United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

Commerce, House of Representatives

March 1998 SUPERFUND

EPA’s Use of Funds for

Brownfield

Revitalization

GAO/RCED-98-87

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-279206 

March 19, 1998

Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on Commerce

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Federal, state, and local governments have focused much attention on the

cleanup and economic redevelopment of abandoned and idled urban

properties, known as brownfields, that have real or perceived chemical

contamination. Partly because of the potentially high costs to clean

contaminated sites in accordance with federal and state environmental

laws, businesses have often chosen to locate on uncontaminated sites

outside of urban areas, known as greenfields. Consequently, cities can lose

tax revenues and employment opportunities. The Congress has been very

interested in supporting initiatives to promote the cleanup and

redevelopment of brownfields and has considered several legislative

proposals to address this goal. In the meantime, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented several brownfield initiatives

and has been setting aside portions of its budget to fund them.

To help ensure that EPA is using these funds to maximize the abilities of

state, local, and tribal governments to assess, clean up, and redevelop

brownfields, you first asked us to determine the activities EPA has

supported with funds targeted for brownfields in its budgets for fiscal

years 1997 and 1998. Subsequently, you asked us to focus specifically on

two program categories of brownfield expenditures—the outreach,

technical assistance, and research category and the job training

category—because they are not as directly related to assessing sites for

the extent of contamination present, a key first step toward cleanup, as the

other program categories. Specifically, for the two program categories,

you asked us to identify any grants and agreements EPA awarded since

fiscal year 1993—the first year the agency began its brownfield efforts—to

determine (1) the criteria and process EPA used to award these grants and

agreements,1

 (2) the uses recipients made of these funds, and (3) the

monitoring and the oversight EPA provided for them. In responding to

these audit objectives, we reviewed EPA’s files for the 24 grants and

agreements in these two program categories that had been exclusively or

1

Throughout this report, we refer to grants and cooperative agreements as grants and agreements or

awards. Both provide funding to organizations to undertake certain activities. EPA uses grants when it

does not expect to be substantially involved in the activities and cooperative agreements when it does

expect to be involved.

Page 1 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

partially used for brownfield activities. We also conducted detailed on-site

audits of the recipients’ files for 3 of the 11 completed grants and

agreements in these two categories. Appendix I contains a more detailed

description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.

Results in Brief EPA primarily uses its brownfield funds to help state, local, and tribal

governments build their capacities to assess, clean up, and revitalize

brownfield sites. EPA is using the majority of its $126 million in brownfield

funds for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 to (1) help these groups identify,

assess, characterize, and develop cleanup plans for brownfield sites;

(2) provide them with seed money to create revolving loan funds that they

could use to award low-interest loans for cleanups;2

 (3) support state

development of programs that provide incentives for voluntary cleanup of

sites, especially brownfields; and (4) provide outreach to groups affected

by brownfields, technical assistance to them on cleanup and

redevelopment methods, and research for them on brownfield issues. EPA

is using the remaining brownfield funds for support and other program

activities, such as EPA’s personnel costs.

EPA set up four broad criteria and an approval process to award funds

noncompetitively to nonprofit organizations for their unsolicited proposals

to provide outreach, technical assistance, research, and job training. The

criteria included increasing community involvement at brownfields,

promoting redevelopment, providing for site assessments, and sustaining a

clean environment in the future. If the proposals met one of the four

criteria, the managers responsible for most of the brownfield activities

explained that they generally would fund the proposals if the nonprofit

organization represented unique constituents affected by brownfields,

such as tribes, or offered unique brownfield expertise or experience.

Although EPA has used the same process and criteria to award a few job

training grants and agreements, it is developing a strategic plan to use as

criteria for making future awards.

Since fiscal year 1993, award recipients have used $3.7 million from the 24

outreach and job training awards we reviewed to conduct

brownfield-specific activities. These activities included sponsoring

conferences and meetings to discuss and solicit input on brownfield issues

and publishing documents that describe brownfield assessments, cleanup,

and best practices for redevelopment. Award recipients used additional

2

EPA’s fiscal year 1998 appropriations law includes language that prohibits the use of brownfield funds

for this purpose unless specifically authorized in subsequent legislation.

Page 2 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

funds from the 24 awards for outreach and job training activities in

support of the broader Superfund program or other EPA programs,

although some of these activities would also indirectly help to promote

brownfield cleanup and redevelopment.3

 To accomplish these technical

assistance and research activities, recipients spent a majority of the funds

on personnel costs; indirect costs, such as overhead; and contractual

services, such as consultants.

EPA staff responsible for managing the 24 awards we reviewed were

monitoring the overall status of the budget for each award and the content

and quality of recipients’ activities. The project officers conducted this

monitoring through various means, including periodic telephone calls to

the recipients, attendance at meetings and forums, and a review of the

recipients’ final reports to EPA. In addition, the project officers took the

added step of requiring and reviewing quarterly reports from recipients to

help ensure adequate progress on the approved workplan. These 24 grants

and agreements most likely would not be selected for a detailed financial

audit because their dollar value—ranging from $20,000 to $2.7 million,

with a median of $168,000—is relatively small. During our on-site audit of

the financial records for the three recipients with completed agreements,

we determined that, overall, they were spending the funds in accordance

with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget.

