United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Publication 9230.0-81
Office of PB96-963267
Solid Waste and EPA 54O-F-96-028
Emergency Response January 1997
Integrating Brownfields and Traditional Site
Assessment
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
State, Tribal, and Site Identification Center (5204G)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Regional Superfund Directors discussed the many changes in the Superfund site assessment program at a
Policy Managers meeting in July of 1996. They identified concerns about changing program priorities,
eligible uses of assessment funding, and reporting accountability requirements. This site assessment fact
i '
sheet provides interim guidance on these issues while a more detailed policy review is underway and while
a series of brownfields initiatives are being developed. This is designed for use by EPA Regional offices,
as well as State and tribal site assessment officials.
ACTIVITIES
Historically, the major activity for site
assessment has been to evaluate sites for
National Priorities List (NPL) placement Now
additional purposes/objectives have become
increasingly important
NPL Listing: SARA 105(a) (8) (B) requires
EPA to list national priorities among the
known releases or threatened releases
throughout the U.S. This list is the NPL.
The highest priority sites should still be
evaluated for NPL listing, in consultation
with States. A credible potential for NPL
listing is often a critical component of a
successful State voluntary cleanup program.
CERCLIS Inventory: Assessing sites in the
CERCLIS Inventory is essential in
identifying high priority sites and those not
requiring Federal response action. Delays
in addressing the thousands of CERCLIS
sites where decisions are pending are
impeding potential redevelopment of a
number of those sites. Additionally,
completing CERCLIS site assessments for
sites adjacent to Brownfields Pilots and
promptly archiving all sites of no further
Superfund interest provides important
support for EPA's Brownfields efforts.
Brownfields sites are abandoned, idled, or
-------
under-used industrial and commercial
ifrena eacpansinn nrredevelnpment
is complicated by real or perceived
environmental contamination. The
contamination is typically at lower levels
than that found at NPL sites.
Brownfifr)d,ff Aif'WiSffTlffltg' A portion of site
assessment funds may be used to complete
streamlined assessments at Brownfields'
sites, regardless of whether they are in
CERCLIS. These could include sites
adjacent to EPA Brownfields pilot sites and
sites assessed by a State Brownfields
project funded under a Multi-Site
Cooperative Agreement This may be most
appropriate at abandoned sites and publicly-
owned sites, and these should be given
higher priority than those where private
funds are available. However, other sites
may also be appropriate, given a careful
consideration of the benefits and sensitivity
of expending federal assessment resources.1
Balancing Priorities: Given these three
priorities and constrained site assessment
resources, a careful balancing of activities is
important EPA's FY 97 appropriation
pr vicies $3 million specifically for
Brownfields assessments; any additional
Brownfields assessment activities must
come from site assessment funds. ' Regions
and States with significant CERCLIS
backlogs need to ensure steady progress is
Regions and States
- ;'*A consolidated list of;
criteria for prioritizing and
performing brovnfields ;
assessments is attached to
this short sheet.
without such backlogs can give higher
priority to Brownfields activities.
In addition to conventional site assessment
activities (PA, SI, ESI, MRS, and integrated
assessments), it is appropriate to use some
site assessment resources for innovative
approaches.
Among these are efforts to use readily
available information to "prescreen" sites
for potential CEPCLIS entry, conduct
streamlined assessments in support of
Brownfields, and conduct streamlined risk
assessments of CERCLIS sites.
The Office of General Counsel has
concluded that EPA can utilize CERCLA
funds for these various assessment efforts
including assessments at sites not in
CERCLIS, in a memorandum dated July 7,
1994 (attached).
OERR has amended the SF Program
Management Manual to clarify that some
site assessment funds may be used for
brownfields site assessments. We believe
funding flexibility is appropriate, given the
direction and needs of the program.
Regions have funds provided by the
': Brownfields pilot projects, and their
apportioned share of the $3 million that has
been targeted m;me fiscal 1997 budget for
Brownfields "assessments. Additional
funding for Brownfields from me site
;: assessment: budget ^ need to be
; balanced against the Region's other site
assessment nee&, Regions should consult
with the appropriate HQ ate assessment
team contact (see attached list) for
expending funds beyond the targeted $3
-------
million, and provide a greats1 accounting
and tracking^ sufficient to justify
expenditures under audit conditions.
Regions have some discretion in selecting
areas for Brownfields work. However, your
selections should be based on, and you
should document, how well the sites meet .
most, if not all, of the criteria' developed
jointly by Headquarters and Regions.
