And why is that, Mr. Fields? I know you said that.

Mr. FIELDS. The way we read H.R. 2580, it would require that

the response provisions of the Superfund statute and the National

Contingency Plan be complied with in conducting brownfields

cleanups. The only bill we have seen that has specific language

which says that the cleanup provisions of the National Contingency

Plan could be modified would be H.R. 1750. It is the only legislative vehicle we have seen that has that type of language. We are

willing to look at H.R. 2580, but we don’t read it to have that delinkage.

Ms. DEGETTE. And you may have said this before I got here, and

I apologize. I had another meeting, and this hearing was moved to

9:30, too late for me to change this other meeting. But why is it

important that these concepts be de-linked?

Mr. FIELDS. You will hear more of this from the next panel. We

think it is important to create flexibility. Right now, the cities that

issue loans have to prepare an engineering evaluation and cost

analysis. They have to prepare an action memo. They have to have

42

a governmental employee to serve as the site manager. We believe

some of those requirements could be changed by statute.

The language in H.R. 1750 says that you don’t have to comply

with those requirements if they are not necessary to doing

brownfields cleanup. We believe that language in H.R. 1750 is

what we need here, and that would allow Mayor Malloy and others

to do things in a much more flexible way. They don’t have to prepare a decision document. They don’t have to do an engineering

evaluation cost analysis. Those requirement could be eliminated

with the language that is in H.R. 1750.

Ms. DEGETTE. Right, okay.

Now, I think you pointed out, at least in your written testimony,

that some problems exist right now with the Revolving Loan Fund

because it is still in its infancy; and, in fact, the majority in this

Congress has prohibited the EPA from making any grants in fiscal

year 1998, which was only the second year of the program. Of

course, funding still remains tenuous.

I guess my question to you would be, has the uncertainty of funding and the history in the last couple of Congresses inhibited the

success of the revolving loan funds? In other words, do you think

there is a chilling effect on cities to move forward under this program because they are not sure it will still be around when the

cleanup time comes?

Mr. FIELDS. That is a good question, Congresswoman DeGette.

There was definitely a chilling effect on the initial 23. When the

23 were awarded in September 1997 and then Congress in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations said we do not believe the legal authority is there, I heard from several cities and several Mayors that

they were concerned about whether they would be able to continue

the Revolving Loan Fund under the grants we had answered.

When Congress in 1999 came back and said we endorse and support the revolving loan funds being awarded, that removed some of

that legal cloud.

But during fiscal year 1998, that whole year, there was a legal

cloud created because of the appropriation language that came

from Congress in the budget about the legality of awarding Revolving Loan Fund grants to municipalities. It definitely had an effect.

I believe it is one of the factors, not the only one, that has caused

some slowness in the initiation of the Revolving Loan Fund program.

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay. I am wondering if, based on that cloudy, as

you said, experience, you can let us know what you think the prognosis for success of this program is and what you think the future

holds.

Mr. FIELDS. I believe that the prognosis for the Revolving Loan

Fund is very good. I have said it for several reasons. The success

we have had in the assessment program, which has been around

for almost 5 years now, in creating jobs and leveraging $1.6 billion

in investment is one reason. I have heard from 6 or 7 cities now,

in addition to the great effort that is led by Mayor Malloy in Stamford, that intend to issue loans in the very near future. And, third,

this program has now reached a stage where the 2- or 3-year phase

of assessment is done, the Mayors and community leaders are now

beginning to focus on cleanup. Finally, the legal cloud has been liftVerDate 13-MAR-2000 11:08 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\61041.TXT pfrm02 PsN: 61041
43

ed by the fiscal year 1999 appropriation language which clearly

said Congress supports and gives us the mandate to do this job of

implementing cleanup through the revolving loan funds. That is

what gives me an optimistic prognosis that the future is good and

that we will see a great expansion in the number of loans issued

under this program in the very near future.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

I would just like to make, before I yield to Mr. Bryant, three

quick points with regard to our interpretation of H.R. 2580.

One, there is no requirement in the bill to tie the program to the

National Contingency Plan. It is our belief that we de-link the program from the National Contingency Plan by the use of general

revenues rather than Superfund dollars. In that provision, the bill

says there is authorized to be appropriated and carried out in this

section such sums as may be necessary. Such funds shall remain

available until expended.

It is my understanding that H.R. 1750, in fact, allows EPA to require the use of the National Contingency Plan when it wants to.

So in terms of a clear reading of de-linking, H.R. 2580 goes much

further than does H.R. 1750.

Mr. FIELDS. I will go back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. I will be anxious to get your formal response from

your legal counsel in terms of whether we are right or not. But as

we talked to the authors of the bill and to our counsel, it is our

belief that there is a greater distinction of de-linking in this bill

than in H.R. 1750. We will be anxious to hear back from you.

Mr. FIELDS. We will respond in writing. We will go back and read

that again. That is not how we had read it, but we will go back

and look at it and give you some written comments on that point.

We see a clear de-linkage in H.R. 1750. We will go back and look

at H.R. 2580 again and give you our written response as to whether or not we think a clear de-linking from the Superfund response

requirements is provided in that bill.

Mr. UPTON. You may be right on your first point that you go toward that, but I think our bill goes further.

I yield to Mr. Bryant.

Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Fields, thank you.

Would you clarify in my mind a statement you made about there

being a 5-year commitment involved here? Because when our chairman questioned you before in follow-up to what we were talking

about, these 11 cities, he referenced the administrative manual,

Roman numeral 8-3, which states that each cooperative agreement

recipient has 3 years from the cooperative agreement start date,

and it goes on and talked about that.

Am I talking apples to oranges here? Is it 3 years or 5 years?

Mr. FIELDS. No, it is a 5-year grant that we issue. We award the

grant for 5 years.

What is reflected in the administrative manual that you are

reading from is that they have 3 years to draw down money. We

give a $500,000 grant under the cooperative agreement to a city or

a municipality or a State. They have 3 years under our guidance

to begin to draw funds down out of that grant. That is the commitVerDate 13-MAR-2000 11:08 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\61041.TXT pfrm02 PsN: 61041
44

ment that is made in the administrative manual. We want to provide some impetus, as the chairman said, to encourage people to

try to move out quickly and begin to issue loans. But the actual

award is a 5-year grant.

Mr. BRYANT. Okay. So for those 11 cities that haven’t really done

anything and are not likely to do anything, unless you can again

get them excited during December——

Mr. FIELDS. They will get excited, I assure you. This is a high

priority for us, and we are not going to just let money sit there if

communities and cities are not taking action to move forward to

implement the Revolving Loan Fund grant we have given them.

We are not going to wait 3 years. We want to start action right

away to encourage people to take action as necessary to begin to

issue loans. Otherwise, we need to be taking the money back, as

you said earlier.

Mr. BRYANT. To sort of change direction here, in some written

testimony, Ms. Foss from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources advocates letting the Revolving Loan Fund participants

conduct their cleanup in accordance with the respective State’s own

voluntary cleanup regulations instead of the National Contingency

Plan. Would the EPA seriously consider such a change? And if not,

why not?

Mr. FIELDS. We cannot make that change now under the current

statute. Under the Superfund and the regulations thereof, the National Contingency Plan, these brownfields cleanup actions are

done as non-time-critical removals. We don’t have the flexibility

now to deviate and say that we will allow these cleanups for

brownfields to be done under a State-voluntary cleanup program

that ignores the NCP when we give them dollars, Federal dollars

to do that work.

I support what Ms. Foss is saying. I support the fact that we

want a more flexible construct for these cleanups. We don’t think

that we should do these brownfields cleanups the same way we do

the Superfund or national priorities list sites.

So, I support what Ms. Foss is saying. We need a more flexible

cleanup approach, and that is why we support legislation that

would allow us to exclude or eliminate certain parts of the National

Contingency Plan requirements from brownfields cleanups. We

don’t think you should have to prepare an action memorandum.

You should not have to prepare an engineering evaluation and cost

analysis for brownfields cleanups.

We support those things being eliminated. But under the current

statute, the way we read it, we don’t have a choice but to at least

require some modified version of those types of elements.

Mr. BRYANT. All right. Mr. Fields, how do we get from here to

there on those issues? Is it our job as Congress to give you that

flexibility, or is it your job to change the regulations, or is it your

job to come to us to ask for that? That is common sense, I agree

with you. How do we do that?

Mr. FIELDS. We have supported some legislation that has not

been voted out of committee. H.R. 1750 has some language that

would create that flexibility. It says very clearly that those parts

of the National Contingency Plan that are not relevant do not need

to be complied with for brownfields cleanups. That is the type of

45

legislative provision that we would support, and that is how Congress could help us legislatively.

In the meantime, on the administrative front, I am trying to do

things with the policy and guidance under the current law to provide cities and States more flexibility to be able to do this in a

more flexible way.

Mr. BRYANT. So specifically on those areas you have enumerated

that there could be more flexibility, you are assuring me that only

we have the authority as Congress to change that, and these are

not regulations that belong to EPA that EPA can in and of themselves change? Those items you mentioned?

Mr. FIELDS. No, no. Let me be very specific. Your question was,

how can Congress help us? Well, you can pass some legislation that

would allow changes to be made in the law.

Mr. BRYANT. On those you enumerated previously, can in fact

EPA change its own regulations?

Mr. FIELDS. EPA could change its regulations. We are exploring

that option. We would hope that Congress would pass legislation.

We think that would be a lot faster. If Congress does not pass legislation, we will have to examine making changes to the National

Contingency Plan regulations to eliminate some of those requirements that currently apply to brownfields cleanups. That process

is likely to take at least 2 years. But, if legislation is not enacted

in an expeditious fashion, the Agency will have to consider regulatory modifications to effectuate those types of changes.

Mr. BRYANT. So you say regulation changes would take longer

than legislation?

Mr. FIELDS. Well, I think Congress could pass new legislation. I

know it has been 6 years, but Congress can pass legislation.

Mr. BRYANT. I have been up here 5 years, and I know better than

that.

Mr. FIELDS. To do it by regulation, we estimate will take about

2 years.

Mr. UPTON. Ms. McCarthy.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fields, I very much appreciate your last remarks, because I

too think that taking up H.R. 1750, which has such broad-ranging,

bipartisan support, and the administration’s support would be the

way to go. The other attempts that are being made are slower and

more tenuous, particularly when we get into Superfund reform. So

I hope your wishes are carried out, and I support them.

In anticipation of the second panel, those of us who have read

the testimony from the witnesses, in particular Stamford, Connecticut, I think we are going to be very pleased with the progress

being made there. They loaned money almost immediately, as you

know, and I wonder if you would just share with the committee

why you think they were so successful and whether or not other

cities will learn from this very positive experience.

I am not sure that everyone on the committee is aware that the

money is not transmitted to the city. I heard concerns by members

that—what about this money that is sitting around, but, rather, it

is a letter of credit that is given to the city.

Mr. FIELDS. Right.

46

Ms. MCCARTHY. And the letter or the grant expires after 5 years,

so the money is not forever lost if the city doesn’t use it immediately, and I think that is an important point to make. And I wonder if you would just reflect on the success of Stamford and what

we might expect in the future, because I think there is a very positive story going on there.

Mr. FIELDS. I can’t tell the story like Mayor Malloy is going to

tell the story in a moment, but Stamford has been a great success.

When you asked me why I believe it has been a great success, I

think it is because of Mayor Malloy personally; having a Mayor

who is committed, who is dynamic, and who is very concerned

about brownfields. Where redevelopment cleanup issues in his city

are a critical element, having a developer who is ready, willing and

able to participate in the program with him like Seth Weinstein,

the chairman of Clearview Investment Management, Incorporated,

and having property that is very viable and that has great redevelopment potential is also major factors.

I hope that we can use that effort in Stamford and the property

redevelopment that will be occurring through the loan as a great

springboard for many more cities. I hope more cities will use that

example to look at how they can issue loans and leverage millions

of dollars in private sector investment in their communities as well.