Background EPA defines brownfields as abandoned, idled, or underused industrial or

commercial sites where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by

real or perceived environmental contamination. Usually, the

contamination is less extensive than sites on EPA’s priority list for cleanup.

We have reported that liability and other concerns have deterred many

potential developers from using brownfields and that, instead, they use

uncontaminated sites in suburban areas referred to as greenfields.4

 The

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) authorizes EPA to clean up hazardous waste sites and to compel

parties responsible for contamination to perform or pay for the cleanups.

Developers’ avoidance of brownfields has contributed to a loss of

employment opportunities for city residents, a loss of tax revenues for city

governments, and an increase in urban sprawl.

3

Superfund is the common name for EPA’s program to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites.

4

Superfund: Barriers to Brownfield Redevelopment (GAO/RCED-96-125, June 17, 1996), Superfund:

Proposals to Remove Barriers to Brownfield Redevelopment (GAO/T-RCED-97-87, Mar. 4, 1997), and

Superfund: State Voluntary Programs Provide Incentives to Encourage Cleanups (GAO/RCED-97-66,

Apr. 9, 1997).

Page 3 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

To encourage more redevelopment of brownfields and promote cleanups,

the Congress has considered several legislative proposals, both as separate

bills and as part of legislation to reauthorize the Superfund program, that

would help address liability concerns and provide economic incentives. In

November 1993, EPA introduced the Brownfield Economic Redevelopment

Initiative, for which the Outreach and Special Projects Staff—referred to

in this report as the brownfield program office—has primary

responsibility. This office reports to the Assistant Administrator for Solid

Waste and Emergency Response, who also manages the Superfund

program. The brownfield initiative is a commitment by EPA to help

communities revitalize brownfields, both environmentally and

economically, and mitigate potential health risks. EPA has begun four

major efforts to implement this initiative: (1) providing grants for

brownfield pilot projects for site assessment and cleanup planning;

(2) clarifying liability and other issues associated with cleaning up sites to

return them to productive use; (3) building partnerships and outreach for

brownfield redevelopment among federal agencies, state and local

governments, and communities; and (4) fostering local job development

and training initiatives related to brownfield activities.

EPA Is Using Most of

Its Brownfield

Funding to Help State,

Local, and Tribal

Governments Assess

Sites and Build

Voluntary Cleanup

Programs

EPA is spending most of the $126 million it allotted for brownfield

activities—$37.5 in fiscal year 1997 and $88.5 in fiscal year 1998—to help

state, local, and tribal governments build their capacities to revitalize

brownfields. Table 1 illustrates the eight major categories of activities into

which EPA is dividing its brownfield funding:5

5

Under EPA’s regulations, the agency may use the Superfund Trust Fund to finance remedial actions

only at sites that are on the agency’s list of priority sites for cleanup. The trust fund was financed

primarily by taxes on crude oil and certain chemicals until January 1996, when the taxes expired. The

Congress has not reauthorized the taxes, but the fund has a remaining balance.

Page 4 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

Table 1: EPA’s Use of Brownfield

Funds, Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998 Dollars in millions

Program category

Fiscal year

1997

obligations

Planned fiscal

year 1998

obligations

Percentage

change from

1997 to 1998

Assessment pilot projects $7.7 $20.0 160%

Cleanup revolving loan fund 8.4 0a N.A.

State voluntary cleanup programs 9.4 15.0 60%

Targeted site assessments 2.3 3.0 30%

Job training 0.3 5.8 1,833%

Outreach, technical assistance,

and research 6.3 4.5 (29)%

Policy, planning, and evaluation 0.6 0.7 17%

EPA personnel 2.5 4.5 80%

Total $37.5 $88.5a 136%

Note: EPA generally requires recipients to share a portion of the costs associated with grants and

agreements. Typically, EPA provides 95 percent of the funds and the recipient provides

5 percent. The Superfund Trust Fund supplies about 60 percent of EPA’s total funds.

aThe Congress approved EPA’s request to spend a total of $88.5 million on brownfield activities in

fiscal year 1998 but directed that EPA not spend any of these funds for revolving loan fund

activities. Consequently, EPA is requesting the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB)

approval to use the $35 million it had requested for the loan program on assessments, state

voluntary cleanup programs, and related activities.

Source: GAO’s analysis of data from EPA’s Outreach and Special Projects Staff.