Further, there needs to be a description of
the assessment work being conducted and
the expected benefits of this work available
for review upon request
Funds may be expended by EPA for
federal-lead site assessment activities or by
States under Pre-Remedial Cooperative
Agreements. Consistent with recent
discussions between EPA and States, it is
our general preference to have States take
the lead on new site assessments. Where
regions take the lead, it should be in full
consultation with the State.
Accountability for Results
As the nature of site assessment changes we
need to address new reporting and
accountability challenges in order to
accurately portray the extent of State,
federal, and local government site
. assessment activities.
"-,'.'....'"_'.''.-'! \
Conventional CERCLIS site assessments,
including integrated assessments, should
continue to'haveaccomplishments coded
into»CERCLISoh a routine (i.e., at least
quarterly) basis, t
; As Regions provide States flexibility in ,
Cooperative Agreement applications and ;
work plans by expanding the definition of
types of assessment activities to be
performed, the States also need to provide
accountability for the activities performed
through quarterly or annual reporting of the
number of sites assessed, types or nature of
assessments performed, and assessment
results. Management systems at the State
and probably federal level will be needed to
provide the accountability necessary and
also identify program accomplishments.
Headquarters will work with the regions to
develop appropriate reporting systems and
measures of success.
Important Considerations
Early and meaningful opportunities for
community involvement are always
expected. This applies to both conventional
and innovative site assessment activities.
Since only a small percentage of the sites,
even in conventional site assessments, will
be considered for the NPL, field analyses
will typically meet data quality and
usability needs, taking into consideration
development of Data Quality Objectives,
NCP requirements, ard Agency Order
5360.1. Regions are encouraged to
consider using field analyses for all
assessments, especially those at
Brownfields sites. Confirmatory sampling
usually will be needed, consistent with
federal and State requirements.
We are actively working to enhance the role
of States and Tribes m Superfund. The site
assessment program' has always had strong
State involvement and this should continue
and expand as its purposes are broadened
beyond CERCLIS sites. .
3
-------
The purposes and nature of site assessment
work are evolving. This feet sheet is
intended to clarify current priorities,
funding eligibilities, and accountability
needs.
HQ and Regions have work underway to
develop a more efficient and effective
Superfund site assessment strategy. More
detailed policy guidance will be issued early
in 1997. ';
In the interim, please adhere to concepts in
th;s fact sheet when developing site
assessment priorities for your Region and
with your States and Tribes.
-------
"Consolidated List of Criteria for Prioritizing and Performing Brownfields
Assessments."
».
The following criteria reflect elements suggested by several Regions and then
discussed at the September 19,1996 Pittsburgh Brownfields Coordinators Meeting.
These criteria are useful in determining where resources should be directed for
Brownfields assessments, irrespective of the source of funding. These criteria may
change based on experience gained from implementation of this policy. All of the
criteria should be considered by the Regions in the allocation of Brownfields resources,
but not all criteria will be met by all Brownfields projects. These criteria are intended to
be used only as a tool to help establish relative priorities among the sites within a Region
that are being considered for Brownfields assessments.
Site control and ownership transfer is not an impediment.
Site is currently publicly owned or may be publicly owned either directly by
municipality or through a quasi-public entity such as a community development
corporation.
Site is privately owned and a clear means of recouping EPA expenditures is
available (e.g., through an agreement with the owner or developer or though a
lien).
There is a strong municipal commitment.
There is a strong municipal commitment as demonstrated by a willingness to
legally take the property if necessary, establishment of financial incentives, or
commitment of municipal resources for other components of the project.
There is a clear murM|C|paJ/cofnrriiif^tY vjsion and support for property revit^liflfltiotli
,'- The site is clearly an integral part of a local development plan and mere is no
known public opposition. .
There are adequate resources and higfr developer interest. :
. ' ' ' * " "-'..
The municipality or potential site developer has demonstrated an ability to
leverage additional funds for cleanup and other future work at the site; and/or the
site has strong development potential as demonstrated by past or present interest
by a developers).
-------
2 ' ' '
EPA assessment assistance is crucial to the redevelopment of the site.
The lack of site assessment is the major obstacle to redevelopment and other
resources are not available for assessing the site.
State/Congressional support
The State/Congressional members have'no objection to Federal involvement or the
redevelopment project.
Existing information supports directing resources to the site.
Based on existing information, the site is likely to have low to moderate levels of
contamination.
Commitments are in place for the cleanup and redevelopment of the site.