I think Stamford is a great example. I think it will help break

the logjam of getting more revolving loan funds fully implemented

and more loans being issued. When we look back on the history of

this program and we begin to measure success, we may see Stamford, Connecticut, and the work of Mayor Malloy as what really got

this program going.

Ms. MCCARTHY. I thank you very much.

I will await the Mayor’s testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURR [presiding]. The gentlewoman’s time has expired.

The Chair would recognize himself, though he did say he would

wait until the next panel. You have stimulated some additional

questions in my mind.

Mr. FIELDS. Sure.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Fields, how many brownfields sites are there in

the United States?

Mr. FIELDS. We use the estimate of the General Accounting Office. They estimate that there are more than 450,000 brownfields

sites across America. We have seen estimates as large as 600,000,

but somewhere in that ballpark, 450,000 to 600,000 brownfields

sites exist across America.

Mr. BURR. And we have only cleaned up one of them?

Mr. FIELDS. No. We have only made one loan under the Revolving Loan Fund. Many more brownfields have been cleaned up.

Mr. BURR. There were brownfields that were cleaned up without

the use of the Revolving Loan Fund?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURR. How were those done?

Mr. FIELDS. They were done through private sector investment

and other public sector investment.

As I indicated, the brownfields assessment program has been

around for more than 4 years now. It has leveraged $1.6 billion in

47

private sector investment for cleanup and redevelopment. The private sector is coming forward. For example, $50 million has been

leveraged cleanup in Dallas, Texas, and throughout America. The

private sector has come forward, and put up cleanup dollars to get

properties developed and some of those properties have been assessed through the EPA brownfields grants.

Mr. BURR. They have been successful?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes. But there are many other properties that don’t

have the private sector coming forward, and that is what the

Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund program is designed

for. There are other properties that you need a public sector seed

to be planted to help facilitate cleanup. We think that is what the

Revolving Loan Fund program is designed to do.

Mr. BURR. You said that one of the reasons that we might be

slow at experiencing success was that actions of Congress had a

chilling effect on these participants.

Mr. FIELDS. That is one of the 5 or 6 factors, yes.

Mr. BURR. But isn’t the truth that those 23 original participants

receives their grants? They are not in line for any additional

grants? So it is not a question of whether they were going to be

approved or get their money, they had already been approved and

had their letter of credit. How could our actions have a chilling effect on those 23?

Mr. FIELDS. Well, I assure you, Mr. Congressman, it did initially.

It does not now because in fiscal year 1999 Congress changed their

position.

Mr. BURR. Why would they be concerned with what we did if

they had their letter of credit, they had their approval?

Mr. FIELDS. They had their letter of credit. They were concerned

about whether or not this program was going to be abolished in fiscal year 1998 when Congress said we don’t think the EPA has the

legal authority to do this, and they thought their money would be

deobligated.

Mr. BURR. That seems like that would have stimulated them to

move quicker rather than to delay in fear that we would revoke it.

Mr. FIELDS. My staff tells me, for example, that when the fiscal

year 1998 appropriation language came out, several cities indicated

that they feared they would be required to send their money back

to EPA because they were concerned about the legality of even

being able to implement this program.

Mr. BURR. Share with us or your staff share with us which cities

those were, would you, please?

Mr. FIELDS. I don’t know the names.

This is Linda Garczynski, who works on my staff.

Mr. BURR. And if you would, you alluded to earlier that you said

several Mayors expressed concern. I would like to know which

Mayors those were.

Ms. GARCZYNSKI. We heard from the city of Dallas staff. We also

heard from the Assistant to the Mayor of the city of Detroit. We

heard from the city of Bridgeport staff. We heard from a number

of the cities.

Mr. BURR. Share the rest of them with us, if you would.

Ms. GARCZYNSKI. I can’t remember them all by heart, but we had

a lot of telephone calls.

48

Mr. BURR. Would you be kind enough to submit that list to the

committee in writing?

Ms. GARCZYNSKI. Yes.

Mr. FIELDS. We would be happy to do that.

Mr. BURR. Let me ask you, Mr. Fields, the EPA Inspector General issued a report in March, 1998—and I would ask unanimous

consent to enter that report into the record. Without objection, so

ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

Mr. BURR. They reviewed several of the EPA brownfields initiatives. They interviewed several of the pilot programs for the report.

And the report basically stated that several—that city representatives told them that they did not want to get involved in the pilot

program. In a few instances, the IG said the EPA had to encourage

cities to apply for the pilots.

Now, I know I talked about did you encourage earlier; and you

said, no, you didn’t. And I know that on April 20, 1999, the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Bliley, sent a letter to the EPA,

which I would also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record.

That is the EPA response.

[The information referred to follows:]

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

Mr. BURR. And in that, the chairman asked you if, in fact, pilots

had been encouraged, and the response to that, dated May 17,

1999, was that the EPA is aware of no instances in which it had

to encourage cities to apply for pilots. I would give you one new opportunity to tell me, did the EPA have to encourage any of the participants of this revolving fund?

Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Chairman, our response stands as it is.

Mr. BURR. Have you seen the IG’s report?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes.

Mr. BURR. Did you sit down with the IG and express any concern

over the conclusions that he found?

Mr. FIELDS. My staff did discuss the IG’s draft report with the

IG’s staff. I did not talk personally to the IG about this report.

Mr. BURR. Did the IG revise their report based upon their conversations with you or your staff?

Mr. FIELDS. Well, they made some modifications, but they reflected on our comments in preparing their final report.

Mr. BURR. So if any one of the 21 participants in the program

that were interviewed by the staffs of this subcommittee suggested

that the EPA had encouraged them in any way to participate in the

fund, they would be lying to us?

Mr. FIELDS. Well, I can’t say that the IG is lying. I am just telling you, Mr. Chairman, that the extent of my knowledge and what

I was told by my staff, I am not aware of us encouraging pilots to

apply.

I think you have to be careful about the word and how ‘‘encourage’’ may be interpreted. For example, and you will hear this from

the next panel, we work all the time with cities to help them to

apply. We provide technical assistance. We work with them to help

96

fill out applications, to fill out government forms. Some could say

that that is encouraging them. I see it as providing technical assistance.

When a community calls you, or a Mayor or a city calls you and

says, can you help me prepare an application for this government

assistance, we do that in a lot of our programs, not just

brownfields. I don’t see that as ‘‘encouraging’’ someone to apply.

You are helping someone to fill out the government paperwork who

has an interest in applying for Federal assistance.

Some would read that as encouragement. I read it as providing

technical assistance. And, we do that in lots of communities across

America. We provide technical assistance to those who have an interest in applying for brownfields assessment grants, revolving

funds, and training grants. That is done every year.

We have many more applications for this program than we could

ever respond to. We can’t give people all of the assistance they

need. We are not out there trying to beat the drums and say please

apply for this program. We have many more people who are applying than we could ever fulfill the need. We do help them when they

call upon us to assist them in figuring out how to comply with the

government application procedures. That is done all the time.

That is the only thing I am aware of.

Mr. BURR. Trust me when I tell you that this Congress understands that there are two meanings for every word. We have

learned that this year for the first time.

You alluded to earlier that we just haven’t had enough time for

this revolving fund to be successful. I took the opportunity to look

back at the Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund. It was created—

or appropriated in September 1996 for the fiscal year 1999. From

April 1999 through June 30, 1999—excuse me, April 1997 through

June 1999, there had been 637 loans for a total value of $1.3 billion. We have had one for $250,000. What is the difference?

Mr. FIELDS. Well, I think that there are differences in these programs. The brownfields Revolving Loan Fund program is complex,

and is used for hazardous waste removal situations. Brownfields

may have many chemicals. You are focused on providing loans to

private entities primarily who are involved in trying to clean up

brownfields.

Mr. BURR. Most of this stuff you have talked about is structural.

Mr. FIELDS. Right. There are great differences. There has been

an infrastructure there for a much longer period of time under the

Safe Drinking Water Act Fund or the Clean Water Act Revolving

Loan Fund. The infrastructure has been around for many years.

The Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund has only been

around for 2 years, since September 1997. That is when we started

this program. I don’t think you can measure a program that has

been around for a much longer period of time and say that this program has been given a fair shake. When someone comes back and

talks to you 2 years from now, I think we will begin to share with

you the same kinds of results that we are achieving for the

brownfields assessment program. Many jobs, many private cleanup

investment dollars will be provided.

Mr. BURR. I think you misunderstand the intent of this committee and the members on it. I think that, in fact, we are going

97

through, hopefully, a thorough process of determining what it is we

should use to evaluate success.

Mr. FIELDS. I agree.

Mr. BURR. Clearly, the tools at hand are minimal today, because

we have only had one loan. When you compare nothing to nothing,

it is very difficult to assess whether that is success. I would expect

most individuals who participate in a program where the seed

money exists and where we have a liberal administrative reimbursement, I think it is 25 percent under your program that can

be used for administrative—am I correct?

Mr. WASHKO. Fifteen percent to the grantees and 10 percent to

the borrowers.

Mr. BURR. Which is a total of 25 percent, I think.

Mr. FIELDS. Okay.

Mr. BURR. That will set your staff into a little bit of a disagreement. Clearly, we would like to know in the future what we should

compare it to for success. Clearly, you have said it is unfair to compare it to the Drinking Water Revolving Fund. If success is these

23 initial participants actually having cleaned up sites 2 years from

now, which is the timeframe that you gave us, so be it. It doesn’t

mean that this committee won’t look at the process along the way,

suggest and offer our help, look for new ways to streamline and

make it more successful. Because I will assure you on both sides

of the aisle of this committee, our interest is in one thing: Cleaning

up brownfields. And given that more of them have been cleaned up

outside of this revolving fund than inside this revolving fund, personally, if there is a pot of money, I would like to see it seed the

outside effort versus the Revolving Loan Fund, just simply because

of the success, and success defined as sites cleaned up.

The Chair at this time will adjourn the first panel.

Mr. FIELDS. Thank you very much.

Two quick points in closing, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURR. Yes, sir.

Mr. FIELDS. On the points you have just made the cleanups that

have been done outside of this program, keep in mind, many have

been through or, as a result of the brownfields assessment program.

Second, look at one brownfields loan under this program in

Stamford, Connecticut, there a $250,000 loan is resulting in $50

million in private investment. That is just one loan, and many

more will be issued during fiscal year 2000, and 2001. That $50

million that Stamford is getting in private sector investment from

that one loan is in excess of the $35 million we gave out for all of

the Revolving Loan Fund grants in fiscal year 1999 alone, one loan.

That just tells you the magnitude of the success someone will be

reporting to you 2 years from now.

Mr. BURR. Well, I look forward to not only the other 23 coming

before us and talking about the size of it, but I am anxious to hear

the gentleman from Connecticut, because he has done an amazing

thing of leveraging a mere $250,000 into a huge amount of development, and I wish him nothing but success and look forward to his

testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Fields.

Mr. FIELDS. Thank you.

98

Mr. BURR. The first panel is adjourned.

The Chair would take this opportunity to call up the participants

of the second panel.

The Chair would like to welcome all three of our witnesses on

the second panel and make everybody aware of the fact that, for

the question-and-answer portion, I think we have made arrangements for you to be joined again by Mr. Fields so that we will have

an opportunity to ask everybody.

At this time, the Chair would like to pass over Mr. Malloy in

hopes that Mr. Shays, who has asked to introduce you, can make

it back from the vote.

The Chair at this time would introduce the Senior Project Manager for Brownfields and Industrial Development of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, Mr. Thomas Ahern.

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS P. AHERN, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER FOR BROWNFIELDS AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT,

BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Mr. AHERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Thomas Ahern, and I am the Senior Project Manager

for Brownfields and Industrial Development for the Boston Redevelopment Authority. We are the city’s planning and economic development agency.

I am here today to talk about what Boston is doing on

brownfields development under the leadership of Mayor Menino,

what programs we use to spur development and cleanup of contaminated property, and to share our thoughts about the Revolving

Loan Fund and its efforts.