Assessment Pilot Projects EPA funds assessment pilot projects through cooperative agreements with

state, local, and tribal governments, which use the funds to assess,

identify, characterize, and plan cleanup activities at contaminated sites

targeted for redevelopment. In general, an individual recipient can get a

one-time grant of up to $200,000. EPA began funding these pilot projects in

September 1993. At the time of our review, the agency had used

$21 million to fund 121 projects in 41 states, including 45 projects in fiscal

year 1997. EPA plans to fund an additional 100 projects in fiscal year 1998.

Cleanup Revolving Loan

Fund

EPA provided financial support to state, local, and tribal governments to

help them create revolving loan funds that would provide low-interest

loans to public and private entities for site cleanups. Any site that had

been formally assessed before October 1, 1995, to characterize the nature

and extent of contamination could be eligible for a loan. EPA allocated

$8.4 million in fiscal year 1997 funds to 24 state, local, and tribal

Page 5 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

governments to begin these revolving funds. Because the Congress

directed EPA not to use any of its fiscal year 1998 funds on this program

activity, EPA is planning to reallocate $35 million it intended to use on

revolving loan funds to some of the remaining program categories.

State Voluntary Cleanup

Programs

EPA provides state and tribal governments with funds to enhance and

develop voluntary cleanup programs that states often use to clean up

brownfields. States have used fiscal year 1997 funds for such activities as

(1) completing regulations for voluntary cleanup programs, (2) purchasing

equipment to support program administration, (3) paying the salaries of

agency staff to develop program procedures, (4) helping states and tribes

to build their own capacity to oversee cleanups, and (5) promoting greater

community involvement. In fiscal year 1997, EPA allocated $9.4 million for

programs to assist 42 states and two tribal governments; in fiscal year

1998, the agency plans to allocate $15 million for programs to assist all 50

states and more tribal governments.

Targeted Site Assessments EPA uses funds from the program category for targeted site assessments to

pay either its contractors or the states through cooperative agreements to

identify the extent of contamination at those sites where the work can be

performed faster and more cheaply than if done by the local governments.

EPA regions reported that they used $2.3 million in fiscal year 1997 to fund

27 targeted site assessments and that they plan to fund an additional 30

assessments with the $3 million budgeted for fiscal year 1998.

Job Training EPA enters into environmental job training grants and agreements with

educational institutions and professional organizations for

(1) environmental curriculum development that incorporates brownfields,

(2) community outreach and information dissemination on brownfields,

and (3) job training in hazardous waste cleanup and employment

assistance at cleanup sites. Since fiscal year 1993, EPA has allocated a small

portion of general funds to make five job training awards, three of them in

fiscal year 1997. The agency plans to make an additional 10 awards with a

$2.8 million increase in Superfund resources that was made available for

job training in fiscal year 1998. Through an interagency agreement, the

remaining $3 million that had been budgeted for environmental job

Page 6 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

training has been allocated to the National Institute for Environmental

Health Sciences to provide training on such issues as workers’ safety.6

Outreach, Technical

Assistance, and Research

EPA funds outreach to constituents affected by brownfields; technical

assistance to state, local, and tribal governments on brownfield

redevelopment; and brownfield-related research. Typically, the agency

awards grants and agreements to educational, governmental, research, and

community organizations to, among other things, disseminate information

and conduct research on issues related to site redevelopment and

potential health risks from contaminants. During fiscal year 1997, EPA

funded 11 such grants and agreements. The decreased amount from

$6.3 million in fiscal year 1997 to $4.5 million in fiscal year 1998 reflects

EPA’s plan to fund more agency personnel to manage the increased number

of assessment pilots.

Policy, Planning, and

Evaluation

EPA’s Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation awards agreements and

contracts to research and community organizations to provide analytical

tools and products for urban development and brownfield activities. For

example, EPA awarded a $45,000 cooperative agreement in fiscal year 1997

for a 2-day conference and workshop that included some discussion of

brownfield issues specifically affecting developers and lenders. The office

awarded four agreements totaling $183,000 and five contracts totaling

$422,000 in fiscal year 1997. The office plans about the same level of

activity for fiscal year 1998.

EPA Personnel In fiscal year 1997, EPA assigned approximately 33 employees in

headquarters and field offices to manage brownfield activities at a cost of

$2.5 million; in fiscal year 1998, the agency plans to almost double the

amount of funds and increase staff to 57 employees. The managers within

the Outreach and Special Projects Staff—referred to in this report as the

brownfield program managers—explained that EPA needs more staff to

manage the increasing number of grants, cooperative agreements, and

pilot projects to state, local, and tribal governments.

6

The National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences is part of the National Institutes of Health,

whose mission is to conduct research on environmentally related diseases.