Redevelopment will result in benefits to the community, such as an increase in
jobs for the surrounding residents.
Project area has a clear need for revitalization.
The project has existing significant deterioration or significant environmental
justice issues, which provide a clear need for revitalization. .
There is State support.
V, There is a clear coordination between the Region and the State program.
"$:'K ' - ' :"'''.'' . ' ' .'. .''':'- :*-V - ."-;. '" .'"V "';";.' '\! '.
There is consistency with other EPA/ Federal agency initiatives.
/; Site has an important linkage to other EPA/State initiatives.
A direct health/environmental threat will be mitigated or site revitalization will
serve to spur further beneficial activity in nearby locations. -
There is consistency with other Federal agency Brownfields efforts, e.g., economic
; redevelopment efforts. '
-------
HOlltllUN AQVfCV
OJL 7 1994 eaffiSSen
Legal Authorities to Conduct and Fund "Broimfield*
Projects
FROM: Earl sale _
-Assistant General Counsel
for Superfuad
Solid Waete and Emergency .
Response Division (2366)
Tot Marjorie Buckholt*
Director
Office of External Relations .
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (3101)
You have asked for our opinion on "whether CZRCLA1 provides
legal authority to fund various "Brownfield* pilot projects,
While Brovnfield projects vill vary in the methods and activities
implemented, their ultimate objective remains the same - to
return contaminated inner' city properties to productive use. it
is our understanding that the sites proposed for inclusion under
the "Brownfield" projects program present, either an actual,
threatened or suspected release -"f a hazardous substance for
which the vario s section 104. r&jponse. authorities could, as
appropriate, be invoked (section 104 (a) 'requires a release or
threatened release* while section .104 (b) provides authority to
act whenever there is a reason to believe a release has occurred
or is about': to oocur).1 .' '
1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, compensation, and
Liability Act of 19*0 (CERCLA), 42 O.S.C. 9601. eVseq., as
amended by tbm.Superfund Amendments and Reauthorixation Act.of
19S6 (SARA), Pub. I«. 99-299. 'v.'! :/" /.: .''';.:. :'' .
1 Sections 104 end 111 allow EPA to address pollutants
end contaminants as well as hazardous substances. This
andum. however^ addresses only hesardous su
»
MMttf on fttcy&ttt f*t&
-------
If the activities proposed under a "Brownfield" project ere
authorised under section 104, they would be appropriate for *
section 104 (d) (1) contract or cooperative agreement, and may bo
funded by tho Superfund.
-1Q4
Section 104 (a) grants- the President1 broad authority to
take response actions whenever there is a release or substantial
threat of release of haiardoua substances. The Administrator
>*y: ' .'' ' " '''
"remove or arrange for removal . . . provide for remedial
action- ... or take any other response measure rion«latent
wi-fch the national Contingency Plan [MCP] . . . deem(ed}'
necessary to protect-the public health or wolf are or the
environment.1* (emphasis added) . .
. - Section 101(23) defines removal actions to include, without
limitationi
such actions as may be necessary to monitor, assess, and
evaluate the release or threat of release of hazardous.
substances, disposal of; removed material . . . security
fencing or. other measures to limit access, provision of
"alternative water suppliesrttenporary evacuation and housing;
of threatened individuals not otherwise provided for, .action
taken under section 104 (b) of this title, and any emergency
assistance which may be provided under the Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act [41 U.9.C.A. $ S121 et seq*}
While ^action 101(24) defines remedial actions to include: -
those actons consistent with permanent remedy taker instead
of or in addition to removal actions . . . such actions^ at
the- location of the release as storage, confinement, ::
perimeter protection using dikes, trenches:* or ditches, clay
cover, neutralisation-, cleanup df released hazardous :
substances and aasociatad contaminated materials, recycling
. or reuse, diversion, destruction, segregation of reactive
wastes* dredgingr or excavations, repair or replacement of .
leaking^ containers, collection of leachata and runoff, ; .
onaite Ci eat sent or incineration, provision of alternative
water supplies^ and any monitoring reasonably required to ;
asstire tfeuatr such actions protect the public health and -\
welfare and th» environment.' The term includes the eosW of
permanent relocation of residents and businesses and ^ -
J The President has delegated these authorities to the
Administrator through Executive order 12510, Section 2 (g), datedl
January 23, 19iT. . ..'- .'..:' --..--.. '-
-------
Section I04 authorises the award of contracts or
cooperative agreements to States, political, subdivisions or
Indian tribe* to carry ***> actions authorized in section 10 4.