Boston is a compact city with few developable acres available for

new growth. Since we cannot grow new land, we are required to

look to sites such as brownfields for new development opportunities. While Boston grows into the new millennium, we are also

faced, like many northern industrial cities, with cleaning up the byproducts of our 20th century economy.

Since 1987, over 1,400 spills of oil or hazardous material in Boston have been reported to our State Department of Environmental

Protection. Many of these spills have been cleaned up, yet many

still continue to pollute our soil, our groundwater and our neighborhoods.

What is Boston doing to assist with private brownfields development? Under Mayor Menino, Boston has tried to develop a ‘‘menu’’

of options for developers, community development corporations,

nonprofits and private property owners to solve their brownfields

problems. A typical approach to developing a financing plan would

be to ‘‘cherry pick’’ at several different city, State and Federal initiatives and attempt to combine them with private financing or developer equity.

We use city initiatives such as tax abatement, public takings of

property, community development block grant funds and debt financing through agencies like the one I work for, the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

We offer assistance in gaining access to State initiatives such as

the new, in-State Massachusetts brownfields law program. This

State effort, which just recently began after passing the legislature

99

in August 1998, provides tax credits and $30 million in loans and

grants toward the cleanup of brownfields. The law also provides

new liability protections for lenders, tenants and new innocent

owners. Because this program is relatively new, however, it is difficult to accurately assess its effectiveness at this time. However,

we believe it will be a critical tool in the future.

The City and the BRA also seek Federal assistance for

brownfields through redevelopment. Some of our neighborhoods

hard hit by brownfields are located in an Empowerment Zone,

which can bring significant financial assistance. Tax credits are

also available for projects located in the Zone. The City can also

elect to use some of its Section 108 loan guarantees to help with

the development, something Boston is doing right now to encourage

development in areas of economic hardship.

We are also using the HUD Brownfields Economic Development

Initiative, which awards grants for cleanup along with additional

Section 108 loan guarantees for redevelopment. We recently received an award of $7 million under this program for our top

brownfields site, the Modern Electroplating facility in Roxbury. An

additional Federal incentive is the Federal Home Loan Bank,

which provides financing, letters of credit and financing for

brownfields projects that are having trouble locating capital.

Boston was selected for a Brownfields Pilot Assessment under

the EPA in 1995, for which we received a $200,000 grant. The

funds were used to hire a brownfields coordinator and to identify

brownfields sites in several neighborhoods of the city. The City

worked with numerous community organizations in a 3-year effort

to identify, map and assess brownfields development opportunities

in the community. Today, 4 years after the grant was awarded,

Boston is well on its way to cleaning up and developing three of

the primary sites that we identified through this grant.

In 1997, we were awarded a $350,000 Revolving Loan Fund by

the EPA. The intent of the program was to continually offer a financing mechanism for cleaning up brownfields sites. One of the

main impediments to successful redevelopment has been the lack

of money available for cleanup work. This program has offered Boston the opportunity to finally provide access to critical funds.

However, a funny thing happened on the way to the landfill. The

more we learned of the program, the more problematic it became

to administer the funds.

From the time the City agreed to accept the funds in October

1997 through January 1999, we were engaged in the process of negotiation with EPA Region One regarding several difficult issues.

Among the primary concerns we had were:selection of an onscene coordinator to oversee the cleanup activities; development of

an application packet; CERCLA regulations; the requirement that

the City secure a site if a loan is defaulted upon; and the types of

properties and contaminants for which the funds could be used.

Without a doubt, the two most difficult issues for the City have

been CERCLA regulations and the OSC requirements. These factors have been major impediments to carrying out the RLF program in Boston.

May I continue, Mr. Chairman?

100

Mr. UPTON. As you know, your statement is made complete in

the record, but if you could summarize it, it would be fine.

Mr. AHERN. I would like to.

What we are trying to do in Boston is use the Revolving Loan

Fund to help spur cleanup of our most problematic sites. The program has been difficult to administer over the last 2 years, but, recently, we received an application to use these funds. We are very

excited about making a loan sometime within the next few months

on one of our top brownfields sites. And I believe that one of the

sites, actually, that we could be using this loan money for within

the next 6 to 8 months is actually one of the sites that we used

our EPA Brownfields Pilot Assessment money for.

So, as Mr. Fields mentioned, the money is being used, at least

in the city of Boston. We are planning on using it as the natural

projection line, the pilot assessment which we received in 1995 now

through 1997.

But we have had difficulty with the program, although we believe we are in a position to now be making a loan sometime within

the next 6 to 9 months.

[The prepared statement of Thomas P. Ahern follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. AHERN, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER FOR

BROWNFIELDS AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: My name is Thomas Ahern, and

I serve as the Senior Project Manager for Brownfields and Industrial Development

at the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). The BRA operates as the City of

Boston’s planning and economic development agency, responsible for overseeing development in both our downtown as well as our neighborhoods. Within this structure, the City has also placed the responsibility for developing and carrying out an

aggressive brownfields strategy. I am here today to talk about what Boston is doing

on brownfields development under the leadership of Mayor Thomas Menino, what

programs we use to spur cleanup and revitalization of contaminated property, and

to share our thoughts about the EPA Revolving Loan Fund and its role in our efforts.

Boston is a compact city with few developable acres available for new growth.

Since we cannot grow new land, we are required to look to sites such as brownfields

for new development opportunities. While Boston grows into the new millennium,

we are also faced, like many northern industrial cities, with cleaning up the byproducts of our 20th Century economy.

Since 1987, over one thousand four hundred spills of oil or hazardous material

in Boston have been reported to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection. Many of these spills have been cleaned up, yet many still continue to

pollute our soil, groundwater and neighborhoods.

The Boston Approach—

What is Boston doing to assist with private brownfields development? Under

Mayor Menino, Boston has tried to develop a ‘‘menu’’ of options for developers, community development corporations, non-profits and private property owners to solve

their brownfield problems. A typical approach to developing a financing plan would

be to ‘‘cherry pick’’ at several different city, state and federal initiatives and attempt

to combine them with private financing or developer equity.

We use city initiatives such as tax abatements, public takings of properties, Community Development Block Grant funds and debt financing through city agencies

like the BRA.

We offer assistance in gaining access to state initiatives such as the new Massachusetts Brownfields law program. This state effort which just recently began after

passing the Legislature in August of 1998, provides tax credits, loans and grants

towards cleanup of brownfields. The law also provides new liability protections for

lenders, tenants and new innocent owners. The law will not only open up new opportunities for private parties to purchase brownfield sites, but will also encourage

banks to open up their lending practices to contaminated sites. $30M was set aside

for loans and grants towards assessments and cleanup and an additional $15M was

101

appropriated to purchase environmental insurance for these sites. Because this program is relatively new it is difficult to accurately assess its effectiveness at this

time, however we believe it will prove to be a critical tool.

The City and the BRA also seek federal assistance for brownfields redevelopment.

Several of our neighborhoods hard hit by brownfields issues are located in an Empowerment Zone, which can bring significant financial assistance. Tax credits are

also available for projects located in the Zone. The City can also elect to use some

of its Section 108 loan guarantees to help with the development, something Boston

is doing right now to encourage development in areas of economic hardship.

Boston is also using programs like HUD’s Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, which awards grants for cleanup along with additional Section 108 loan

guarantees for the redevelopment. Boston recently received an award of $7M under

this program for our top brownfields site, the Modern Electroplating facility in

Roxbury. An additional federal incentive is the Federal Home Loan Bank, which

provides low-cost financing, letters of credit and bridge financing for brownfields

projects that are having trouble locating capital.

Boston and EPA Brownfields Programs.

Boston was selected for a Brownfields Pilot Assessment in 1995, for which we received a $200,000 grant. The funds were used to hire a brownfields coordinator and

to identify brownfields sites in several of the neighborhoods of the city. The City

worked with numerous community organizations in a three-year effort to identify,

map and assess brownfields development opportunities in the community. Today,

four years after the grant was awarded, Boston is well on its way to cleaning up

and redeveloping three of the five primary sites selected through the grant. In 1997, Boston was awarded a $350,000 Revolving Loan Fund by the EPA. The

intent of the program was to continually offer a financing mechanism for cleaning

up brownfields sites. One of the main impediments to successful redevelopment of

brownfields has been the lack of real money available for cleanup work. This program offered Boston the opportunity to finally provide access to these critical funds.

However, a funny thing happened on the way to the lined landfill. The more we

learned of the program, the more problematic it became to administer the funds.

From the time the City agreed to accept the funds in October 1997 through January of 1999, we were engaged in a process of negotiation with EPA Region One regarding several difficult issues. Among the primary problems were:

• Selection of a ‘‘On-Scene Coordinator’’ (OSC) to oversee the cleanup activities; • Development of an application packet; • CERCLA regulations; • Requirement that the City ‘‘secure’’ a site if a loan is defaulted upon; • Types of properties and contaminants for which the funds could be used;

Without a doubt, the two most difficult issues for the City of Boston have been

the CERCLA requirements and the OSC requirements. These factors have been

major impediments to carrying out the RLF program in Boston and elsewhere.

A typical Boston brownfield is not a Superfund site. In fact, Boston does not have

any sites currently operating under CERCLA. However, if a developer secures a

loan under the EPA Revolving Loan Fund, their cleanup is now governed under

CERCLA regulations, which are immeasurably more onerous then the Massachusetts regulations. It has proven to be extremely difficult to convince private property

owners and developers that it is in their best interest to willingly subject themselves

to these additional regulations. Some attorneys will say that the requirements, in

practice, are not terribly difficult. However, perception is reality in this case.

Some of the developers of larger brownfield sites, which may fall under the strictest of cleanup regulations under the state law, will consider the program. In fact,

we have discussed the program with developers of two specific sites recently. The

reality is such that if there are other opportunities, even if it is private lending at

twice the rate, for financing the cleanup without incurring CERCLA regulations, the

developers more times than not will take the more expensive route. It just isn’t

worth the hassle. In the case of a typical site owner, I can not see a reason why

they would take this loan, under these conditions, unless every other resource has

been exhausted.

Massachusetts employs a privatized cleanup system, whereby an owner hires an

environmental professional to assess the site, report it to the state regulators, then

undertake a cleanup effort within a certain period of time. To administer the EPA

Revolving Loan Fund, the City is required to employ an On-Scene Coordinator to

oversee the cleanup efforts. This employee must, according to regulations, be a public employee, meaning that the City can not contract with a private individual to

perform these services. While the BRA employs many individuals who specialize in

planning, development, design and finance, we do not have a person who could satVerDate 13-MAR-2000 11:08 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\61041.TXT pfrm02 PsN: 61041
102

isfy the requirements of an OSC. Imagine what smaller cities and towns must be

faced with.

EPA Region One, to their credit, identified that this would be a serious impediment to making loans. They suggested an innovative approach: have the EPA contract with the state DEP to serve as the OSC, paid for with a portion of each Massachusetts Pilot’s funds. A great idea, except for one problem. Again, under the more

progressive state privatized cleanup system, an owner of a site hires his or her own

environmental professional. The state DEP does not oversee or approve of cleanup

plans except for the most contaminated properties. We would be forced to require

a private property owner to accept a state regulator as their On-Scene Cleanup Coordinator, essentially negating the concept of a privatized cleanup system. As you

might imagine, the BRA saw this as creating one impediment to solve another, and

we declined the offer.

Recently though, the City of Boston hired an individual who can satisfy both the

state and federal requirements of a cleanup coordinator. We hope that this effort

on the City’s behalf will solve this problem. But one must again consider what many

of the smaller cities and towns must do to satisfy this requirement.

A Better RLF—

So, what can be done to reform the brownfields programs, most specifically the

Revolving Loan Fund, to best suit to the needs of cities like Boston?

First, the time has come to finally pass meaningful brownfields legislation which

separates the Superfund regulations from programs like the Revolving Loan Fund.