Page 7 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

EPA’s Criteria and

Process to Evaluate

Unsolicited Proposals

for Funds for Its

Outreach, Technical

Assistance, and

Research Program

and Job Training

Program

Although recipients do not have to compete against each other for funds

from either EPA’s outreach, technical assistance, and research program

category or its job training program category, the agency has established

criteria and set up an approval process to award funds for brownfield

activities.7 EPA’s Outreach and Special Projects Staff awarded funds to

nonprofit organizations if their unsolicited proposals addressed one of the

following four broad criteria:8

• increase community involvement in brownfields;

• promote the redevelopment of brownfields;

• provide for site assessment and cleanup; and

• promote the principal of sustainable development—that future economic

well-being depends on the ability to sustain a healthy environment and

productive, renewable natural resources.9

The managers said they often rejected proposals that did not meet at least

one of the four criteria, but they could not document the number and type

of rejected proposals.

According to the brownfield program managers, they used the following

process to approve the 24 awards we reviewed. If a proposal met at least

one of the four criteria, it went through an internal EPA and, under some

circumstances, an external review process. The brownfield program

managers first checked their computerized tracking system of all federally

funded outreach, technical assistance, research, and job training activities

to ensure that the proposal would not duplicate ongoing awards. They

then sent various proposals to other EPA offices, such as the Office of

Research and Development and the Office of Policy, Planning, and

Evaluation, that had conducted similar activities for their concurrence.

They also sent proposals to the Office of General Counsel (OGC) to

determine if the action complied with existing law, although they were not

required to do this to approve an award. Furthermore, they sent certain

proposals to other federal agencies, such as the Department of Housing

7

Requesters must compete to receive funds from some of the other program categories.

8

Of the 24 grants and agreements we reviewed, EPA’s Outreach and Special Projects Staff issued 15: 12

as cooperative agreements, 1 as an interagency agreement, and 2 as grants. For the remaining nine

awards, EPA’s Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation issued five cooperative agreements, EPA’s

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization issued one grant, and EPA’s Region 5 issued

three grants. We did not evaluate the criteria and approval process these three offices used to make

awards because the number of awards they made and their total dollar value are relatively small.

9

As its criteria for making these awards, EPA adopted these four goals for brownfield revitalization

that the Administration had established as part of its February 1997 National Partnership initiative to

coordinate brownfield activities across all federal agencies.

Page 8 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

and Urban Development, that had conducted similar activities for review

of the proposals’ technical and scientific merit.

The brownfield program managers explained that EPA did not use a

process whereby organizations had to compete for outreach, technical

assistance, research, and job training funds as it used to make funding

awards in some of the other brownfield program categories, such as

assessment pilot projects. This is because, generally, the organization

submitting an outreach or job training proposal serves a unique group of

constituents that is affected by brownfields or has unique brownfield

expertise.10 EPA guidance allows the agency to use unique qualifications as

a justification for a noncompetitive award. The EPA brownfield program

managers maintained that going through the expense of widely publicizing

available funding and conducting a competitive process to screen

hundreds of applications is not cost-effective, especially given the small

amounts of the awards.

For example, these managers explained that one recipient, the

International City/County Management Association, represents city and

county managers nationwide whose jurisdictions are directly affected by

brownfields. EPA believes this association could more quickly poll its

members to determine what brownfield assistance they need EPA to

provide and more quickly disseminate information to them about

successful brownfield redevelopment efforts than EPA could. According to

the program managers, EPA also provided a cooperative agreement to the

Institute for Responsible Management because its director has years of

experience in brownfields.11 They explained that because of this

experience, the director can help the pilot communities organize

themselves and focus on brownfield cleanup and redevelopment options.

The director can also provide research, information, and troubleshooting

to these groups as well as document the lessons learned and success

stories so other communities can benefit from them.

EPA has used the same approval process for the five grants it had awarded

for job training at the time of our review. For example, the agency

provided funds in fiscal year 1997 to the Hazardous Materials Training and

Research Institute at East Iowa Community College District to conduct

10EPA has established more specific criteria that state, local, and tribal governments had to meet in

order to obtain funding for an assessment pilot project and has set up a panel to screen the project

applications and determine which ones to fund.

11This nonprofit organization describes its mission as achieving effective collaboration and

cooperation between the public and private sectors on public policy issues related to the environment,

public safety, and health concerns.

Page 9 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

workshops for community college faculty on how to build environmental

curricula for job training, especially relating to cleaning up contaminated

sites.12 According to the program managers, this award was made because

of the Institute’s success in developing training programs through awards

from EPA’s Office of Research and Development. They said that EPA is now

working on a strategic plan for its training activities and will use it to

determine whether or not to fund future job training proposals.

Recipients Used

Funds Primarily to

Sponsor Forums,

Conduct Research,

and Publish

Documents on

Brownfield Issues and

on Redevelopment

Best Practices

The 24 awards made since 1993 that we reviewed with brownfield-related

activities totaled $9.6 million. These funds came from the allotment to the

brownfield program office, the Superfund Trust Fund, and general funds

from either the brownfield or other EPA program offices. Recipients used

these awards to provide outreach, technical assistance, research, and job

training to support both brownfields specifically and Superfund or other

programs more generally. We determined that about $3.7 million of these

funds were for the following more specific brownfield activities, although

some portion of the activities provided by the remaining funds could also

indirectly benefit brownfields:

• issue reports or other documents on redevelopment activities;

• sponsor forums, conferences, or other meetings to disseminate research

regarding brownfield issues and policies;

• conduct or sponsor workshops on brownfield issues or policies and on

developing environmental curricula for job training related to hazardous

waste cleanup;

• conduct research on brownfield and redevelopment issues, such as

insurance coverage for entities conducting cleanups; and

• establish or develop programs to identify barriers to brownfield

development.