Through cooperative; agreement's-, EPAr would be authorizing a State,
political subdivision, or Indian tribe to undertake activities
that EPA. itself has the authority to pursue under sections 104 (a>
or 104 (b) f thus satisfying the requirements of section 104 (d) (11.
* The authorities in-section 104 (b) relating to "illnessf
disease, or complaints thereof" have been delegated to the
Secretary ot Health and Human Services. K.O. lasto; section 2 (a*
(Jan. 23, 19S7). , \ ;
-------
the applicant mut satisfy the eligibility criteria of .section
104(d) and 49'CFX fart 35, Jubparto.
;-; . '. Section 111 of dBCLA specifies ths purposes for- which the
'' Superf und may be used, and supports' the use of the Super fund for
irative a<
section. 104 *
Henry Longest, OM (32014? , .-"".- /. -'...;
Balsa. Keplinger, OlOt (2244) ' . .
Lori* Boughton, 0KB, (93026), :
Crane Harris, osivn (3101)
Carolyn Offutt, OEHt-BSCD (S203O) .. , .'; '.-
Hicolsr taCactm, OBaV48C9 (32O3G) - .- '
_**'*____w *.w - --
' This limitation on JCuperfund use does not- apply to ;
removal actions (including prs remedial actions, such am. PA/g
Rl/FSs, HO, and other section 104(b) activities). . .>-.. f
' . - ; . . - '' ". .../,-.. ... ../v. .. .-: >-;. -v
f '. ' " . - -
;;
-------
SITE ASSESSMENT TEAM HQ CONTACT UST
Below is a "Who, to Contact on the HQ Site Assessment Team" list for Site Assessment
Manaters and Brownfiekls Coordinators. Your Region's first point of contact for
Brownfields issues should be OSPS's team member. Your Region's first point of
contact for Superfund site assessment should be your Regional Center's Site
Assessment Team member. The OERR policy area expertise is provided for additional
information. Your OERR Regional Center representative will coordinate with other
OERR centers to get you the information you need.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OSWER/OERR- 703 area code)
REGIONAL
Regions I & IX
Fax 603-9112
Regions II & VI
Fax 603-9133
Regions III & VIII
.Fax 603-9100
Regions IV &X
Fax 603-9104
Regions V& VII
Fax 603-9133
State/Si
Fax 603-9104
CONTACT/PHONE NUMBER
Chuck Sands- 603-8857
Mike Hurd- 603-8836
Tern Johnson- 603-8718
Janine Dinan- 603-8824
Betsy Shaw- 603-9034
Roxana Mero- 603-9150
Anne Spencer-603-8716
Frank Awisato- 603-8949
Dan Thornton- 603-8811
Scott Fredericks- 603-8771
Bonnie Gitiin- 603-8868
Bob Myers-603-8851;
i
Marti Otto 603-8853
Terry Ketdan 603-8852
Steve Caldwell -603-8833
POLICY AREA
Regional Coordinator,
ORD Liaison,
Field analytical
Regional Coordinator
Economic Reuse, Step-up
Funding, Regional Coordinator
Risk Characterization
Team Mentor- general
program direction
Regional Coordinator
Regional Coordinator
Phase I & II
Data useability,
Goundwater Sampling,
Listing Plicy,
Rsponse to Cmments
Presumptive Site
Assessments
.Regional Coordiator
Backup, budget
Team Leader, Coordinator
s for Revising Site; ?
Assessment >.:/'. ':'.
NPL listing issues^ "
response to comments for
proposed sites, NPL lawsuits
NPL listing issues, QA of HRS
packages, getting sites
proposed, ! -;
NPL FR notices, SNAP
, Team Mentor-general
program direction '
-------
Randy Htppen- 603-6829 CERCUS and tracking
Contracts Oversight Pat Hawkins- 603-8714 START contract
Fax 603-9116
Program Analysis and
Resource Management Angejo Carasea- 603-8828 Resources, GPRA
Fax 603-9116
Outreach/Special Projects Staff (OSWER/OSPS)
For assistance on Brownfields programmatic issues, such as Brownfields pilots,
pending legislation, Brownfields assessments and criteria, and other Brownfields
issues, the assessment contacts in OSPS are:
OSPS-Brownfields Beau Mills Brownfields Assessments
Fax (202) 260-6606 (202)260-3525 and Criteria, other issues
Linda Garczynski Director of OSPS,
(202)260-1223 Brownfields Pilots,
Pending Legislation
------- |