The City of Boston has a host of programs and options to help bring about a successful assessment, cleanup and redevelopment of a contaminated site without having

to resort to over-regulation. The truth is that I do not recommend the RLF program

to the vast majority of people who come to us looking for help because it simply has

shown to be more trouble than it is worth. Additionally, the RLF is competing with

other debt programs in the market. My rate may be lower, but on a $25,000 loan

amortized over five years, is it really worth the lower rate when I have to hire three

new attorneys just to ensure I am satisfying the regulations?

Legislation, modeled upon many recent efforts at the state level such as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, which creates specific cleanup guidelines for brownfields

sites, and recognizes the wisdom of liability protections for innocent owners, will

help us to better administer these programs.

Secondly, sites which are primarily contaminated with oil products need to be eligible for this program. In Boston, a recent review of all brownfield sites found that

over 70% were contaminated with oil. Each of these sites would have a difficult time

passing current regulations under this program. A developer of one site, upon finding out that the RLF program can not be used for oil sites, had his environmental

professional go back out and take further samples to see if they could find any other

problems. They actually were hoping to find something worse. Luckily for them,

they did, as lead and other hazardous materials were found on the site.

We also need to recognize that market conditions, which today allow for private

construction financing of some brownfields cleanups, will not always be as favorable

to difficult brownfield projects. Many of the brownfields projects in Boston currently

underway are financed primarily through construction loans. This is due in part because the state passed lender liability reform in its brownfields bill. But as the market changes, so too will the availability of private capital. In two years time, this

program may be critical not only to the toughest projects, but to the typical ones

as well. Cutting off the RLF program, rather then reforming it to suit the needs

of the cities which manage the funds, will eliminate an important tool out of our

menu of options.

Lastly, I would like to make the case for more direct grant programs like the

HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative. Without the BEDI grant Boston

recently received, our top priority site, Modern Electroplating, would be nothing but

a faint dream. The economics of the project just do not support having a private

developer pay the assumed $5M cleanup cost for a property valued at $500K. The

grant will pay for 35% of the cleanup, with the developer responsible for the additional equity. The additional $5M in Section 108 loans will finance 35% of the development costs. State and federal tax credits and the possible access to state funds

may pay for an additional 25% of the cleanup costs.

Now, where we once said, ‘‘Wouldn’t it be great if . . .’’, the community is saying,

‘‘Isn’t going to be great when . . ’’.

Mr. Chairman, you may be asking why we continue to pursue the RLF program

in light of all the other incentives that are available to us and developers. I would

like to call to your attention two critical brownfields projects that, without the infusion of RLF funds, would not be able to succeed.

103

The first is a development whereby a local arts organization will partner with a

local developer to construct 100 new units of housing, two new performing arts theaters, artist work space and galleries and specialty retail shops. It is a proposal at

this stage, and the finances of the project are complex, without adding in the difficulties I have discussed. But for this project, there are no other options. The menu

of options has been exhausted, with many of the tools being utilized for this project. The cleanup costs are $1.8M, of which $500K is coming from the developer and $500K will come from the new state brownfields fund. $300K is presumed to come

from equity in the property in the form of a price break in the purchase price. Tax

credits do not work because the arts agency is a non-profit, and has no tax liability.

It is not in the Empowerment Zone, and other City CDBG and Section 108 funds

have been exhausted on other projects. While, the EPA Revolving Loan Fund is the

option of last resort in this case, without the funds, the project will die.

Another project is the aforementioned Modern Electroplating project. Although up

to 60% of the cleanup costs may be covered by the HUD grant, tax credits and the

Massachusetts brownfields program, we will still be saddling a developer with at

least $2M in cleanup costs. This price may be even higher after testing on groundwater is complete. The use of the EPA Revolving Loan Fund could well be a deciding factor in our ability to attract qualified developers. Again, most of the other options have been exhausted, and we will still face a shortfall. This property is not

in an area where bankers come running to lend on severely contaminated sites, so

we must be there to ensure the success of the project.

The menu approach to brownfields redevelopment works if the right tools are

available. Today, with our menu of options from the state and federal government,

we are on the right track. But much more can and should be done. EPA programs

like the Revolving Loan Fund can be catalysts in moving a project from dream to

the reality. But only if the program can shed its unnecessary regulatory restrictions.

I ask that as you examine this and other EPA-administered programs that you

consider the effects of combining Superfund with brownfields, and the restraints it

places on cities like Boston. We need the Revolving Loan Fund, just as we need the

EPA Pilot and Assessment programs, the HUD programs and the state-sponsored

programs to make a difference. But we also need Congress to finally pass meaningful brownfields legislation that creates its own set of rules and unshackles the sites

from continued community blight.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much.

For purposes of introduction, I would like to recognize my colleague, Mr. Shays, from Connecticut.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is really nice to be in front of this committee.

As Mr. Bryant said to me as I came in, he said, welcome to the

Big Leagues, so it is nice to be in the Big Leagues.

Mr. UPTON. We refer to it as the Big House, too.

Mr. SHAYS. But I did notice that on the mike it says, ‘‘switch forward to activate, switch off when not in use.’’ We didn’t feel in our

committee we needed an explanation of the switch.

I just wanted to say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to members of

the committee, that it really is a very sincere honor to be given the

opportunity to be in your committee to welcome Dannel Malloy,

who is the Mayor of Stamford, and, frankly, just an outstanding

Mayor.

For those of you who don’t know, Stamford is a community of

about 105,000 to 110,000, depending on which census we use, and

is an extraordinarily successful city. It ranks second only to Chicago in terms of the number of corporate headquarters. There are

11 economic bases in the city, in large measure due to the work of

this Mayor. In other words, we don’t just have banking, we have

a large insurance industry, and the list goes on.

It is just an amazing place, but it is also a place that is an oldtime city. The Mayor was instrumental in helping to rebuild the

City’s public housing and attracting businesses. He also acknowlVerDate 13-MAR-2000 11:08 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\61041.TXT pfrm02 PsN: 61041
104

edged we have a lot of old industry that has left, and he took the

initiative to be a part of the brownfields program. It is really the

only city to date that has moved forward with the Revolving Loan

Fund application. I think you turned it around, Mayor, the next

day.

He anticipates problems before they occur, he plans for the future, and I consider it the best-run city in the country with an outstanding Mayor. It is wonderful to have you here.

Mr. MALLOY. Thank you, Chris.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much. You are welcome to 5 minutes

as well. Thank you for coming before the subcommittee.

TESTIMONY OF HON. DANNEL P. MALLOY, MAYOR, CITY OF

STAMFORD

Mr. MALLOY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Particularly thank you

to my Congressman and my friend, Chris Shays, for his introduction.

Good morning to all of the members of the subcommittee. I am

Dannel Malloy, Mayor of Stamford, Connecticut, as you have

heard.

Today I will describe how Stamford has sparked a revitalization

of brownfields on its waterfront and explain why Federal assistance

and resources for these efforts, including through the Brownfields

Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund, has been important to our initiatives. I will also point out some areas of the EPA brownfields loan

program that Congress should streamline to make the tool more

viable and workable for local communities and the private sector.

I hope that you understand from my testimony that the

brownfields problem requires the contribution and resources of

many partners, including the Federal Government, and that programs like the brownfields RLF program should be continued and

improved.

The city of Stamford is located on Long Island Sound, just 35

miles from New York City. While Stamford is an old industrial city

settled in 1641, most of the historic manufacturing companies have

left Stamford, leaving behind their contaminated industrial sites.

We call them brownfields.

The South End and Waterside neighborhoods of Stamford along

the community’s waterfront are blighted with several large

brownfields sites. Stamford is leading innovative efforts to revitalize brownfields with the support of the Federal Government

under the Brownfields Showcase Community Initiative and with

the assistance of the State of Connecticut and the private sector.

However, many barriers remain to our revitalization, and more

help is needed in Stamford.

One tool that has made a difference in Stamford is the U.S. EPA

Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund, or RLF program. Stamford recently obtained $500,000 EPA funding to capitalize a RLF.

Stamford is the first community in the Nation to make a loan to

a private sector developer that will help turn waterfront

brownfields into new housing, new jobs, new recreational opportunities and new life for Stamford’s south side neighborhoods.

Stamford developer Seth Weinstein has borrowed $250,000 in

low-interest bridge funding for the Stamford RLF to redevelop a

105

12.6-acre former fuel oil depot and an adjacent 3.3-acre parcel, a

former location of a shipbuilding operation. The proposed Southfield Harbor Residential Community will be a waterfront development consisting of approximately 320 rental apartment units, a 68-

slip marina, and a publicly accessible harbor walk, next to a city

park. The development will bring over $50 million of private investment and is expected to generate 200 construction jobs, 12 full-time

permanent jobs. This development is cleaning up a former industrial site, creating housing and opening up the waterfront to the

City’s residents for the first time in more than 60 years.

This project shows that the EPA’s brownfields RLF program can

work for communities. Stamford’s staff has set up an effective program that meets the EPA criteria and developers’ needs. Indeed,

developer Seth Weinstein has reported that the loan arrangement

was as simple, straightforward and reasonable as any he has seen

in the development financing industry.

I am also happy to report that Stamford is now in discussions

with a motorcycle dealership that wishes to locate on a Stamford

brownfields site and is seeking RLF funds to help that deal. In fact,

we anticipate loaning them $200,000.

It is nice being first, but I will be second as well, if need be.

At the same time, I can tell you that local governments have concerns about several aspects of the EPA brownfields RLF program

which stem from its unnecessary connection, unnecessary in my

opinion, to the Superfund program and which this Congress can fix

easily. Because EPA RLF funds are taken from Superfund moneys,

these funds are tied to the requirements of the Superfund National

Contingency Plan, many of which are quite burdensome and inappropriate for brownfields’ redevelopment.

For example, brownfields’ RLF funds cannot be used to address

contamination from petroleum or remediate buildings contaminated

with asbestos or lead paint. However, these contaminants are the

cause of a vast number of brownfields, including a large number

in my community.

In addition, the Superfund restrictions on the brownfields RLF

program requires that cities designate a government employee as

a site manager to oversee the cleanup at particular brownfields

sites. Many cities do not have qualified staff who can serve this

role. In our case, the State of Connecticut was not able to provide—

may I continue?

Mr. UPTON. Go ahead. If you could summarize.

Mr. MALLOY. It will move quickly—to provide this service, and

we were forced to turn to the Army Corps of Engineers. The nearest office where we could obtain this help is Portsmouth, New

Hampshire. And, quite frankly, we should be allowed to hire a licensed professional to oversee this aspect of the project; and we

could hire that person in Stamford. We wouldn’t have to be paying

a government employee to drive from Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

I have other examples which I would be happy to share with you.

In conclusion, cities like Stamford are demonstrating that tools

like the EPA brownfields RLF program are making a difference in

revitalization of our communities. I would like to work with Congress to help streamline this program and make it a stronger program for the future. Thank you very much.

106

[The prepared statement of Dannel P. Malloy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL P. MALLOY, MAYOR, CITY OF STAMFORD

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today in reference to the U.S. EPA Brownfields Cleanup

Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) Program, and the City of Stamford’s successful participation in this program.

This morning, I plan to focus on three areas. First, I will talk about how the City

of Stamford is successfully using Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan funds to facilitate the cleanup of a former industrial site that has been a serious blight on the

community for many years. Our first BCRLF loan is helping to transform the site

into a $50 million private development that is creating new housing and jobs, and

opening up our waterfront to City residents for the first time in 60 years.

Second, I will talk about how the BCRLF Program is helping to fill the critical,

ongoing need of local governments for federal brownfields cleanup funds. Finally, I

want to urge Congress to work closely with EPA to make critical changes needed

to streamline this BCRLF program so that localities can more easily set up RLFs

and get the funds to the private borrowers who will clean up and redevelop these

sites.

BACKGROUND ON STAMFORD REVITALIZATION

The City of Stamford is located on Long Island Sound, just 35 miles from New

York City. Its diverse population consists of 111,000 people. We have a strong corporate base, with four corporations from the Fortune 500 and thirteen Fortune 1000

corporations headquartered in Stamford. While Stamford is an old industrial city,

settled in 1641, most of the historic manufacturing companies have left Stamford,

leaving behind their contaminated industrial sites.