Recipients also used the awards to perform other activities, including the

development of educational materials or tools and databases on

redevelopment case studies. Appendix II provides a more detailed

description of the activities funded under each of the 24 grants and

agreements.

In conducting these activities, recipients have spent most of the awarded

funds on (1) their own personnel costs, including fringe benefits;

(2) indirect costs, such as overhead; and (3) contractual services, such as

12According to EPA brownfield program managers, EPA used funds authorized under the Solid Waste

Disposal Act for these job training awards.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

any consultants used. They also have spent smaller portions of their funds

on expenses for travel to enable their staff and participants to attend

conferences and forums; equipment, such as copying machines; and

supplies.

Project Officers Were

Monitoring the

Brownfield Grants

and Agreements, but

the Awards Will Not

Likely Be Subject to

Financial Audits

Because of Their

Small Dollar Value

Our review of the files for each of the 24 awards and our interviews with

various members of the Outreach and Special Projects Staff responsible

for managing some of the individual awards showed that project officers

were monitoring recipients’ activities. This monitoring consisted primarily

of project officers’ making periodic telephone calls to recipients to discuss

the status of funded activities, attending some of the functions sponsored

by the recipients, meeting with recipients at EPA headquarters, and

reviewing quarterly and final reports that the recipients were required to

submit to EPA. In these reports, recipients give detailed descriptions of the

activities that were accomplished under their awards, and, in some cases,

describe the status of the overall budget, if EPA had made this a specific

reporting requirement. While EPA’s Office of Administration and Resources

Management encouraged project officers to conduct both on-site visits to

recipients and more formal semiannual or annual project reviews, the files

for our sample of 24 awards did not document that project officers were

conducting these activities. Although the brownfield program managers

stated that project officers were meeting informally with recipients, the

project officers for two of the three recipients we audited had not visited

them. The brownfield program managers explained that because of the

relatively small monetary value of these awards, ranging from $20,000 to

$2.7 million with a median of $168,000, the formal on-site visits were not

cost-effective and that more formal reviews were not necessary because

the project officers’ other monitoring activities were adequate.

Once a grant or agreement has been completed, each project officer is also

responsible for conducting a final closeout review to determine whether

the recipient has completed all technical work and met all requirements

before EPA makes or denies the final payment to the recipient and recovers

any unused funds. We determined that 2 of the 11 completed awards in our

sample were due to be closed out—closeout must occur within 180 days of

a completed grant or agreement—and EPA had conducted both closeouts.

For example, to close out a cooperative agreement issued to the

Northeast-Midwest Institute, whose project period ended on March 31,

1997, the recipient submitted its final financial status report on April 25,

1997, certifying that it had spent the funds. The project officer for this

Page 11 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

cooperative agreement reviewed this report along with the recipient’s final

quarterly report to close out the agreement on May 5, 1997.

Project officers are not required to conduct a detailed financial audit of

the recipients’ expenditures as part of the closeout review. The brownfield

program mangers stated that an audit would not be cost-effective because

the awards have relatively small monetary values. Instead, EPA’s

regulations require recipients to maintain supporting financial records of

all expenditures, such as receipts and invoices, on-site for 3 years after

completion of a grant or agreement. During that period, recipients can be

subject to an audit either by EPA’s OIG or a single audit under provisions in

OMB Circular A-133, entitled “Audits of States, Local Governments, and

Non-Profit Organizations.” According to this guidance, a recipient that

spends at least $300,000 in federal funds in 1 year shall have a single or

program-specific audit conducted for that year. The federal agency that

has provided the most funds to the recipient for that year is responsible

for coordinating that audit. The grant and agreement files we reviewed

contained information that verified such single audits were being

conducted, however, EPA’s awards were not sampled during these audits

because of their relatively low monetary amounts. In addition, EPA OIG staff

stated that they were unlikely to audit these grants and agreements unless

they received information of wrongdoing. In our detailed on-site audit of

the financial records for three recipients, we determined that, overall, they

were spending the funds in accordance with OMB’s guidance.

