The federal role in assisting states and communities to clean up brownfields for productive use has been an ongoing issue for more than a decade. As defined by statute, brownfield sites are "real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant" (emphasis added). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) addresses environmental contamination primarily through the Superfund and Brownfields Programs. Although EPA's Superfund and Brownfields Programs are related, the programs are different in their objectives and the sites they address. The Superfund Program and its federal funding generally cover only the sites with the highest levels of contamination or those that present immediate risks. In contrast, EPA's Brownfields Program assists communities with the cleanup of abandoned, idled, or underutilized commercial and industrial properties. EPA estimates that there are more than 450,000 brownfields sites throughout the country. As the brownfields definition indicates, whether contamination is present at all of these sites is uncertain. The environmental contamination at a brownfield site, if it exists at all , is not as serious or threatening as the contamination at Superfund sites. Often, the mere perception of environmental contamination may hinder site reuse, because interested parties may be concerned they would face cleanup responsibilities. Thus, a primary objective of the Brownfields Program is site assessment. This report describes the scope and purpose of EPA's Brownfields Program, reviews appropriation levels for the program, and highlights considerations for policymakers. The Superfund and EPA Brownfields Programs are authorized by the same statute, but the programs were developed at different times and for different purposes. With the enactment of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Â§Â§9601-9675), Congress established the Superfund Program. This is the federal government's principal program for cleaning up the nation's contaminated waste sites and protecting public health and the environment from releases of hazardous substances. Pursuant to the general response authorities of CERCLA, EPA developed the Brownfields Program in 1993. Initially, the program provided "seed money" in the form of grants and loans to communities to stimulate redevelopment and reuse of brownfield properties. Funding originally came from the Superfund Program appropriations. Between FY1998 and FY2001, the program received approximately $90 million each year, accounting for about 5% of annual Superfund appropriations. In 2002, Congress provided specific statutory authority for EPA to address brownfields with the enactment of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act ( P.L. 107-118 ). Among other things, the statute (hereinafter the "Brownfields Act") authorized a grant program, similar to the one EPA had established administratively under general CERCLA authority in the mid 1990s. The stated purpose of the 2002 act was "to promote the cleanup and reuse of brownfields, to provide financial assistance for brownfields revitalization, to enhance State response programs, and for other purpose." Section 201 of the Brownfields Act authorized $200 million annually for a grant program to support site assessment and cleanup activities at brownfield properties. Section 231 of the act authorized an additional grant program in the amount of $50 million annually to assist state and tribal cleanup programs. The funding authority for both grant programs expired at the end of FY2006; program authority is permanent unless repealed by subsequent legislation. Regardless of expired authorization, Congress has continued to provide a consistent funding level for both grant programs (provided in Table 1 , below). The grants awarded from EPA's Brownfields Program can be divided into two categories: (1) competitive grants awarded to communities, which are often referenced by the CERCLA sectionâSection 104(k)âthat authorizes them; and (2) non-competitive grantsâauthorized by Section 128, and thus often described as Section 128 grantsâawarded to states and Indian tribes to support their response programs. Section 104(k) grants comprise the core of EPA's Brownfields Program, receiving the bulk of the annual appropriation. In general, eligible grant recipients include state, local, and tribal governments, and certain quasi-governmental authorities. In some cases (identified below), other parties may receive grants. However, private persons and corporations are not eligible in any case. There are four types of competitive brownfields grants: Assessment grants provide funding for a grant recipient to inventory, assess, and conduct planning and community involvement related to brownfields sites. Site assessment is a primary component of the EPA Brownfields Program. The mere perception of contamination at brownfield sites often hinders redevelopment. Assessment grants help address these information gaps and determine whether cleanup may be needed to make a property suitable for its intended use. As required by statute, grants are limited to $200,000, but the statute allows EPA to waive that limitation and award a grant up to $350,000. In addition, eligible parties may apply for separate grants to address hazardous substances and petroleum at a brownfield site. Cleanup grants provide funding for remediation activities that may be needed to address contamination at a brownfields site. As directed by the statute, grants may be awarded for up to $200,000. Grant recipients must provide a 20% cost share, which may include money, labor, material, or services. In addition to the eligible entities listed above, nonprofit organizations are eligible for cleanup grants. Job training grants are available to certain educational and other nonprofit organizations, as well as the eligible entities above. EPA awards grants of up to $200,000 (a threshold not based on statutory limitations) to create local environmental job training programs. EPA maintains that the job training grants, which were first awarded under general CERCLA authority in 1997, complement the funding for brownfields sites by encouraging local citizens to take advantage of the growing market for environmental cleanup activities. Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) grants are awarded to state, local, or tribal governments to capitalize RLFs, which can provide no-interest or low-interest loans for brownfield cleanups. The statute limits these grants to $1 million. RLF grant recipients may also award cleanup subgrants, not requiring repayment, of up to $200,000 per site. Like the general cleanup grants, RLF cleanup subgrants may be awarded to nonprofit groups. The Brownfields Act added Section 128 to CERCLA. Subsection 128(a) created a non-competitive grant program to support state and tribal response programs. The funding authority for this programâauthorized at $50 million annually from FY2002 through FY2006âis separate from the competitive grant program under Section 104(k). A 2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that all 50 states have some type of response (or cleanup program), although these programs vary considerably in scope and breadth. In general, these state programs address contaminated properties that are not covered by the federal Superfund Program. EPA states that Section 128 funding is not intended to supplant, but instead "supplement,"state or tribal funding for their response programs. However, the 2004 GAO report noted that in some states, their programs would not exist without EPA's funding. Section 128 identifies one general and two specific uses of funding. Regarding the former, the statute prescribes that funding can be used to "establish or enhance" a state or tribal response program. EPA interprets this phrase to include: developing legislation, regulations, procedures, or guidance; creating and maintaining relevant public records; and conducting limited site-specific activities, such as assessment or cleanup. The statute also identifies two specific uses of the Section 128 funding: financing a revolving loan fund for brownfield cleanups; and purchasing environmental insurance or developing an insurance mechanism to provide financing for cleanup actions under the program. Congress funds EPA's Brownfields Program with appropriations from two large accounts: the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Account and EPA's Environmental Programs and Management Account. From within these large accounts, the Brownfields Program is funded by three line-items ( Table 1 ). The STAG account funds two line-items: Section 104(k) and Section 128 grant programs. The management account includes a line-item for the administrative expenses of the Brownfields Program. Since the enactment of the 2002 Brownfields Act, appropriations for the aggregate of these three brownfields line-items have been relatively consistent, with total funding ranging from $163 million to nearly $170 million ( Table 1 ). There appears to be broad consensus that a federal role in the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields is desirable. However, issues regarding the degree of financial assistance and overall program effectiveness have been raised. Since the enactment of the Brownfields Act in 2002, Congress has funded the program below its initial authorized level. Total appropriations (in Table 1 ) represent approximately 66% of the initial funding authorizationâ$250 million each year, between FY2002 - FY2006. Some states and communities would argue that the demand for funding far exceeds what has been made available by Congress. On the other hand, the program has arguably struggled to demonstrate its effectiveness. What are federal funding levels achieving: environmental risk reduction, economic redevelopment, or some combination thereof? The 2004 GAO report found that "the agency has not yet developed measures to determine the extent to which the Brownfields Program helps reduce environmental risks." This concern raises the question as to whether the program should be evaluated by its ability to reduce threats to human health or whether the program should be assessed with different metrics, such as economic redevelopment. If this is the case, some may question whether EPA is the most appropriate agency to administer this program.