The brownfields problem calls for creative approaches by local governments, and

the partnership and resources of federal and state governments and the private sector. Stamford has demonstrated how local leadership can result in revitalization

and, as described below, why the contributions of federal, state and private sector

partners are so critical.

Stamford has shown that it is a city that works in community revitalization. A

Mayor’s job is to bring funding and new programs to his City. I am a Mayor who

makes things happen in my City. I feel it is not enough just to bring grant funds

to Stamford, but to make those funds work by committing staff and resources to

make these programs a part of the City structure that produces results.

I have made changes in City government to provide a more citizen-friendly organization and have established and maintained open lines of communication between

myself and Stamford citizens as well as between myself and over 3,000 City employees. I maintain open office hours and have established a Citizen’s Services Bureau

to handle citizens’ complaints on an ongoing, daily basis. I also hold a monthly Mayor’s Night Out to give citizens an opportunity to meet with me to discuss issues important to them. Through these avenues, I have been able to understand the concerns of Stamford residents, and have been able to find programs and funding that

will provide solutions.

I have worked closely with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment to reconstruct various areas of our City. Stamford was awarded a $26 million

Hope VI grant to redevelop a blighted public housing complex in the Waterside

neighborhood, the area with the greatest level of poverty in the City. This is also

the neighborhood in which our first Brownfields Cleanup loan was made. The City of Stamford is seeking Congressional support for $17 million in Federal

Transit Administration appropriations, which has been authorized for the design

and construction of the Stamford Urban Transitway. This Transitway is necessary

to open up Stamford’s South End to brownfields redevelopment, and alleviate traffic

in and around our Transportation Center, the second busiest rail station in the

Northeast--second only to New York’s Grand Central Station. Our Transportation

Center is undergoing a $100 million expansion.

In 1998, the City of Stamford became one of 16 communities nationwide to be designated a Brownfields Showcase Community. This EPA designation is in keeping

with my plans for revitalization of older, industrial areas, and the preservation of

open space for our community. In addition, it furthers my efforts to partner with

federal and state agencies on projects to benefit the citizens of our City.

However, there are still areas that continue to need funding in order to see this

revitalization effort through to completion. One of those areas of need is the clean

up and redevelopment of contaminated sites, especially in our South End and Waterside neighborhoods. South End has a population that is 80% minority, with 18%

107

living below the poverty line. Waterside has a population that is 71% minority, with

25% living below the poverty line.

STAMFORD’S FIRST RLF LOAN

In 1999 Stamford applied to EPA for an allocation under the Brownfields Cleanup

Revolving Loan Fund Program. On June 1, 1999 EPA announced that Stamford received preliminary approval of a $500,000 allocation to establish a Revolving Loan

Fund. In October, 1999, Stamford made its first brownfields cleanup loan to a private developer, who will borrow $250,000 in low interest funding to support the development of housing on Stamford’s waterfront. Let me tell you why I think the City

of Stamford succeeded in making the first loan in the country under the Brownfields

Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Program.

I am proud to say that with my strong staff in my Grants Office, I was able to

bring the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund to Stamford. With the committed support of the experienced staff in my Community Development Office,

Stamford developed its Brownfields loan program. The Stamford Community Development Office, which routinely handles loans to property owners developing housing

using HUD’s CDBG and HOME funds, used their experience in HUD loan programs

and housing development to establish the Stamford’s Brownfields loan program in

an expedient manner.

The months of July and August were devoted to preparing a cooperative agreement application, model loan documents and creating the loan process. The loan

documents were designed to meet all obligations of the EPA program but at the

same time be fair to participating developers.

First and foremost, any proposed site cleanup and redevelopment must be economically feasible. The brownfields loan must be repaid to the revolving fund so

that the dollars may be reused to clean up other sites. Stamford has a strong economy and real estate market so that the cost of environmental cleanup can usually

be supported by the land value once a site is clean.

However, the economic feasibility and the after-cleanup land value do not necessarily mean that a project can proceed without assistance of the Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund. Private lenders are wary of lending on a site that has environmental contamination. If the Brownfields funds can be used as a bridge loan for the

cleanup, private lenders will commit to financing the redevelopment including repayment of the Brownfields loan.

To provide an incentive to developers to use Brownfield loan funds to remove environmental contamination, redevelop sites and quickly repay the loans, Stamford

structured its loan program as follows: developers may borrow up to $250,000 for

a period of up to 15 months at an interest rate of 6%. If the developer repays the

loan in 12 months, the interest will be forgiven. If the loan is not repaid upon maturity, the interest rises to 12%. Brownfields loans are secured by a first mortgage.

To jump start the program, we did not wait until we had a signed assistance

agreement with EPA for the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund before we

marketed the program. In August, at the same time that we were designing our

Brownfields loan program documents, we publicly advertised the anticipated availability of EPA loan funds for the cleanup of redevelopment sites. The legal notice

announced that applications would be accepted on a rolling basis.

Stamford had a developer, Seth Weinstein, who was experienced in brownfields

redevelopment and has a keen vision of what brownfields sites can become. We were

well aware that he had been working for the past two years on a plan to redevelop

a 12.6-acre former fuel oil depot and the adjacent 3.3-acre parcel, which was a

former location of a shipbuilding operation. Since the planned environmental cleanup of the site met all of the requirements of EPA’s Brownfields Cleanup Revolving

Loan Fund program, the City of Stamford encouraged the developer to apply for

participation in the program and potentially become the first developer in the country to utilize a Brownfields loan.

The proposed Southfield Harbor Residential Community will be a waterfront development consisting of approximately 320 rental apartment units, a 68-slip marina,

and a publicly accessible harborwalk. It is adjacent to a City park and across the

street from an affordable housing condominium with 75 units. The development will

bring over $50 million of private investment and is expected to generate 100-200

construction jobs and 12 full-time permanent jobs. This development is cleaning up

a former industrial site, creating housing, and opening up this waterfront to City

residents for the first time in over 60 years.

Prior to the announcement of the RLF program, the developer had the subject

property under contract for purchase. He had already completed his Phase I and

Phase II environmental assessments. His architectural plans were complete. He had

108

obtained most of his local approvals from Stamford’s land use boards. He had his

development team assembled and was putting his financing in place.

Since the developer had been in close consultation with the residents of the neighborhood throughout his planning process, he had already met many of the EPA requirements for community involvement. On August 31st we held a public hearing

in the neighborhood to discuss the plans for cleanup and redevelopment of the site.

Approximately 60 residents attended the meeting and showed support of the proposal.

In the month of September, Stamford completed its negotiation of the final loan

terms with EPA and the developer. On September 15th EPA issued their Assistance

Agreement to the City, which I signed on September 23rd. On October 4th the developer and I signed the Brownfields Loan Agreement.

It was through a dedicated team of city staff, working together with EPA and a

developer with Brownfields expertise, that my City was able to issue the first loan.

We are fortunate in Stamford to have a developer who not only is astute in business

matters, experienced in brownfields redevelopment, but also is very aware of the

need to engage neighbors early in his planning process. The EPA’s Region I and

headquarters staff are also to be praised for their hard work and timely responses

to the many and various questions posed by the City of Stamford.

In bringing this loan program to life in Stamford, I am able to make real things

happen. We are able to complete the cleanup of a 15-acre waterfront parcel, adjacent to a City park. We will bring a new residential area to life, to be woven into

an established and stable residential area just across the street. We are tying communities and people together and bringing long time residents back to Long Island

Sound through publicly accessible walkways along the waterfront.

I am happy to share with you that Stamford is now studying the feasibility of its

second loan under the Brownfields program. In this case the developer, the proprietor of a motorcycle dealership, has a contract to purchase the site. He has completed his Phase I, II and III environmental assessments. He has received approvals

from the land use board, and his financing for the redevelopment is in place. The

site was a former machine shop and engraving operation which was the source of

contamination. The environmental cleanup will cost approximately $200,000. He has

had an initial meeting with the neighborhood, and the residents support the proposal.

CONGRESS SHOULD STREAMLINE THE BCRLF PROGRAM

Having gone through the process of establishing a local RLF and issuing our first

brownfields cleanup loan, we believe that there is a critical need for Congress to

work with EPA to streamline the Program. We understand that because RLFs are

funded with Superfund dollars, EPA believes that it must require all RLF-funded

cleanups to meet the requirements of the Superfund National Contingency Plan,

many of which are quite burdensome and inappropriate for brownfields sites.

For example, Superfund funds cannot be used for petroleum sites, or the cleanup

of buildings contaminated with lead and asbestos. However, the lack of funding to

remediate these contaminants is often an impediment to the redevelopment of many

brownfield sites.

Another burdensome requirement is that each participating City must hire a

Brownfields Site Manager to monitor the cleanup. The Brownfields Program requires that the Site Manager must be a governmental agency employee. In Stamford, like most cities of its size, we do not have such on-staff expertise. This requirement forces us to engage the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to perform this function. The Connecticut DEP

has declined to serve as the Site Manager due to its own staffing issues. Having

no alternative, we have been forced to engage the Army Corps, which has assigned

personnel in the distant location of Portsmouth, NH to provide the Site Manager

services. We prefer to hire a private licensed environmental professional to provide

Brownfields Site Manager services including daily on-site monitoring activities. The

Program requirements prohibit this. Instead, the law should provide that the City

is able to use an existing qualified staff person, or a qualified private licensed environmental professional to fill this function.

Congress can fix these impediments to effective brownfields cleanup loans by separating the BCRLF program from unnecessary Superfund restrictions and requirements. These changes do not require comprehensive legislative reform, but merely

a technical fix that is necessary to remove a barrier to the effectiveness of this program for local communities.

109

CONCLUSION

As I said in the beginning of my testimony, cities across the country need resources to help fund the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. The U.S. Conference of Mayors’ recent report on the status of brownfields sites in 223 cities nationwide indicates that the lack of cleanup funds is the major obstacle to reusing

these properties. While EPA’s Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Program

has hurdles to overcome, it is one program that attempts to address this critical

funding need.

In conclusion, while EPA has provided leadership on brownfields issues, it is clear

that the time has come for Congress to enact brownfields legislation to ensure an

ongoing source of funding for brownfields cleanup and redevelopment, and to eliminate Superfund requirements from the Revolving Loan Fund Program. Cities all

over the country need the commitment and financial support of the federal government to help continue the cleanup of Brownfields sites. Cities across America need

public funds to provide the financing for the higher risk cleanup phase. This will

help leverage the private financing needed for the redevelopment of Brownfields

sites.

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify today. I will be happy to answer

any questions you may have.

110

111

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much.

Ms. Foss.

TESTIMONY OF DARSI FOSS, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF

NATURAL RESOURCES

Ms. FOSS. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to be

here, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. When I

woke up on Monday morning, this is not where I thought I would

be spending my Thursday, but I do appreciate the opportunity.

I am the chief of the Brownfields Section at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. I have been the chief point of contact since we passed our first State legislation on brownfields. I am

working with the city Mayors, county treasurers and a lot of local

governments, lenders and private developers to make sure their

sites in Wisconsin get cleaned up.

Today I find myself in a very changed situation. Tim Fields and

Linda Garczynski are the reason why our Wisconsin program is

where it is today, for their support and financial assistance. But I

am also here today to talk about a program that I don’t think has

met all of our expectations, and I think everyone in this room

would like to make this a better program.

With those thoughts, I would like to talk a little bit about my experience working with local governments, and how that shapes the

testimony I am going to give today. In my 5 years, we spent about

9 months critiquing our own State program with the Mayors, businesses, environmentalists and provided a report to our legislature,

what was working well in Wisconsin and what wasn’t. So some of

my experience was from that. That comes into play. Wisconsin really thinks we need to increase the amount of Federal money available for brownfields cleanup. For the next 2 years, we will have $35

million in our State alone, and we think the $40 million is a good

start federally, but I think there is a need for more money.

