Participants:
Kris Swanson, Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Managers
Rick Tomlinson, Environmental Council of the States
Diane Hartson, FMC Corporation/Hartson Consulting
Danielle Miller Wagner, International City/County Management Association
Molly Singer, International City/County Management Association
Louise Anderson, International Economic Development Council
Paul Kalomiris, International Economic Development Council
Chris Costopoulos, New York Department of Environmental Conservation
(also representing the Environmental Council of the States)
Paula Cotter, National Association of Attorneys General Association
Kelly Novak, National Association of Development Organizations
Ken Brown, National Association of Local Govt Environmental Professionals
Molly Stauffer, National Conference of State Legislatures
Robert Holden, National Congress of American Indians
Diane Shea, National Governors' Association
Christopher Paisano, Navajo Nation Washington Office
Derrick Coley, U.S. Conference of Mayors Judy Sheahan, U.S. Conference
of Mayors
Danielle Solomon, Washington, D.C., Department of Health
Evans Paul, Baltimore Development Corporation
Pamela Janifer, U.S. EPA OCIR
Paul Connor, U.S. EPA OECA
Greg Madden, U.S. EPA OECA
|
Jim Drummond, U.S. EPA OGC
Annette Gachette, U.S. EPA ORD
Sara Rasmussen, U.S. EPA OSW
Dave Evans, U.S. EPA OSWER
Brigid Lowery, U.S. EPA OSWER
Christopher Prins, U.S. EPA OSWER
Mike Shapiro, U.S. EPA OSWER
Felicia Wright, U.S. EPA OSWER
Jeff Tomhave, TASWER
Karl Alvarez, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Kathy Atencio, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Myra Blakely, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Jennifer Bohman, U.S. EPA Brownfields Ann Caroll, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Alison Evans, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Linda Garczynski, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Valerie Green, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Greg Jordan, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Sven-Erik Kaiser, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Jim Maas, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Ann McDonough, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Patricia Overmeyer, U.S. EPA Brownfields Anthony Raia, U.S. EPA
Brownfields
Tom Rinehart, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Rey Rivera, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Beth Zelenski, U.S. EPA Brownfields
Larry D'Andrea, U.S. EPA Region 2
Myron Knudson, U.S. EPA Region 6
Karen Wardzinski, U.S. DOJ ENRD
Allyn Finegold, Marasco Newton Group
Colleen Morgan, Marasco Newton Group
|
Introduction:
Mike Shapiro, deputy assistant administrator of the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER), welcomed the participants and emphasized
the importance the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attaches
to maximizing stakeholder involvement early in the implementation process
of the brownfields law. Mr. Shapiro noted that this is the final of four
listening sessions and that EPA has recently set up its teams and structure
to develop the appropriate policies, guidance, and regulations.
EPA is looking to various stakeholder communities to identify issues
impacting their constituents. Mechanisms are in place through the implementation
work groups and other means to identify key issues as quickly as possible.
EPA's objective is to get input on major themes and issues to consider
when developing policy and guidance. By the fall of 2002, EPA expects
to have developed new funding application guidelines and various policy
documents related to implementation of the law.
Stakeholder Issues:
- If a site can receive both an assessment and cleanup grant, the same
basic threshold of the applicant's need for a grant should be used.
- There will be no requirement to submit a Phase I or Phase II assessment
for cleanup grant applications, but it must be demonstrated that assessment
has been conducted and the cleanup action determined.
- Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBAs) are addressed in Subtitles
A and C of the legislation. Currently, 65 percent of TBAs are done
by states and 35 percent are through direct support from EPA.
- The anticipated budget breakdown is as follows: $30.3 million for
petroleum sites (divided among assessment, RLF, and cleanup grants);
$50 million to be distributed among states and tribes; and remaining
funds will go towards the rest of the program
- There is a transition provision regarding RLFs under the old program.
Existing RLFs can make a request to follow new rules, but must adhere
to the new prohibition on administrative costs and the 20-percent
cost-share requirement.
- In-kind services can be used towards the match requirement, as well
as state funds and Community Development Block Grant funds to local
governments.
- The administrative cost prohibition applies to all Subtitle A grants.
Indirect costs are included in administrative costs.
- Many of the liability provisions are self-implementing.
- EPA must promulgate regulations related to the due diligence standard.
- Some parties consider ASTM 2000 standards more flexible and some
states do not use ASTM. Banks require the ASTM standard. A limited
and quick rulemaking may be needed to put a more accessible standard
in place. (The 1997 standard is not available on the ASTM Web site.)
- The standards issue also applies to how grantees must conduct site
assessments.
- The cleanup funds provided for in the bill will facilitate greenspace
preservation, but cannot be used for actual redevelopment.
- The Economic Development Administration and U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development have funds and authority for redevelopment activities.
EPA works to clear the path so "back end" activities can
occur.
- Because Congress intended that the liability provisions to be self-implementing,
there should be no further need for EPA to issue liability protection
documentation (e.g., prospective purchaser agreements)
- The issue of property that is located in the District of Columbia
and owned by the federal government should be considered as EPA works
with the definitional issues related to the law.
- Subtitle C provides funding for tribal response programs. Tribal
representatives at the meeting urged EPA to ensure that any performance
measurement goals for the new program include cultural reuse. Tribes
are especially interested in cultural reuses.
- There is an audit provision in the law that requires the Inspector
General to conduct an audit of the program, therefore, good reporting
and evaluation will be critical.
- Participants emphasized the need for flexibility in the grant process.
Sites that applicants target early in the process may not be those
targeted in the future if conditions change that alter activity at
a site.
- Participants encouraged EPA to help small/rural communities compete
for funding. The law requires a balance between urban and non-urban
communities. Currently, 48 percent of the recipient communities have
populations under 100,000 and 52 percent of the communities are larger
areas. There is also a need to look at tribal needs.
- Developing a site inventory is one element that must be met to receive
state funding.
- New York has been reluctant to create a similar inventory because
of the stigma attached to brownfields sites. There is some sense in
the financial world that this type of list would encourage realtors
and developers to look at brownfields sites. This is not possible
if sites are not in the public eye. Cities have developed inventories
using different approaches.
- The public record and site inventory provision of the law have different
meanings. The site survey and inventory are goals to strive toward,
while the public record is a requirement to trigger funding and the
enforcement bar. The public record involves providing the public with
information about sites in a state response program, and it must be
updated at least annually.
- Concern that a state might not be aware of sites that will be in
the program in the future and that states could be liable if a site
is added.
- Flexibility should be considered in any guidance related to the
inventory or public record requirements.
|