EPA’s General Counsel

Raised Questions About

the Statutory Basis for

Some Awards

During our review of agency files for the 24 awards, we noted that EPA’s

OGC had cautioned the program offices that initiated the awards that

external reviewers might determine that some of the activities were not

allowable under the statute EPA had used to make the awards. If so,

recipients would have to return all funds, even if they had completed the

agreed-to activities. EPA used section 311(c) of CERCLA as authority for

awarding at least portions of 14 of the awards we reviewed.13 This section

authorizes EPA to use grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to

conduct and support research on ways to detect hazardous substances

and evaluate the risks they pose to human health. However, in internal

memorandums to the program offices that initiated 9 of the 14 awards,

13EPA also uses (1) CERCLA section 104(d) to award funds for pilot projects, revolving loan funds, and

state voluntary cleanup programs; (2) portions of CERCLA section 311(b) to award funds for training

related to the handling of hazardous waste; and (3) section 8001 of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA)—the program EPA uses to clean up hazardous waste at operating facilities—to

award funds for outreach, technical assistance, research, and job training related to solid and

hazardous waste management. Some agreements combine funds authorized under CERCLA with funds

from the Outreach and Special Projects Staff’s general program and management account.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

EPA’s OGC stated that, while section 311(c) can be construed to authorize

those awards, it did not explicitly authorize the proposed activities and

thus warned that subsequent reviewers could question whether those

activities were really health-related research and disallow the

expenditures. For example, OGC raised this issue on a $1 million

cooperative agreement authorized under section 311(c), whose recipient

conducted meetings and training and issued publications to educate local

communities on issues regarding Superfund, brownfields, and special

concerns of minority communities located near hazardous waste sites. OGC

has encouraged the program offices to seek explicit statutory authority

from the Congress for the activities funded through the nine awards.

According to the brownfield program managers and OGC representatives,

because the statutory language is relatively broad, EPA has interpreted it to

authorize the use of funds for these types of brownfield research activities.

They also said that as a result, OGC did not disapprove the awards and the

program offices went forward with them. Because the activities being

conducted are mainly related to the Superfund program and funded with

trust fund money, EPA has had to use CERCLA authority to make these

awards rather than other environmental statutes, even though these other

statutes more clearly provide for the types of sociological, economic, and

policy research EPA has conducted with these awards. The program

managers stated that although the administration, in its 1994 Superfund

reauthorization proposal, did include language to clarify the authority, the

bill did not pass, and the agency is considering whether to pursue clearer

statutory authority through other means. We did not try to independently

determine whether the nine awards were made in accordance with CERCLA

because EPA’s OIG is addressing this issue as part of an ongoing review

covering a broader sample of grants and agreements across numerous EPA

programs and environmental statutes.

Agency Comments We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for review and

comment. The agency generally agreed that the report accurately

describes EPA’s brownfield activities. (See app. III for a copy of EPA’s

comments.) The agency asked us to clarify that it used various statutory

authorities to fund the different types of brownfield activities it conducted.

For example, the agency noted that it used either CERCLA section 311(c) or

RCRA section 8001 to make awards for brownfield research. The authority

used depended on whether the activities were to detect and assess

hazardous substances and evaluate their effects on the environment or

were related to more general solid and hazardous waste management

Page 13 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
B-279206 

activities. In response, where appropriate, we noted the statutory bases

used to fund brownfield awards. The agency also noted that only portions

of several of the awards we discuss in appendix II, such as its award with

the University of Maryland at Baltimore for training regarding hazardous

substances, are being used for brownfield activities. We had already noted

this in several sections of the report because the scope of our work

included any award that supported brownfield activities, either wholly or

in part. Finally, EPA suggested several technical changes to the report,

which we incorporated where appropriate.

We performed our work from July 1997 through February 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted governmental auditing standards. As

arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the EPA

Administrator and other interested parties. We will also make copies

available to others upon request. If you or your staff have any questions,

please contact me at (202) 512-6111. Major contributors to this report are

listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Lawrence J. Dyckman

Associate Director, Environmental

 Protection Issues

Page 14 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Page 15 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

18

Appendix II 

Brownfield-Related

Funds and Activities

Included in EPA

Awards for Outreach,

Technical Assistance,

Research, and Job

Training, Fiscal Years

1993 Through 1997

20

Appendix III 

Comments From the

Environmental

Protection Agency

24

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

28

Table Table 1: EPA’s Use of Brownfield Funds, Fiscal Years 1997 and

1998

5

Page 16 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Contents

Abbreviations

CERCLA Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

OGC Office of General Counsel

OIG Office of Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Page 17 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Chairman of the House Committee on Commerce asked us to review

EPA’s brownfield expenditures. Specifically, we were to determine (1) what

activities EPA supported with the funds it targeted for brownfields in its

fiscal years 1997 and 1998 budgets; (2) what criteria and approval process

EPA used to award grants and agreements within its program categories for

Outreach, Technical Assistance, and Research and Job Training that

included brownfield funds or activities since 1993; (3) how recipients used

the funds provided by the awards in these two categories; and (4) how EPA

monitors and oversees these grants and agreements.