The second point I would like to make is the consideration of the

issuance of grants, especially to local governments. It is very difficult for local governments on some of these properties that the

private sector is not interested in to turn those over, and they can’t

do that oftentimes with loans because they count against their pubVerDate 13-MAR-2000 11:08 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\61041.TXT pfrm02 PsN: 61041
112

lic debt and they go against their expenditure authority. So time

and time again in Wisconsin and other places I hear we need

grants, and that is what I have heard.

No. 3 is considering broadening the eligibility. It is really hard

for me to go to the little town of Stettin, Wisconsin and look at

their 40-acre, former EPA removal site that no one is interested in

and tell them why they are really not eligible for these kinds of

funds, where the city of Milwaukee is eligible. So we think there

is some real need out there in all kinds of urban and rural communities.

I think, as mentioned before, and I think people are in agreement, we need to streamline the technical cleanup requirements on

this program. I talked to a number of people when we were considering as a State applying for this money, and they really felt uncomfortable running through an NCP-type process. Most of our consultants in our State are familiar with our State regulations. They

don’t do EPA removal cleanups. That is something that they just

are not familiar with. Our Mayor and our county treasurers and

businesses are finally getting comfortable with our State regulations, and I think that would make the Federal funds more attractive.

Point five is consider the consolidation of the administration of

the program. I think what we heard from the communities that

were eligible for this money but did not choose to apply is they

really did not have the technical expertise and the horsepower to

apply and operate this kind of program, but they felt like the State

could do it, and we just said we couldn’t do that right now for

them.

No. 6 is something we learned from our own State process and

our own State loan program, people really want you to, ‘‘run it like

a bank.’’ We heard that time and time again. Streamline the administrative requirements. What you are going to find is there are

several doors available to people who are looking for money, and

there will be local grants and State grants and there will be lots

of people standing in front of that door. It is really hard to get people to stand in front of the door for either a State or a Federal loan.

The more attractive and simple you make it, the more you are

going to have customers waiting to get those loans.

I think the last point is we need to provide more flexibility to

folks to make this work based on the needs out there of the people

that I deal with, to make this money available and streamlined and

simple and a process that they understand. I think there is a real

need, urban and rural, for this money, and I look forward to working with you folks and the folks at EPA to get these things going

and improving the program. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Darsi Foss follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DARSI FOSS, BROWNFIELDS SECTION CHIEF, BUREAU FOR

REMEDIATION AND REDEVELOPMENT, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my name is

Darsi Foss, and I am the Chief of the Brownfields Section of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR) is the primary environmental protection agency for brownfields in WisVerDate 13-MAR-2000 11:08 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\61041.TXT pfrm02 PsN: 61041
113

consin, and I have been working on Brownfields issues for the Department since the

inception of Wisconsin’s Brownfields Initiative in 1994. I am here today to talk

about my thoughts and experiences with EPA’s Brownfields Initiative, particularly

focusing on the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund program.

Brownfields continue to be a serious concern of many rural and urban communities, and there is a significant need for public financial incentives on the federal,

state and local levels. The Wisconsin DNR believes that EPA should be applauded

for providing financial assistance to States, such as Wisconsin, and local governments to address this very real social concern. Without the EPA’s assistance, we

could not have started our brownfields initiative, and would be several years behind

in the development and implementation of our brownfields efforts if not for that

support.

As the EPA may tell you, the State of Wisconsin has been very creative in developing its brownfields initiative. We have been involved with almost every EPA

Brownfields initiative, with the exception of the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving

Loan Fund (BCRLF) program. After much analysis and discussion, the WDNR chose

not to participate in this effort. However, our lack of participation in this initiative

should not be construed as non-support for EPA’s efforts. With some further flexibility on how the EPA can use this money, we believe this could be a very attractive

program.

Summarized below are the WDNR’s recommendations for the type of changes that

could be made to the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund program to improve its attractiveness to parties looking for cleanup funds:

INCREASE THE MONEY AVAILABLE.

We believe that the amount of money available nationwide should be substantially increased to enhance the attractiveness of this initiative. Currently, there is

only $35 million available nationwide for this program and the maximum grant

amount is $500,000. It is likely that a very small number of projects could be funded

with this amount of money. In contrast, the State of Wisconsin has $20 million in

the Land Recycling Loan program, a zero-interest loan program for local governments for brownfields and landfill cleanups. This state program is funded using

money repaid to the state from the federal Clean Water Fund Program (CWFP).

CONSIDER GRANTS, NOT LOANS

The DNR believes that the purpose of the government providing public funds for

brownfields is to fill the gap left by the private sector. Where the private sector is

not interested in a brownfields property, the public sector, such as a city or county

will likely need to play a major role in the initial or full revitalization of that property. Local governments and private parties are looking for and often need grants,

not loans, due to the economics of that brownfields project. Where a state has a

brownfields grant program, you will likely see diminished interest in any type of

loan program, whether it is state or federally funded loan programs.

BROADEN ELIGIBILITY

The DNR estimates that there are approximately 10,000 brownfields properties in

Wisconsin. However, based on current eligibility limitations, the DNR could not loan

this money out to needy communities, businesses or individuals in the state. We

could only loan it out in communities that have received brownfields pilot grants

from the EPA. Given this, DNR recommends that the loans be made available more

broadly, not just to pilot communities.

STREAMLINE CLEANUP REQUIREMENTS

The DNR recommends that the person receiving a loan be allowed to conduct her

or his cleanup in accordance with the state’s voluntary cleanup regulations, not the

National Contingency Plan (NCP) requirements for non-time critical removal. Using

the state cleanup approach will likely result in cost and time savings to the person

undertaking the cleanup. More parties may be interested in the loans if the cleanup

process is one that they and their environmental consultant are familiar with, is

less costly and saves them valuable time.

CONSOLIDATE ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM

The DNR recommends that the EPA consider the consolidation of these loans into

one administrative entity, such as a state agency or the Regional Office of EPA. Efficiencies could be gained by having a limited number of entities administering a

larger number of loans, and wider public outreach could be conducted to market

114

these funds. Presently, the recipient can use up to 15% of the funds for administrative expenses. Based on our experience, that would not be enough to manage the

loan program, and for the technical oversight that would be necessary for the longterm administration of this program. The WDNR would need at least one full time

employee annually for several years to manage the financial side of this program

STREAMLINE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

The simpler you make the loan program to apply for and administer, the more

attractive it will be. Especially where it is competing with a local or state grant program. Presently, the administrative requirements are daunting to many entities interested in some form of brownfields financing.

PROVIDE EPA FLEXIBILITY

In order to most effectively use this money and make some of the needed changes

for this program, EPA needs greater flexibility on how they can use these funds.

It is no secret that the use of Superfund moneys for this initiative is the one of the

greatest challenges to implementing an effective and efficient brownfields program.

In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, in allowing me to present to you today some of the recommendations we

believe would help strengthen and improve the attractiveness of the Brownfields

Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund program. We believe that there is a serious and demonstrated need for federal funding for the cleanup of brownfields properties. The

lack of activity concerning the BCRLF program is not representative of the real

need in urban and rural communities for financial assistance with these contaminated properties. This important initiative needs some fine-tuning in order to make

it more attractive to communities, businesses, and individuals. We look forward to

working with you and the EPA to make this program a more effective tool to assist

in the cleanup of the estimated 600,000 brownfields properties nationwide.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much.

I want to say a couple of things.

First of all, as with Mr. Fields, we appreciated getting your testimony so that we could review it last night. That was very helpful.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Shays had the added—he bounced off of us on the House

floor during the last couple of days to encourage us that you were

coming.

Mr. Fields, we also appreciate your willingness to stay for this

panel, and if you would come back to the table. I appreciate you

being back at the table.

I appreciate all of your experiences and thoughts and testimony.

And really all of you have talked about flexibility and the need to

try and make this program accountable to your own city and reflect, I think, common sense in a lot of ways.

I guess, Mr. Malloy, as I listened to your testimony as you talked

about the Corps of Engineers actually having to go to New Hampshire—not to campaign for President—I know when I went to New

Hampshire, I flew to Boston to go there, so it helped some friends

up there.

But did you go back to the EPA to try and get some waiver or

some understanding with regard to this particular requirement?

Mr. MALLOY. I personally did not. I believe there was discussion

about it. But because of the link, as I understand it and represent

this to the best of my knowledge, because of the link to the Superfund statute, it has to be a government employee. Quite

frankly——

Mr. UPTON. There is nobody in Connecticut that can go to some

other place.

Mr. MALLOY. Well, Mayors don’t lend employees to one another,

and we don’t have an employee on staff in Stamford who met the

115

requirements. We did ask the State, and the State refused to participate, I think to their embarrassment at this point. And I am

hopeful that when we make the second loan, at least in Stamford,

if not nationally, that the State will then provide that service to

that applicant.

Mr. UPTON. And what department from within the State would

you seek——

Mr. MALLOY. We have a State EPA department. We asked them

initially. They refused to participate at the time. Again, I think

they were embarrassed by that, not because of these proceedings,

but it just doesn’t make any sense when you are in business to improve the environment not to participate and help a municipality.

Mr. UPTON. So do you view that as more of your own problem

with your own State, or EPA by not allowing——

Mr. MALLOY. Well, I think the rule itself is silly. If we go through

a licensing process for a professional and we grant a license, then

why not allow me to hire the person that we licensed for that purpose to oversee what is relatively a small loan, a $250,000 loan?

We have lots of people in our community—in fact, we are engaged

in a training program to get people the license that would allow

them to do this type of work. So I think that that is an important

change that could be made.

Mr. UPTON. As you know, you have the distinction of being the

only pilot that actually received and cashed the check allowing this

program to go. And as we reviewed the history of your application,

it looked like it was fairly quick order.

Mr. MALLOY. Well, I don’t apply for things for political reasons

or publicity. If I apply for something or authorize my city to apply

for it, I take it very seriously. And as we were going through this

application process, Mr. Weinstein’s site was one that we specifically indicated we would be desirous of making a loan on. We had

done our work. We had been working with Mr. Weinstein for a series of years. This is a site that had previously been sought to be

developed in the last economic boom, so we were ready.

On June 1, when we received the preliminary award that we

would participate in this, we moved, continued to move actively. On

August 31, before we had actually received the final EPA contract,

we held our public hearing. We had over 60 people attend that public hearing in this relatively difficult neighborhood. September 15,

I got the agreement forwarded to me. On September 23, I signed

the agreement; and October 4, we made the first loan.

I am very proud of my people. I have good people working for me.

And if they are not good people, they don’t work for me much

longer.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Ahern, you indicated in your testimony, and I

read part of it to Mr. Fields, at the beginning where you write, ‘‘it

just isn’t worth the hassle.’’ Have you had some discussions with

EPA to try and alleviate some of these regulations?

Mr. AHERN. A great deal. Actually, EPA Region One, which covers New England, has been quite helpful to us, and they have tried

immeasurably to try to assist the city of Boston. And I imagine

from my discussion with other cities like Bridgeport, actually, who

I have spoken to about this program, that EPA has tried very hard

to try to find some ways around this problem.

116

The OSC problem, for instance, we tried to solve it in much the

same manner as Mayor Malloy did. And what happened is that we

have a system in Massachusetts of a privatized cleanup system.

And what would happen, if our State EPA, who, by the way, our

State agreed to participate and serve as the onscene coordinator

through a contract with EPA, not specifically through the city of

Boston.

But I was concerned because, under the privatized cleanup system which many States have nowadays, you would have—I would

be put in a situation—the City would be in a position where we

would be telling a private property owner who would be interested

in taking this loan that I know you hired this private person to

perform your cleanup and do your assessments and so on and so

forth, but I am going to put a person from the State Department

of Environmental Protection on your site as your onscene coordinator. And I spoke to several people who were interested and who

were looking for loans and who were looking for help on this site,

and several of them were like, I don’t think that is the way I want

to go. I have a tier two site. It is a simple process. If I can find

the money, the guy comes in, he does the assessment, he does the

cleanup, he files the paperwork, we are done. I don’t need EPA—

or, excuse me, DEP on my site every day.

So for that purpose, we declined the offer of the State.

