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. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 training has been allocated to the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences to provide training on such issues as workers’ safety. 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. 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. 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. 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. EPA’s Outreach and Special Projects Staff awarded funds to nonprofit organizations if their unsolicited proposals addressed one of the following four broad criteria: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. 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 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. 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. 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 workshops for community college faculty on how to build environmental curricula for job training, especially relating to cleaning up contaminated sites. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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, 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. 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 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. 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 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). Major activities covered by award 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. 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. Study and report on the relative importance of environmental hazards and regulatory requirements as barriers to brownfield redevelopment. Analyze the potential effects of a proposed residential capital gains tax cut and develop a workshop to market this provision for brownfield redevelopment. 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. 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) Major activities covered by award 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. 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. 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. Develop a model brownfield redevelopment plan for member mayors to use to adapt to their unique situations. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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) Major activities covered by award Conduct forums to promote public discussion on brownfield redevelopment. 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. Compile and disseminate information, such as lessons learned, on EPA’s brownfield pilot projects. 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. 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. Publish a catalogue of organizations that focus on issues directly related to sustainable development and identify actions to overcome its barriers. 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. Deliver training to small and minority-owned contractors that remove hazardous waste from contaminated sites, including brownfield sites. Develop a curriculum to educate law students and practicing attorneys on a variety of human health and environmental protection issues, including brownfield redevelopment. (Table notes on next page) 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. An interagency agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Harriet Drummings, Staff Evaluator 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. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 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.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the grants and agreements the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded since fiscal year 1993 under two program categories of brownfield expenditures, focusing on the: (1) criteria and process EPA used to award these grants and agreements; (2) uses recipients made of these funds; and (3) monitoring and oversight EPA provided for them. GAO noted that: (1) EPA primarily uses its brownfield funds to help state, local, and tribal governments build their capacities to assess, clean up, and revitalize brownfield sites; (2) EPA is using the majority of its $126 million in brownfield funds for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 to: (a) help these groups identify, assess, characterize, and develop clean-up plans for brownfield sites; (b) provide them with seed money to create revolving loan funds that they could use to award low-interest loans for cleanups; (c) support state development of programs that provide incentives for voluntary cleanup of sites, especially brownfields; and (d) provide outreach to groups affected by brownfields, technical assistance to them on clean-up and redevelopment methods, and research for them on brownfield issues; (3) EPA is using the remaining brownfield funds for support and other program activities, such as EPA's personal costs; (4) 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; (5) the criteria included increasing community involvement at brownfields, promoting redevelopment, providing for site assessments, and sustaining a clean environment for the future; (6) 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; (7) 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; (8) since fiscal year 1993, award recipients have used $3.7 million from the 24 outreach and job training awards GAO reviewed to conduct brownfield-specific activities; (9) award recipients used additional 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 promote brownfield cleanup and redevelopment; and (10) EPA staff responsible for managing the 24 awards GAO reviewed were monitoring the overall status of the budget for each award and the content and quality of recipients' activities through various means.