To determine the activities EPA supported with its brownfield allotments

and the criteria, approval process, and monitoring applied to outreach and

job training awards; we contacted EPA brownfield program managers

within the Outreach and Special Projects Staff, the office with jurisdiction

for brownfield activities within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response. We also obtained program data from two of EPA’s databases, its

overall grants database and its specific brownfield awards database, and

funding data from the agency’s supporting budget documents. To

determine how recipients used funds in the outreach and job training

program categories, we reviewed EPA’s files for 24 of the 30 grants and

agreements containing some brownfield funding or activities that EPA had

awarded in these two categories between fiscal years 1993 through 1997.

We did not receive information for the remaining six grants and

agreements that EPA had awarded late in fiscal year 1997 in time to

conduct a review of EPA’s files for these awards. To obtain additional

information for each grant or agreement, we contacted EPA’s Grants

Administration Office, which has oversight jurisdiction for grants and

agreements, and EPA’s Financial Management Office.

To further test how recipients had used the funds, we selected 3 of the 11

completed outreach and job training grants and agreements for a more

detailed, on-site financial audit. We focused on completed, rather than

ongoing, grants and agreements because they would allow us to more fully

cover all our review objectives, including questions on oversight. We

focused on grants and agreements from 1993 through 1996 because 1993

was the earliest year EPA had made brownfield awards, and awards from

1997 did not have a long history of recipients’ expenditures. We audited

three awards with the highest total dollar value—one within the EPA

program category of outreach, technical assistance, and research; the

second within the EPA program category of job training; and a third that

had been awarded by an EPA regional office within either category to

determine if the region used criteria and oversight that differed from

Page 18 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

headquarters. We discussed our selection of awards with EPA’s Outreach

and Special Projects Staff and these program managers concurred with

our selection of awards made to the Hazardous Materials Training and

Research Institute at Eastern Iowa Community College District, the

International City/County Management Association, and the

Northeast-Midwest Institute.

For the detailed audit of the three completed awards, we (1) interviewed

the technical and financial managers with responsibilities for those

awards; (2) reviewed a majority of the records, invoices, receipts, and

other documentation that justified the expenditures in each of the budget

categories; (3) determined the purpose of those expenditures; and

(4) determined whether those expenditures had been made in accordance

with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars. This guidance

included OMB Circular A-21 (rev. August 29, 1997) and OMB Circular A-122

(rev. August 29, 1997).

Page 19 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Appendix II 

Brownfield-Related Funds and Activities

Included in EPA Awards for Outreach,

Technical Assistance, Research, and Job

Training, Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1997

Dollars in thousands

Award recipient Total award

Funding associated

with brownfield

activities Major activities covered by award

Outreach, Technical

Assistance, and Research

Agreements (21)

Americans for Indian

Opportunity $400 $100 Develop an organization to facilitate and help ensure

full tribal participation in EPA’s decision-making

process on waste management issues that will affect

tribal health and the environment.

Provide outreach and technical assistance to identify

environmental issues to help ensure full tribal

participation in the brownfield pilot application process.

Conference of Mayors

Research and Education

Foundation

300 300 Promote ways to clean up and redevelop brownfield

sites by such activities as

— conducting roundtable meetings to address various

brownfield issues (e.g., barriers to redevelopment and

innovative approaches for brownfield revitalization),

— develop and maintain a national brownfield

redevelopment database of brownfield sites, and

— establish a network of local officials to serve as

technical experts on issues related to brownfield

cleanup.

Department of Housing and

Urban Developmenta

125 125 Study and report on the relative importance of

environmental hazards and regulatory requirements as

barriers to brownfield redevelopment.

Environmental Law Institute 2,663 50b Analyze the potential effects of a proposed residential

capital gains tax cut and develop a workshop to

market this provision for brownfield redevelopment.

The George Washington

University

117 117 Study and report on policies and programs that can

help reduce health risks and other problems

associated with brownfield redevelopment, and identify

and quantify the reduced developmental pressures on

greenfields.

International City/County

Management Association

1,495 200 Develop publications from a series of forums on

Superfund effects on local communities.

Develop a consortium and guidance manual on base

closures.

Produce two videos on ways governments can work

together to clean brownfield sites.

(continued)

Page 20 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Appendix II 

Brownfield-Related Funds and Activities

Included in EPA Awards for Outreach,

Technical Assistance, Research, and Job

Training, Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1997

Dollars in thousands

Award recipient Total award

Funding associated

with brownfield

activities Major activities covered by award

International City/County

Management Association

168 68b Develop an independent membership organization to

promote environmentally and economically smart

development decisions. The organization will support

members by researching policies and tools on

brownfield redevelopment and serve as a

clearinghouse for information and peer exchange.

International City/County

Management Association

1,042 534 Conduct meetings and training and issue publications

to educate local governments and communities on

various issues associated with contamination at

hazardous waste sites, including international and

other brownfield issues and local government

involvement at Superfund sites.