Now, recently, the city of Boston made a commitment and hired

a person to serve that role of OSC. The person is a licensed waste

site cleanup professional in the State of Massachusetts. Our hope

is that she will also satisfy the requirements of the OSC. They are

different, so it is not as simple as just going and hiring a Massachusetts-licensed professional as it would be in Connecticut, as well

the same thing. There are very different requirements that you

have to hit. So we are hoping that she will be able to serve that

role.

But for all intents and purposes EPA was very helpful for us. It

is just that what they can do was not helpful for us.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Bryant.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome again, Mr. Fields, back to the panel and our very distinguished panel. As I described in my brief opening statement, the

people out in the field who I think bring a very good perspective

to this entire oversight hearing.

Mayor, welcome. Congratulations to you. I spent a long time running a 15K there about 20 years ago in the streets of Stamford

when I was running in those days, but it is a beautiful city.

Mr. MALLOY. Thank you.

Mr. BRYANT. I had a slow tour of it.

Mr. Ahern, let me apologize. I came in a little bit late after voting and missed the majority of your testimony today. But I wanted

to ask you, in preparation for this hearing, you talked to our committee staff here of this oversight subcommittee in recent weeks.

And during the discussions you indicated there were several sites

in Boston where your office suggested to the parties who were redeveloping the sites that they should consider the Revolving Loan

Fund. In those cases, the parties actually opted to obtain funding

through private loans instead. In your written testimony you say

117

that this is the case, even though the terms of the private loan are

more expensive. Can you explain to us a little bit more about why

those particular people you referred to selected the private funding

route over this EPA program?

Mr. AHERN. Primarily because of the restrictions and the problems that we have described, all three of us, really, here, and actually Mr. Fields as well.

Primarily it is an issue of CERCLA regulations, something that

I am sure that this committee has heard ad nauseam. But for the

people on the ground—and I will give you just one example.

There is a gentleman in the Jamaica Plain neighborhood of Boston. It is an up and coming neighborhood, but it is primarily a

working class neighborhood that has brownfields located right next

door to homes because, you know, you would have foundries that

were located for 50, 60, 70 years and up around this neighborhood

as it has grown, homes have grown.

And this one gentleman who, early in my tenure—and I should

add that I have been in this job since August 1998, so some questions you may ask predate my involvement.

However, this gentleman, he was in dire need and has been in

dire need of specific funds to clean up a site because he was building artists’ lofts and artists’ working space, and he was taking this

foundry down. He had TCE on his site, he had PCBs, he had oil,

lead, arsenic, you get the message. He pretty much had everything

you could find.

When we discussed this program, as we discussed—as I noted in

my testimony, we discussed really the menu of options. We could

go through the City, what the City can do, discussed what the

State program can do. We talked about tax credits, talked about

loans. Debt for him was something of a problem but something that

he could undertake. He was essentially eating up his development

budget with the cleanup costs because the cleanup costs were skyrocketing. He was going to need more money.

What he elected to do after we discussed this program and after

I gave him the application book that describes, you know, what

CERCLA is and what the program is going to require, he elected

instead to actually take the contamination and move it to another

portion of the site where he wasn’t going to be doing the development immediately, and he started with his first part of his development on the portion that isn’t as contaminated. In fact, he just contacted me again the other day through a letter and said, is the

State program up and running yet? Because I really need some

more money to take care of this problem.

Mr. BRYANT. All right. Thank you, Mr. Ahern.

Ms. Foss, I made a reference to you and one of your statements

in examining Mr. Fields earlier, but as I have reviewed your testimony and State, you indicate that Wisconsin chose not to participate in this program. And without casting aspersions on it, you

made some very positive suggestions listed in your statement and

you have testified those today.

Specifically, you mentioned one of the latter recommendations

being the efficiencies that could be gained by having a limited

number of entities administering a larger number of loans such as

a State agency or regional office of the EPA. Is it your suggestion

118

perhaps that EPA should award these revolving loan funds to the

States and that the States could administer those—could administer this program better?

Ms. FOSS. Well, I think one of the things we have heard time and

time again is the problem of people maybe not applying who were

eligible. And the communities that I work with said the reason

they didn’t is they just did not have the horsepower to get the application in and then to operate the program. But they really

looked to us to do that, because we had done it for the Clean Water

Fund and the Safe Drinking Water Fund money and some other

moneys. So, oftentimes, the local governments do look to the State

to do that and probably more efficiently than them running the little grants.

So I don’t know if this is a DNR recommendation per se, but I

think one of the things we are seeing time and time again is folks

are having trouble keeping the infrastructure going in their communities, and it might be helpful to have it consolidated.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Burr.

Mr. BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and welcome to each one

of you.

I have to say congratulations to you, Mayor, and I am sure that

not only the comments of Mr. Fields but the comments of my colleague, Chris Shays, are very deserving, and I will share with you

that I would never run for Mayor. You might say, I would never

run for Congress. But you are certainly close to the problem, and

I think that that is why this panel is so special.

I truly meant it when I said to Mr. Fields earlier that the intent

of everybody up here is to clean up sites, to develop the property

that is there, to make sure that by whatever means we accomplish

that as productive parts of the areas that we come from, whether

it is looking at it from a State standpoint, like Ms. Foss, or the

local, city of Boston or Stamford. I guess the question that I have

to ask you is, would this project have gone forward without the involvement of the Revolving Loan Fund?

Mr. MALLOY. I anticipated that question. We were working with

this developer on a number of sites, so the answer might be that

it would go forward without this one, but another project would

have been put on hold that we are pursuing with the same developer.

And when I applied for the Showcase Community designation 2

years ago, without this site having been designated as one of the

sites and without holding out to banks its designation when it

came in in March 1998, this project would not be moving forward.

So if you are talking about a package of EPA benefits that are

available, I think the overall answer is that it would not be moving

forward. If you are talking about would this large project, having

moved through all of the approval process, have gone forward, I

think the truthful answer is it probably would have, but other

things would have been put on hold.

Now, my next loan is a motorcycle shop. I don’t know whether

you have one, but the gentleman is going to sell hogs, and he has

to buy a building that is a former machine shop, and the ground

119

is contaminated with the residue of that process. And I can give

you my word that that project would not move forward without this

loan.

And I would say, finally, that many of these smaller sites have

to be cleaned up before a bank will loan to a guy who runs a hog

shop, because they are not going to make a loan based on his good

name or his existing business in a rental building to a site that requires cleanup. It scares the bejesus out of banks. And we have to

help these people. This guy is going to employ—this big complex

is going to employ 12 people. This little deal is going to employ

four.

Mr. BURR. I think all three of you have expressed concerns about

the program as structured, that if you had a pen and a blank sheet

of paper and could design the Revolving Loan Fund, it would look

different.

I guess the first question—and I will let anybody answer that

would like to—is, have you shared that with Mr. Fields? Did he listen?

Mr. MALLOY. Well——

Mr. BURR. And what would it look like?

Mr. MALLOY. Let me answer that.

I am not—I am pretty direct about my criticism of Federal agencies. I have had run-ins with EPA. I have had run-ins with HUD.

I have to tell you that I have discerned in these organizations a desire to reshape themselves and to work with municipalities—I am

talking the Mayor’s side—municipal government.

There are 222 municipalities in the United States with a population of 100,000 or more, and I suspect that the Mayors of those

cities are getting a better listening to over the last couple of years

than we experienced prior to that time, and I would say that EPA

and HUD are two of the agencies that have turned around most

directly.

Having said that, why can’t I use this to clean up petroleum?

Why can’t I use this to clean up asbestos? Why can’t I use this to

clean up lead? Why can’t I hire an inspector?

When I have answers to those questions, then I think we will

have a package that makes a lot more sense.

Mr. BURR. Mayor, you and Mr. Ahern I think both alluded to a

concern as it related to the regulation of an on-scene coordinator.

That is a requirement. Now, who is that on-scene coordinator and

what do they do and how much does it cost?

Mr. FIELDS. I will start.

Mr. AHERN. Why don’t you start?

Mr. FIELDS. The reason for the on-scene coordinator requirement

is that we want to have someone there to provide oversight for

cleanups at Superfund sites.

Mr. BURR. Who is that person? Is it a Federal employee?

Mr. FIELDS. It could be a Federal employee, State or local government employee. It has to be a government employee.

Under the regulations for Superfund, it has to be a governmental

employee. It could be any level of government, but it requires a

governmental entity to oversee and assure that environmental

rules are complied with for cleanup.

120

Right now, that is the problem. We agree that there needs to be

some fixes, but, right now, that is why a governmental person has

to be there to oversee cleanup activity.

Mr. BURR. What does that cost, Mr. Ahern?

Mr. AHERN. In the State of Massachusetts, a newly licensed

waste site cleanup professional that is versed in the State laws

would cost $65,000 a year.

Mr. BURR. You don’t need to have this person until you have had

a site approved; am I correct?

Mr. AHERN. That is correct.

Mr. BURR. Once you have a site approved and you are making

a loan to that site, then, out of the Revolving Loan Fund, you can

use up to 10 percent, 15 percent——

Mr. AHERN. Fifteen.

Mr. BURR. [continuing] to fund that individual and any other administrative cost with the program, correct?

Mr. AHERN. That is correct.

Mr. BURR. Do you need that person?

Mr. AHERN. We need that person for a lot of different reasons,

not just for the Revolving Loan Fund. I mean, it is a person who,

from a city’s perspective, could serve a lot of uses.

However, for this particular project, I think it is in the best interests to have somebody working for the city whose responsibility it

is to ensure the proper cleanup of the sites, since we are effectively

making the loan. However, does that person need to be a government employee? I disagree. I don’t believe that it does. I believe

that the Massachusetts’ system——

Mr. BURR. When they say onsite, does that just mean somebody

available to look at the progress that is being made?

Mr. AHERN. Yes. Somebody to oversee.

Mr. BURR. They don’t have to be out there every day?

Mr. AHERN. No, sir.

Mr. BURR. Okay.

Mr. MALLOY. Well, it is a little more technical than that, because

each plan requires—there are steps in each plan and, frequently,

each step has to be certified. So a person will have to make multiple trips——

Mr. BURR. Certified by whom?

Mr. MALLOY. By the individual who is required to be a government employee. So, for instance, you have to reveal the substance

that has to be removed. Well, that process has to be inspected. So

there are a number of items, but it would be a lot easier for me

just to contract—I mean, I do it for city work, so why shouldn’t I

be able to do it for this work—to contract with a private entrepreneur who is licensed to do that.

Mr. BURR. The chairman is getting a little impatient with me.

Let me ask one last question, because I see we have other members

here.

I want to understand the process, Mr. Ahern, that Boston went

through relative to their selection. I would take it that you filled

out an application, sent it to EPA. You wanted to be——

Mr. AHERN. I do have to tell you, Congressman, that I came to

the Boston Redevelopment Authority in August of last year, August

1998. So the actual application, in applying to EPA for this proVerDate 13-MAR-2000 11:08 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\61041.TXT pfrm02 PsN: 61041
121

gram, predates my involvement with the program. I worked for the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Mr. BURR. So by the time you got in, they had applied, they had

been approved, they were a participant in the program, you would

have had administrative manuals?

Mr. AHERN. By the time I started, sir, the administrative manual

had been released just a few months earlier, in May, and I started

in August. So I came on——

Mr. BURR. You came in August 199——

Mr. AHERN. 1998.

Mr. BURR. But the Revolving Loan Fund started in 1997.

Mr. AHERN. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BURR. And the administrative manual wasn’t ready until

May 1998?

Mr. AHERN. That is correct.

Mr. BURR. Let me ask you, Mr. Fields, could people proceed forward without an administrative manual?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman. We implement programs

without guidance sometimes. You don’t necessarily have to have

guidance.

Mr. BURR. How does one know how to proceed without guidance?

Mr. FIELDS. As I said earlier, in the National Contingency Plan

Regulators response activities. We use removal authority to oversee

and conduct brownfields cleanups. We have statutes. We have regulations.