National Association of

Counties

225 225b Through the creation of the Joint Center for Sustainable

Communities, provide local elected officials with

advice, information, and financial support on

sustainable community development issues, such as

brownfield redevelopment and curbing urban sprawl.

National Conference of Black

Mayors

90 90 Develop a model brownfield redevelopment plan for

member mayors to use to adapt to their unique

situations.

National Council of Negro

Women, Inc.

50 50 Hold six consultations to increase the awareness of

locating hazardous waste sites in low-income

neighborhoods and communities of color, and publish

the results and findings of those consultations.

National Governors’

Association

797 75 Conduct research, convene meetings, provide training,

and issue publications on state and EPA issues related

to the Superfund program, such as state requirements

for cleanup programs and brownfield revitalization.

Northeast-Midwest Institute 115 115 Research and publish 20 case studies on the cleanup

and reuse of brownfield sites and share the results with

targeted groups of local leaders through at least two

constituent meetings.

Northeast-Midwest Institute 250 250 To help reduce the health risks and other problems

associated with brownfields, conduct a series of

activities, including

— monitor changes to brownfield and other cleanup

legislation and publish information on these changes to

educate constituents, and

— publish “how-to” booklets on environmental site

cleanup, workforce development, and other issues

important to brownfield cleanup and redevelopment.

Northeast-Midwest Institute 250 250c Conduct conferences, develop models, and issue

research papers on federal barriers to brownfield

redevelopment and ways to achieve smart growth

while protecting public health.

(continued)

Page 21 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Appendix II 

Brownfield-Related Funds and Activities

Included in EPA Awards for Outreach,

Technical Assistance, Research, and Job

Training, Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1997

Dollars in thousands

Award recipient Total award

Funding associated

with brownfield

activities Major activities covered by award

Northeast-Midwest Institute 77 77d Conduct forums to promote public discussion on

brownfield redevelopment.

Sixteenth Street Community

Health Center

20 20d Form a Brownfield Oversight Community Action Team

to learn about and monitor the progress of community

brownfield cleanups, as well as educate communities

and publicize information on associated health effects,

redevelopment barriers, and other brownfield issues.

The Institute for Responsible

Management

489 489 Compile and disseminate information, such as lessons

learned, on EPA’s brownfield pilot projects.

United Negro College Fund 50 50 Assist members in participating in community-based

brownfield redevelopment activities through public

dialogues, research, and other outreach initiatives, and

in establishing and maintaining a national brownfield

internet site.

Urban Land Institute 300 45b Sponsor a conference and workshop to make

developers, lenders, and local governments aware of

smart growth (i.e., environmentally and economically

smart decisions), brownfield redevelopment, and other

issues.

Wayne County Department of

Environment

100 100d Publish a catalogue of organizations that focus on

issues directly related to sustainable development and

identify actions to overcome its barriers.

Training Agreements (3)

Hazardous Materials 

Training and Research Institute

at East Iowa Community

College District

262 262e Conduct several workshops for community colleges on

opportunities for environmental education and training,

and provide on-going follow-up and technical

assistance to colleges in such issues as brownfield

redevelopment.

National Association of

Minority Contractors

50 50f Deliver training to small and minority-owned

contractors that remove hazardous waste from

contaminated sites, including brownfield sites.

University of Maryland at

Baltimore

140 40e Develop a curriculum to educate law students and

practicing attorneys on a variety of human health and

environmental protection issues, including brownfield

redevelopment.

Total $9,576 $3,683

(Table notes on next page)

Page 22 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Appendix II 

Brownfield-Related Funds and Activities

Included in EPA Awards for Outreach,

Technical Assistance, Research, and Job

Training, Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1997

Note 1: Unless otherwise noted, funds were provided by EPA’s Outreach and Special Projects

Staff.

Note 2: Funding associated with brownfield activities includes funding from Superfund, EPA’s

general funds, and other sources.

aAn interagency agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

bFunded by EPA’s Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.

cA total of $220,000 was funded by EPA’s Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation; the

remaining $30,000 was funded by EPA’s Outreach and Special Projects Staff.

dFunded by EPA Region 5.

eFunded by the Outreach and Special Projects Staff with general funds rather than EPA’s

brownfield allotment.

f

Funded by EPA’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.

Source: GAO’s analysis of award files maintained by EPA’s Office of Grants Administration and

Outreach and Special Projects Staff.

Page 23 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Appendix III 

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 24 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Appendix III 

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Now on p. 5.

Page 25 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Appendix III 

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Now on p. 7.

Now on pp. 2 and 8.

Page 26 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Appendix III 

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Now on p. 11.

Page 27 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Eileen R. Larence, Assistant Director

Norfolk Regional

Office

Everett O. Pace, Evaluator-in-Charge

Mary A. Crenshaw, Staff Evaluator

Deandrea M. Leach, Staff Evaluator

Chicago Regional

Office

Harriet Drummings, Staff Evaluator

(160408) Page 28 GAO/RCED-98-87 Superfund
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100