Mr. BURR. I just heard Ms. Foss talk about a larger scope of

brownfields cleanup, and I agree with you totally. Tell me how that

small town in Wisconsin, without an administrative manual, could

have proceeded.

Mr. FIELDS. Our people in Chicago at Region Five were providing

a lot of hands-on assistance to people, interpreting our regulations,

interpreting the law, and explaining how this process would proceed. The administrative manual codified evolved over several

months’ discussion about how this program would proceed and that

is not unusual.

Mr. BURR. I see the chairman is going to cut me off, but with

that much—with that much help from everybody in the EPA, I am

amazed that Mayor Malloy was the only one to actually make a

loan.

I would yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Well, before you yield back, I want to use 1 minute

of your time——

Mr. BURR. I am happy to yield to you.

Mr. UPTON. [continuing] before I yield to Mr. Blunt just to ask

this question.

As we explore further this onsite coordinator that you had to

take from New Hampshire to come down from Connecticut, we, the

Congress, didn’t write these regulations, the EPA did. It was EPA’s

requirement that that happened. Is there not a provision, Mr.

Fields, that you could write that would have allowed some waiver

or some agreement with some of the comments made by both Mr.

Malloy and Mr. Ahern that it doesn’t necessarily——

Obviously, you do have to have someone there. Someone that the

cities or the municipality trusts is going to make the right decision.

122

But it isn’t us that passed down that requirement, it was you all.

And I would like to think as we are all seeing on this flexibility

page song sheet that you would be in tune with everybody else,

that we could get some waiver or some agreement so that they

don’t have to go to this pretty large expense to get someone to come

down from New Hampshire to go to Connecticut or from North

Carolina to Michigan.

Mr. FIELDS. There is two ways to fix this. One is to pass the legislative provision, as I mentioned earlier, which would allow us to

only apply those things from the NCP that are appropriate and relevant. That is something Congress can fix. It is in H.R. 1750.

Second, as I indicated, we would have to go back and amend our

regulations that EPA has promulgated. We would have to amend

them to eliminate the application of an engineering evaluation cost

analysis, require an action memorandum, or the 12-month requirement for brownfields cleanup. There are things we can do, but that

would have to be done through regulatory change on the EPA side.

Congress could also enact legislative fixes that would solve some

of the problems that have been pointed to by all three of these

speakers.

Mr. BURR. Reclaiming my time——

Mr. UPTON. Would the gentleman yield further?

Mr. BURR. Is the gentleman from the EPA suggesting his willingness to go back and change those administrative things that he can

address?

Mr. FIELDS. Congressman, we are hopeful that the Congress and

the administration can agree on appropriate legislative change. We

think that is faster. Regulatory change is going to take a minimum

of 2 years to make change. We will go back and look at whether

we can do some streamlined regulatory changes. But, I think Congress can act faster than we could within EPA to make those

changes.

Mr. BURR. I have learned in the short life I have been here, Mr.

Fields, that the process that we go through is one where we legislate and then agencies change the regulations to reflect the intent

of the legislation. And what you have done is you have added a

step in there. When you can change the regulation within the process at EPA, why wait for us to pass legislation that we all agree

on for you to rewrite the regulation, when you can do it to start

with?

Mr. FIELDS. We will go back, Congressman, and look at that option, particularly if the prognosis for legislative change does not

look like that is going to occur within a 2-year window.

Mr. BURR. My hope is that we will judge it based upon our outlook for possible cleanups.

Would the chairman like me to yield any more time?

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman’s time now has finally expired, and

I will yield to Mr. Blunt.

Mr. BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to apologize for not being here to hear the testimony, but

I have looked at the testimony submitted. And I have a couple of

questions, and they may even tend to be repetitive, but I wouldn’t

know that. And if they are repetitive, I guess you will know when

123

you go back, Mr. Fields, that these are issues that have some resonance here.

Really, the first question is, Ms. Foss in her testimony indicated

the significant ability to expand the cleanup effort if you use the

various State voluntary cleanup program regulations instead of the

national plan, and I want to ask Mr. Fields to comment on that.

Ms. Foss, before he does, would you give me just a little more

of your thought on that? What would you see as the expansion in

Wisconsin? I mean, I am prepared to take the facts you are most

familiar with if, in fact, the voluntary plan could be used as opposed to the national plan, the State voluntary plan.

Ms. FOSS. Thank you very much.

First of all, we have a brownfields memorandum of agreement

with EPA that recognizes our program as something that they

agree with and think does good cleanup. So I think that is one of

the strong points in our favor.

I think when we talked to our local governments and the lenders

and businesses, they are using this process on a daily basis. This

is what they feel comfortable with. It has been in place since 1994.

This is what the consultants in Wisconsin use at any kind of site.

Whether it is petroleum or hazardous waste or just hazardous substances, they are using our one regulation to clean up these properties.

I think it would make the loan program more attractive if they

had something that they felt comfortable with. It is one less thing

that they had to deal with. They could just go hire the XYZ consulting firm to go out and do the cleanup and not have to look

around for somebody who is familiar with the Federal regulations,

because we just don’t have that familiarity in Wisconsin.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Fields, do you want to comment on your sense

of whether or not we could move in that direction where you had

more flexibility but, obviously, some ability for input from your

Agency?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, Congressman.

I agree that more flexibility needs to be provided. I agree with

Ms. Foss that we need to have a more flexible system than the National Contingency Plan for brownfields cleanups. I believe that

certain requirements in the National Contingency Plan should be

eliminated as they apply to these types of cleanups. We should not

have to prepare an action memo, prepare an engineering evaluation/cost analysis, or comply with the Superfund specific grant regulations.

A lot of those elements should be eliminated, and I agree with

that. As I have said, we either do it through regulatory change or

through legislative change. Those are the two options.

We are going to work with Congress to see if legislative change

can be effectuated. If not, we will have to pursue some targeted,

quick regulatory changes to make sure that we can eliminate some

of these hoops.

We will try to do it administratively, but we agree with Ms. Foss

that a more flexible approach for brownfields cleanups is needed

and that the National Contingency Plan does create, we believe,

unnecessary hurdles. But right now, under the current statute and

124

regulations, there are impediments in our ability to deviate very

much from those current requirements.

Mr. BLUNT. Are the greater impediments in the current regulations or in the current statutes?

Mr. FIELDS. Well, one of the issues that has been brought up by

both Mayor Malloy and Mr. Ahern was the discussion we had

about the on-scene coordinator being a government employee. The

statute requires that the on-scene coordinator be a government employee. That is something in the law.

I can change by regulation the requirement to eliminate the action memorandum, the engineering evaluation cost analysis, the requirement to comply with Superfund-specific grant regulations. I

cannot change the requirement that the person who oversees those

cleanups be a government employee. That is something that is in

the statute, not in the regulations.

So there are some parts of this I can fix possibly through regulatory change. Other parts of it Congress would have to fix through

legislative change.

Mr. BLUNT. If you started fixing your part right now, how long

would that take?

Mr. FIELDS. We project that it would take up to 2 years. We

would try to go as quickly as we can.

The last time we changed the National Contingency Plan, it took

us 41⁄2 years. Ms. Garczynski was the person who headed up the

last rewrite of the National Contingency Plan, and it took almost

5 years to do it.

We would try to beat that and do something more quickly, but,

still, you are talking about a couple-year process.

Mr. BLUNT. Is there anything in the current legislation that is

out there that would make these kinds of changes?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, one piece of legislation that we talked about

earlier, I think before you came in. Language in H.R. 1750, one bill

that has been introduced in Congress that the administration supports for brownfields, would include a provision that would say that

the procedural requirements of the national contingency plans, as

applicable to brownfields, would be limited to only those requirements that are relevant and appropriate for brownfields. That type

of language in the statute, we believe, would allow EPA to have

apply only certain Superfund cleanup requirements to brownfields

cleanups. That is consistent with what I think Ms. Foss was indicating regarding a more flexible, targeted type of approach for

brownfields cleanups as compared to Superfund cleanups.

Mr. BLUNT. Ms. Foss, do you agree with that characterization of

where you think—where you are on this?

Ms. FOSS. Absolutely. I do agree with Mr. Fields.

Mr. BLUNT. And do you see a problem if we eliminate the requirement for a government employee to supervise in these defined

brownfields areas?

Ms. FOSS. You know, I don’t, sir. Because the fact is, even if

somebody is cleaning up in the State of Wisconsin according to the

Federal requirements, the State of Wisconsin also has its own law

and is going to be interested in making sure that they are going

to follow our law. So they are going to have to come in and either

ask for some kind of no further action letter at the end, or they

125

may be going through what is called our voluntary cleanup program, wanting some kind of liability release where we would be reviewing the project anyway. But they would have to comply with

State law as well.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, based on the time zone that Mr. Burr

was in, could I ask one more question, assuming the clock continues to run in my favor here?

Mr. UPTON. Go ahead.

Mr. BLUNT. My other question would be on another point in trying to broaden the efforts to get this done with greater flexibility.

It was the question about making loans to communities that

weren’t in the pilot project category. Is there any way to go back

and do that, Mr. Fields?

Mr. FIELDS. We have—and I agree with Ms. Foss that we do

want to consider in terms of being eligible for Brownfields Cleanup

Revolving Loan Fund some communities who are not brownfields

assessment pilots, and we have done that. Some communities in

Massachusetts, some communities in Minnesota, some in Indiana,

they are part of the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund program, but they did not have an existing brownfields assessment

grant. So I agree with Ms. Foss that—and EPA has tried to expand

the program beyond brownfields pilots to include those communities where some targeted assessment work has been done, either

through a State or through an EPA grant contract. So I agree that

we don’t necessarily have to have a community that is a

brownfields assessment pilot to be eligible for brownfields cleanup

revolving loan funds.

Mr. BLUNT. Are there examples of communities who didn’t have

pilot programs who have gotten loan funds yet?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, those I just mentioned. Communities in Massachusetts and Minnesota and Indiana have gotten brownfields Revolving Loan Fund assistance, even though they were not a

brownfields assessment pilot project.

Mr. BLUNT. Are you aware of that in Wisconsin, Ms. Foss, that

that is possible?

Ms. FOSS. I think the distinction Mr. Fields may be making is

those communities that got the Revolving Loan Fund did get some

Federal assistance, and it may have been through the State. But

it isn’t, I don’t think—and correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Fields—

broadly applicable to all communities. It is for those that got Federal funds somehow for brownfields, so it is still I think a little limited.

Mr. FIELDS. She is correct. It does not include every community

across America, but it does go beyond the brownfields assessment

pilots to a universe of people who have had assessment activities.

We think that having assessment work done does help facilitate

identifying properties for a cleanup by having that assessment

phase done first.

Mr. BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you. Those buzzers indicate that we

have a vote on the floor, which will coincide with the end of this

hearing.

I just want to say in conclusion that we appreciate all of you

coming to Washington and testifying today. Again, your testimony

126

is very helpful. We all have brownfields sites, and we want a

brownfields program that works, and we want one that can be as

flexible as possible to take the local input from our Mayors and

county and State officials so that we can assure the taxpayers in

fact that the work is getting done. We appreciate your willingness

to try, as we all do, to achieve that goal at the end of the day.

And I guess just from my side here, it seems like there is some

frustration in that we all believe that you, Mr. Fields, have more

flexibility than you have shown.

I talked to Mr. Greenwood on this last vote on the floor, who is

the sponsor of H.R. 2850. We intend to get a letter to you very soon

pointing out that you do, in fact, have the authority to move forward.

It would be nice to know, as we hear from cities both that have

received funds, maybe a city that has received funds, but certainly

others that expect to, that, in fact, you are willing to bend over

backwards to make sure that common-sense solutions really can

work. And the idea of someone commuting from New Hampshire

to Connecticut I would bet doesn’t make sense in most people’s

eyes. And if that is just one example, there have to be others. And

your willingness to proceed on that front I think would be appreciated by all of us.

Thank you very much.

I might say that all members will have the opportunity to provide questions for the record, and obviously you will respond with

regard to that one issue that we have raised.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146